• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACA Running Thread

ACA mandate also benefits those who have insurance. As you know part of everyone's premium pays insurance of those who don't.

As to the concept government takeover, insurance make far more decisions about anyone's healthcare than the government.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I put this on the other health care thread but I am so pissed off that I am putting it here too. Fucking bastard.

The Community Organizer can suck my dick. The employer-side premium on our "non-compliant" HDHP plan (that everybody loved before the ACA shitshow sent it into a tailspin) went up 9.8% if we want to keep it another year. We can switch into a compliant plan, which drops the employer-side premium in theory, but it doubles the damn out-of-pocket for the employees, and pushes it up over their maximum allowed HSA contribution, so not only are they paying more, but they have to do so with after-tax dollars. So if I then try to be nice and gross up their pay by the amount to keep the effect of their out-of-pocket consistent with what it was under the non-compliant plan, then the net effect is that the employer-side premium that I am paying goes up 30%. For essentially the same damn coverage. Fuck you, you unqualified hack.
Click to expand...

Fire some people.
 
I'm thinking about it. If we let one person go, that would just about cover the gross-up so that the others don't have to pay more. As a social experiment I may ask them what they prefer, one of them getting let go and dividing up that person's work (of course they won't know who it is), or them all each having to potentially pay a few thousand dollars more per year towards their health coverage. Either way, it'll be one big thanks Obama.
 
Job killing Obama with his under 6% unemployment.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I'm thinking about it. If we let one person go, that would just about cover the gross-up so that the others don't have to pay more. As a social experiment I may ask them what they prefer, one of them getting let go and dividing up that person's work (of course they won't know who it is), or them all each having to potentially pay a few thousand dollars more per year towards their health coverage. Either way, it'll be one big thanks Obama.
Click to expand...

Just pick the fattest, oldest one and be done with it.
 
2&2, what sacrifices are you making at the top as a small business owner?
 
PhDeac said:
2&2, what sacrifices are you making at the top as a small business owner?
Click to expand...

That's a pretty loaded question from someone who has zero clue what it means to run a small business.
 
It's a direct reference to a 2&2 post about how small business owner sacrifice at the top. So yeah, it's a loaded question.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I put this on the other health care thread but I am so pissed off that I am putting it here too. Fucking bastard.

The Community Organizer can suck my dick. The employer-side premium on our "non-compliant" HDHP plan (that everybody loved before the ACA shitshow sent it into a tailspin) went up 9.8% if we want to keep it another year. We can switch into a compliant plan, which drops the employer-side premium in theory, but it doubles the damn out-of-pocket for the employees, and pushes it up over their maximum allowed HSA contribution, so not only are they paying more, but they have to do so with after-tax dollars. So if I then try to be nice and gross up their pay by the amount to keep the effect of their out-of-pocket consistent with what it was under the non-compliant plan, then the net effect is that the employer-side premium that I am paying goes up 30%. For essentially the same damn coverage. Fuck you, you unqualified hack.
Click to expand...

This is almost exactly the same thing that happened to me. Similar pricing, but out of pocket exposure skyrockets.

In response to PH's question on sacrifice what I/we have done is basically setup healthcare slush funds for our individual employees that will help them absorb the hit if/when the out of pocket increases hit home. Of course they are not eligible for HSA's so this fund is taxable (we are paying for that).

So we are doing our best to keep the idiocy of this law from screwing our employees to the detriment of our bottom line. Our employees are still unhappy because the logistics of their new super super plan is a mess. So we are paying more, spending way more time in our office trying to deal with this, and our employees are unhappy and want to go back to the old plan, which of course they can't because it doesn't exist.

PH - still haven't read. I promise I will. Your comment on pubs working on a similar product really doesn't speak to the shortcomings of ACA. Perhaps the pubs were working on it because they hadn't figured out an implementable product yet. Instead of pushing something through because they could Perhaps they were Actually trying to read through the details before voting on it.

But I will read it.
 
Last edited:
I love the "community organizer" dig. Dude graduates from Harvard Law and taught constitutional law at Chicago and the right dubs him a "community organizer" because it was what he did for a few years between college and law school. So silly.

Also I want to take this opportunity to personally thank Obama for ensuring the T arrived on time today. He's been awesome!!!!
 
Wrangor said:
This is almost exactly the same thing that happened to me. Similar pricing, but out of pocket exposure skyrockets.

In response to PH's question on sacrifice what I/we have done is basically setup healthcare slush funds for our individual employees that will help them absorb the hit if/when the out of pocket increases hit home. Of course they are not eligible for HSA's so this fund is taxable (we are paying for that).

So we are doing our best to keep the idiocy of this law from screwing our employees to the detriment of our bottom line. Our employees are still unhappy because the logistics of their new super super plan is a mess. So we are paying more, spending way more time in our office trying to deal with this, and our employees are unhappy and want to go back to the old plan, which of course they can't because it doesn't exist.

PH - still haven't read. I promise I will. Your comment on pubs working on a similar product really doesn't speak to the shortcomings of ACA. Perhaps the pubs were working on it because they hadn't figured out an implementable product yet. Instead of pushing something through because they could Perhaps they were Actually trying to read through the details before voting on it.

But I will read it.
Click to expand...

The main idiocy is that your state hasn't fully implemented the law. Ever think of why states like CA, KY, OR have seen either less increase in premiums or actually lower premiums for many while states like NC, SC, MS have seen the opposite?

Although I am certain you pay your employees fairly, I bet many would qualify for family subsidies and other cost abatements.
 
I have an honest question which seems to be the source of pretty contentious debate, but weren't most eliminated programs gotten rid of because they weren't really viable plans long-term? I mean I don't think the law arbitrarily cut out programs. Maybe it did though I honestly don't know.
 
The thread and your post were about healthcare so healthcare.
 
You've got purely economic and non-economic issues in play. From a basic economic standpoint, the numbers in this case are either roughly $15,000 or $45,000 more that we've got to pay in premium (which is an increase from last year, which was an increase from the year before, and the year before, pretty much since Obamacare got enacted) or salary gross-up to the employees. As the business owner, like most, every personal asset that I own is pledged as security for bank loans (and rent as well, which would get accelerated for the remainder of the term if we went under). So my obvious personal interest is to pay down those loans as quickly as possible. So every dollar that I pay in increased premiums is a dollar less that I can pay down to get myself out from under the loan guaranties. There is no benefit to me (or the employees) from the increased premiums, but I'm the one who feels the economic effect, for something that I do not have to give them. And that is on top of the FLEX plan expenses, HSA expenses, having to adjust the books and tax returns, etc.
From a non-economic standpoint, do you know how many hours it takes to deal with this bullshit? Review the various plans, try to compare the different coverges in light of the premiums, determine how it affects the employees whether on single plans, or family plans, or single with kids. Those are basically wasted hours that add nothing at all to the bottom line or productivity of the business, but somebody has to deal with it. So it is eaither hire an admin person to deal with it (again, back to the economic sacrifice) or waste my own time dealing with it.
 
Those are also just expected parts of running a business. Changing policies on things like health care are part of the model that require flexibility from small business owners (and everyone) otherwise nothing could ever change policy-wise.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Those are also just expected parts of running a business. Changing policies on things like health care are part of the model that require flexibility from small business owners (and everyone) otherwise nothing could ever change policy-wise.
Click to expand...

Or we could just do what most other civilized countries do and let the government handle it. That would probably increase 2&2's tax bill in the short run, but would also relieve him of most of the administrative nonsense.* In the long run, history shows that societies with government run or single payer health systems pay a lot less for the same level of care, so 2&2 would get a better value for the taxes he pays vs. what his business is paying for health insurance now.


*It should be mentioned that while the transition to ACA has been a mess and no doubt been burdensome on 2&2 and other small business owners, it wasn't like the annual pre-ACA ordeal of shopping for health coverage or getting hit with a premium increase was a big fun picnic either.
 
Deacon923 said:
Or we could just do what most other civilized countries do and let the government handle it. That would probably increase 2&2's tax bill in the short run, but would also relieve him of most of the administrative nonsense.* In the long run, history shows that societies with government run or single payer health systems pay a lot less for the same level of care, so 2&2 would get a better value for the taxes he pays vs. what his business is paying for health insurance now.


*It should be mentioned that while the transition to ACA has been a mess and no doubt been burdensome on 2&2 and other small business owners, it wasn't like the annual pre-ACA ordeal of shopping for health coverage or getting hit with a premium increase was a big fun picnic either.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. The irony is that I would wager most small business owners who complain about administrative overload are probably also against government-run health care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top