Work and Affordable Care Act - GRRRRRRRRRR!

[Deleted]

I just got an email from my director instructing me to attend a meeting next week. Under the Affordable Care Act, anyone who works 1560 hours a year (30 hours/week) must be offered health insurance. There are 13 employees in the library who work 30 hours a week. This could potentially cost the library $195,000/year.

If their solution to this is to cut my hours, I will be irate. IRATE. Talk about a morale killer not to mention completely disregarding the purpose and spirit of the ACA!

[LoveTrains]

Unfortunately I think that many, many employers will cut the hours of their employees, which is completely against the spirit of the act.

[niq]

How many people total are employed at your library? Employers with fewer than I think 50 FTEs are exempt, and there are a bunch of tax breaks available for small & medium-sized businesses to help them offer insurance.

Also, any employer can decline to offer coverage, but if a bunch of their employees get Medicaid or exchange-subsidized they get fined.

The evidence from MA is that employers make some effort to skirt the group insurance requirements, but only for those employees "at the margin", i.e. those who are just barely FTEs under the law.

[y4m]

A lot of small businesses are cutting headcount to get below 50 people as well--since cutting that 50th employee gets you out of having to pay penalties for not providing insurance.

It's terrible legislative drafting. But what do you expect from a bill that passed without anyone reading it?

[sometimesrunner]

We're seeing this a lot with our clients. And for a lot of them, it's cheaper to pay the penalty than to pay the amount of premiums required by law.
Part of the act also limited the amount that a person can put into their medical FSA to $2,500 and increased the medical expense threshold from 7.5% to 10% of agi (if you're under 65). So apparently health care should be cheaper, but not for those who already pay a lot out of pocket?

[Deleted]

Let me be clear, I am not complaining about the bill. I'm complaining about the possible way my place of employment may handle it.

My actual employer is the city my library is located in but the library itself will be responsible for the cost associated with this. The city has hundreds of FTEs.

[winnied]

Feb 21, 2013 14:42:28 GMT -5 y4m said:

A lot of small businesses are cutting headcount to get below 50 people as well--since cutting that 50th employee gets you out of having to pay penalties for not providing insurance.

It's terrible legislative drafting. But what do you expect from a bill that passed without anyone reading it?

Precisely. 

[msmerymac]

Some places have been doing this for years (WalMart) in trying to average an employee's hours to under 40 in order to not be required to offer insurance.

Were you counting on them providing something? I'm sorry, it sucks. Even if you don't need that insurance, the motivation behind it really sucks.

[Deleted]

No, I wouldn't take the insurance even if offered because my husband's coverage is better. But, among the 13 30-hour employees, there are some people who could really use it. Beyond that, cutting our hours will create a real hardship for some people. Hell, even if they cut us down to 25 hours, I lose over $400/month. That's a lot of money to us.

[midwest07]

Covering 13 employees would cost $195k a year?  How are they calculating that?  That is an average of $15k per employee, which is a lot even if the library was paying the full cost of each employee plus family.  While the ACA requires plans to be "affordable" under certain guidelines or the employer pays a penalty (and only if you have 50+ FTEs), I don't believe it requires employers to pay all or even a significant portion of the premiums for employees, just that it has to offer coverage meeting the guidelines.

Are you in a position to get involved in this process?  I would want to find more information about how they are arriving at these costs, and make sure it's not an excuse to get rid of people or cut hours.

[lbj]

I am a state employee (at our state library) and the Governor has mandated that all part-time employees have their hours cut to 29 hours a week to avoid having to pay health insurance. It's particularly sad because over the last 6-7 years we've had so many layoffs that a good chunk of employees now are part-time.

[chessie]

Thanks to this act more companies will go with contractors as well..another reason why my field most people are contractors companies dont want to provide any insurance.

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2013 15:41:21 GMT -5 midwest07 said:

Covering 13 employees would cost $195k a year?  How are they calculating that?  That is an average of $15k per employee, which is a lot even if the library was paying the full cost of each employee plus family. 

$15k/employee doesn't seem like too much of a stretch, honestly.
The cost of state employee health insurance benefits in the state where I live is over $19k/year for a family. 

[Deleted]

Yep. As predicted.

[mrssavy42112]

Feb 21, 2013 15:47:09 GMT -5 chessie said:

Thanks to this act more companies will go with contractors as well..another reason why my field most people are contractors companies dont want to provide any insurance.

Yep, that's what my job does. I've been here 3 years & still contractor. 75% of the office of 45 is a contractor. Boo

[chessie]

Feb 21, 2013 16:00:11 GMT -5 mrssavy42112 said:

Feb 21, 2013 15:47:09 GMT -5 chessie said:

Thanks to this act more companies will go with contractors as well..another reason why my field most people are contractors companies dont want to provide any insurance.

Yep, that's what my job does. I've been here 3 years & still contractor. 75% of the office of 45 is a contractor. Boo

Just got 2 calls from recruiters all contract positions 0 benefits offered..

[Deleted]

As a pt server this isn't a surprise. It's a huge bummer (annoyance) that this act is finally official yet a good chunk of people won't benefit.

I'm going on year 4 of no insurance. It's had it's challenges but I'm just thankful it's just me I have to worry about.

Good luck OP! I hope it's good news.

[midwest07]

Feb 21, 2013 15:52:06 GMT -5 @mrsspunky said:

Feb 21, 2013 15:41:21 GMT -5 midwest07 said:

Covering 13 employees would cost $195k a year?  How are they calculating that?  That is an average of $15k per employee, which is a lot even if the library was paying the full cost of each employee plus family. 

$15k/employee doesn't seem like too much of a stretch, honestly.
The cost of state employee health insurance benefits in the state where I live is over $19k/year for a family. 

Does your state pay the entire premium cost, or is the employee responsible for a portion of it?  I do think we will see significant changes in the proportions paid by the company vs the employee.  This may take awhile for employers that have to negotiate with unions to make such changes (which could include the library district if it's part of a municipality with a union), but it will eventually happen.

[ijack]

Feb 21, 2013 16:04:39 GMT -5 blissanity said:

As a pt server this isn't a surprise. It's a huge bummer (annoyance) that this act is finally official yet a good chunk of people won't benefit.

I'm going on year 4 of no insurance. It's had it's challenges but I'm just thankful it's just me I have to worry about.

Good luck OP! I hope it's good news.

I thought you had insurance and that was how you were going to get your IUD?

[soozy87]

Thank you President Obama. I wonder if people will boycott your business as they do other places that cut employee hours.

[pamela]

Feb 21, 2013 14:48:33 GMT -5 @libgrl said:

Let me be clear, I am not complaining about the bill. I'm complaining about the possible way my place of employment may handle it.

My actual employer is the city my library is located in but the library itself will be responsible for the cost associated with this. The city has hundreds of FTEs.

You should complain about the bill though because it's not just worthless because it was so poorly written and not reviewed by anyone.  It is deterimental to people like you.  You should be screaming at your elected officials for not only letting that piece of crap through, but bragging about it.

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2013 16:04:39 GMT -5 blissanity said:

As a pt server this isn't a surprise. It's a huge bummer (annoyance) that this act is finally official yet a good chunk of people won't benefit.

I'm going on year 4 of no insurance. It's had it's challenges but I'm just thankful it's just me I have to worry about.

Good luck OP! I hope it's good news.

Doesn't your full-time job offer insurance?

[lys]

This is what people asked for and voted for. -- A bad bill that is designed to fail. This situation was predicted and scoffed at by the Dems.

[mollybrown]

Some of the responses in this post are convincing me that we just need to bite the bullet and get some socialized medical care in this country. What are people without insurance supposed to do...go somewhere and die while politicians figure out a perfect bill with no loopholes? Employment and jobs just should not be connected.

I hope they don't cut your hours LibGrl.

[Deleted]

Honestly, the bill is not perfect. But I fall firmly in the camp that something had to be done regarding health care and I continue to hope the ACA is just a first step toward a better system.

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2013 17:32:43 GMT -5 v said:

Feb 21, 2013 16:04:39 GMT -5 blissanity said:

As a pt server this isn't a surprise. It's a huge bummer (annoyance) that this act is finally official yet a good chunk of people won't benefit.

I'm going on year 4 of no insurance. It's had it's challenges but I'm just thankful it's just me I have to worry about.

Good luck OP! I hope it's good news.

Doesn't your full-time job offer insurance?

No.

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2013 17:54:15 GMT -5 blissanity said:

Feb 21, 2013 17:32:43 GMT -5 v said:

Doesn't your full-time job offer insurance?

No.

Will you be eligible for insurance through that job at any point?  Why did you change jobs from one that gave you insurance to one that doesn't?  Insurance is very very important, bliss!!!

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2013 18:05:04 GMT -5 v said:

Feb 21, 2013 17:54:15 GMT -5 blissanity said:

No.

Will you be eligible for insurance through that job at any point?  Why did you change jobs from one that gave you insurance to one that doesn't?  Insurance is very very important, bliss!!!

Because insurance isn't that important to me at this point. It's easier to pay out of pocket. Additionally, my mental happiness is more important than paying for crap insurance.

I know it's not a decision some people would make but again, it's going on 4 years, I've got it pretty much covered.

Insurance will be a possibility with this company. Just don't know when. But I'm not concerned about it.

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2013 16:22:59 GMT -5 midwest07 said:

Feb 21, 2013 15:52:06 GMT -5 @mrsspunky said:

$15k/employee doesn't seem like too much of a stretch, honestly.
The cost of state employee health insurance benefits in the state where I live is over $19k/year for a family. 

Does your state pay the entire premium cost, or is the employee responsible for a portion of it?  I do think we will see significant changes in the proportions paid by the company vs the employee.  This may take awhile for employers that have to negotiate with unions to make such changes (which could include the library district if it's part of a municipality with a union), but it will eventually happen.

IIRC, state employees are responsible for 1.5% of their premiums, or under $300/year. When the measures were suggested, there was a huge uproar. 

[fences]

Feb 21, 2013 14:42:28 GMT -5 y4m said:

It's terrible legislative drafting. But what do you expect from a bill that passed without anyone reading it?

I work in state government that employs tons of part-time people.  The current plan is to not allow any to work more than 29 hours per week because the state cannot afford to pay health insurance for so many additional employees. 

I feel bad for the people who are working technically part-time, and will have their hours cut, and may now have to string together 2 part-time jobs instead of 1 to make ends meet.