Question regarding obamacare

[lotus503]

So with several businesses claiming to restrict hiring, hours etc because of the obamacare cost I was wondering is the issue that they currently do not provide these benefits and will be required to?

Where I work we have an employee health care program and our costs are not increasing any more than they already do YOY?

How exactly is Obama increasing costs for business?

 

[SheHateMe]

I guess it increases costs for businesses that don't offer benefits packages, etc. IMO, if an employee has worked for you for a certain about of years, and has served your company well, why not offer them benefits?

Don't companies want loyal and hardworking employees?

 

[sactoking]

Simple answer, it potentially increases costs in three major categories:

1) Employers who don't currently provide health insurance but who have 50 employees (or an approximately equivalent number of part-time hours worked) will be required to provide health insurance;
2) Employers who don't currently provide health insurance and who have 49 or fewer employees will be required to provide health insurance if they meet certain "group control" tests with other businesses an owner may have a stake in; and
3) Employers who do currently provide health insurance may see the cost go up due to the various market reforms contained in the ACA.

 

[Drako]

Don't companies want loyal and hardworking employees?

All companies that I have worked at want loyal and hardworking employees. These same companies also want to remain profitable.

 

[Fern]

I think the correct answer is probably a bit complicated, with different employers having some different concerns.

But one thing is that ObamaCare made changes to the type of HI policies that companies must provide. E.g., some offered 'cheaper' type policies (annual limit on benefits, lifetime limit on benefits etc.) and must now switch to more expensive policies. So, no I wouldn't expect the issue to be restricted to only those employers who offered no benefits at all.

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

Has it ever occurred to any of us, that the company never intended to hire the nephew, but now gets a free soapbox to say they would have hired him if there was no Obama care!

Face the facts, our previous health care model based on employer based health care died 20 years ago, and now almost no Americans are still covered as employers are dropping their health care coverage for almost 100% of their workers.

As republirats compare how far short of absolute perfection Obama care is while ignoring the the fact the old system no longer covers anyone but the rich. And ignoring the fact those no longer covered are really really really worse off without Obama care protections.

America still has the best heath care for its top 1/2%, but for the average person American health care ranks near the bottom, placing no better that #50. GO RIGHT AHEAD AMERICAN DOCTORS AND THE AMA, THREATEN TO TAKE YOUR BUSINESS ELSEWHERE, WHEN AMERICA IS THE ONLY COUNTRY WITHOUT MUCH BETTER SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.

AS FOR FOR PROFIT HEALTH CARE INSURANCE COMPANIES, THE SOONER THEY ARE ALL ELIMINATED AS USELESS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE PARASITES, THE BETTER OFF EVERYONE IN AMERICA WILL ALL BE.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Above is a bit extreme but the point is correct, we are at a point with the most expensive per capita health system & its outrageously complicated plus it rates close to third world countries in overall efficiency. To me its insane to continue the way insurance has been, its time to try something different.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Above is a bit extreme but the point is correct, we are at a point with the most expensive per capita health system & its outrageously complicated plus it rates close to third world countries in overall efficiency. To me its insane to continue the way insurance has been, its time to try something different.

Precisely what does obamacare do which facilitates care which lowers costs? Cutting reimbursements doesn't do that.

 

[fskimospy]

Precisely what does obamacare do which facilitates care which lowers costs? Cutting reimbursements doesn't do that.

It limits spending on Medicare Advantage, which was terribly inefficient. (thanks free market health care!) Also, it fundamentally restructured the Medicare advisory board. It was originally something that issued recommendations to Congress that they needed to approve, and would therefore ignore good, but politically tough reforms. Now it's the other way around. Congress must veto the reforms, using their own tendency for craven inaction to allow for good cost saving measures to be implemented but still preserving Congressional control over the budgeting process.

There's two right off the bat for you!

 

[lotus503]

Simple answer, it potentially increases costs in three major categories:

1) Employers who don't currently provide health insurance but who have 50 employees (or an approximately equivalent number of part-time hours worked) will be required to provide health insurance;
2) Employers who don't currently provide health insurance and who have 49 or fewer employees will be required to provide health insurance if they meet certain "group control" tests with other businesses an owner may have a stake in; and
3) Employers who do currently provide health insurance may see the cost go up due to the various market reforms contained in the ACA.

Thanks for the accurate breakdown.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It limits spending on Medicare Advantage, which was terribly inefficient. (thanks free market health care!) Also, it fundamentally restructured the Medicare advisory board. It was originally something that issued recommendations to Congress that they needed to approve, and would therefore ignore good, but politically tough reforms. Now it's the other way around. Congress must veto the reforms, using their own tendency for craven inaction to allow for good cost saving measures to be implemented but still preserving Congressional control over the budgeting process.

There's two right off the bat for you!

That's interesting, but not exactly what I asked, so i'll rephrase. If one is a practitioner and a patient comes to see him or her, what is enacted which facilitates the relationship, provides better opportunities, and lowers costs while allowing the provider to have better tools to do the job? To me that is a main component of true health care reform. In short what aids the doc to do the job better?

 

[fskimospy]

That's interesting, but not exactly what I asked, so i'll rephrase. If one is a practitioner and a patient comes to see him or her, what is enacted which facilitates the relationship, provides better opportunities, and lowers costs while allowing the provider to have better tools to do the job? To me that is a main component of true health care reform. In short what aids the doc to do the job better?

I don't think there is a 'main component' in health care reform, and any reform that maintains the quality of the other 3 aspects while improving a 4th is great. Any real reform will be a mix of a lot of things. Having the government not pay a lot of money to perform procedures that have little or no medical value is a great way to contain costs in a system while retaining its effectiveness. Also, cutting out inefficient providers like Medicare Advantage is a help.

Those are real, commonsense, excellent reforms contained within the ACA.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't think there is a 'main component' in health care reform, and any reform that maintains the quality of the other 3 aspects while improving a 4th is great. Any real reform will be a mix of a lot of things. Having the government not pay a lot of money to perform procedures that have little or no medical value is a great way to contain costs in a system while retaining its effectiveness. Also, cutting out inefficient providers like Medicare Advantage is a help.

Those are real, commonsense, excellent reforms contained within the ACA.

If improving outcomes is not a major component of reform, it's hard to imagine what is. Certainly one can limit whats reimbursed, but why are things as they are? Simply ascribing things to greed makes things neat for some, but just how is what's effective determined on a case by case basis? Is the result even more bureaucracy? Remember that every person, every case is unique. Medicine cannot be properly practiced by regulation. So who determines what is needed? What will have to be done to make sure patients have individualized care while saving money and not cost shifting the burden to providers in terms of consuming time and funds dealing with paperwork? There are good goals, but I have one thing in mind which would make a huge difference, but I don't see improvements in care and the means to achieve it as a priority. Perhaps that's something I've missed.