<p>Exactly. Well said, Tom.</p>
<p>It’s not exactly a secret that companies manage hours to avoid having employees qualify for benefits, not those mandated by law but those promised by the employer to certain classes of employees. It is well known, for example, that managers at Walmarts are required to control hours and the number of employees who qualify for Walmart’s various benefit programs. That has come out in many lawsuits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Our company put out that “word” a couple of months ago. While we only have <10 part-timers, with ACA upcoming they are guaranteed to not be able to work more than 30 hours in any given week. Previously, they’d move to up 40 hours during some weeks, and only 15-20 other weeks.</p>
<p>Yes, the rules say an average of 30 hours per week over xx weeks, but that is just too hard for us to track and report; much easier to just mandate a 29 hour max cap. </p>
<p>No fuss, no (legal) muss.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In our case, its avoidance of an expense increase. Family medical alone under our plan is over 20k/year; and dental is another $3k. Times 10 people = quarter of a mill, which exceeds our net “profit” most years. For an individual part-timer, that is a huge % of the PT payroll.</p>
<p>Once again, I just want to say that the unintended consequence of this 30 hour thing absolutely needs to be addressed.</p>
<p>I hear they are about to make a change and make it 40 hour weeks.</p>
<p>Either way, the best solution, as far as I can see, is to get the employer out of this altogether.</p>
<p>I agree get employers entirely out of health care</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve long been a champion of that pov, but since I’m a supporter, it has zero chance of happening. :D</p>
<p>I don’t know bluebayou. I think there is a rising understanding that this is the only solution that will work. </p>
<p>I suspect this may be why no employer mandate this year.</p>
<p>Bluebayou…if there is no employer mandate this year, why are you enacting this 29 hour rule?</p>
<p>Since you put out the rule a couple of months ago and things have changed are you going to change the rule?</p>
<p>My insurance company was corrupt. They were giving me a bs line that I better stay in a grandfathered policy instead of moving to a new policy. That grandfather policy was 75% more expensive than the policy I switched too.</p>
<p>Romani…my parents were lower middle class and health insurance was not an issue. They belonged to Kaiser.</p>
<p>The costs of healthcare and health insurance have increased dramatically over the years.</p>
<p>Government vs private insurance: just go by human nature, and do what we do with everything else - we follow the money. Government does not have a profit motive, and do not file 10Qs or 10Ks. Private insurance companies watch profits quarter to quarter. If they make more money by denying coverage, then they have a built-in motive to deny coverage. And they do.</p>
<p>I have insurance company clients who will admit, off the record, they have a standard practice: if there is any doubt of coverage, deny 3 times. Many people actually give up after 3 times, even when they’re entitled to reimbursement. The lesson learned is Always go for that fourth demand.</p>
<p>I totally agree with Hayden, though it would be optimal if there was an incentive to cut costs combined with lack of profit motive, what a fantasy.</p>
<p>[Anthem</a> Blue Cross agrees to take back clients, pay $1-million fine - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/11/business/fi-bluecross11]Anthem”>Anthem to take back clients)</p>
<p>Holy cow no one remembers the fuss about “big government” (so recent, the ink hasn’t dried, so to say) and equating it to socialism? Wasn’t that the big scare tactic used?</p>
<p>Btw, not to count on it or anything, but the people I have recently dealth with at my insurer have been superb. I think a distinction should be made between any corporate shenanigans, overfed executives, etc and the people we actually deal with.</p>
<p>I grew up with insurance (HIP in NYC; ) but I don’t think my parents did. Its still evolving.</p>
<p>Well, in defense of the younger generation, I do not think it is “omg I have to WORK to get healthcare,” so much as “How am I ever going to get a job with benefits?” Also, there used to be company loyalty. It doesn’t exist anymore. So, it’s a pain that insurance isn’t portable. It also limits entrepenuership on both sides, imho.</p>
<p>I read somewhere that the government spends 5% on administrative bills in medicare and the private sector up to 20%. I think that looks more efficient. Imagine if we had to contract for police and fire individually, or water treatment.</p>
<p>I think it’s no brainer to do it this way, and nobody will accuse me of being always big government. It’s not like the insurance companies aren’t already standing between you and your medical care. JMO.</p>
<p>I just wish it went further, personally. In our city the fastfood workers walked out at lunch because they are living in poverty. We can do better in this country, imho.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To be precise, I said “omg I have to WORK to get someone else to pay for my healthcare.” Young people can get healthcare now without insurance so long as they can pay for it. I know people scoff at this as a practical matter, but it is true, and in some cases it is still affordable.</p>
<p>With the ACA, they won’t need to find a job with benefits, because they can buy insurance on the open market/exchanges, right?</p>
<p>Right. And this, for me, is the best part of the law. There are so many people who would benefit from this, especially the self-employed (freelancers, small business owners, entrepreneurs). A lot of us would prefer to go it alone but are “stuck” in traditional full-time jobs for the benefits.</p>
<p>I have been self employed for most of my working life and have always been able to find an affordable plan for my family. Health insurance tied to employment is silly. No one has the motivation to save on costs.</p>
<p>New law is a mess and will only get uglier.</p>
<p>I was paying the company bills for our employees’ health/dental/life/disability insurance today, and going over coverage for her health/dental/etc. with my daughter as well. I made the comment that many of our employees stay with the company precisely because we have such good benefits. “Golden handcuffs.” Personally, I would like to see employers get out of the business of providing insurance. We could pay more, have lower administrative costs, and people could decide for themselves how much or how little insurance they need. Instead we provide $20/visit insurance–which the 30-somethings love and the 20-somethings never use and the 40-and-50-somethings consider essential. </p>
<p>Government single payer would level the playing field, reduce overall costs (by reducing the profit incentive and admin costs), increase fairness, and move our country forward. Instead, our staff spends hours figuring out insurance, I spend hours reviewing it, the billing offices of medical practices consume 25% of what you pay the medical practice, and the whole system enriches accountants.</p>
<p>Dmd,
Why do you offer insurance to your employees if it is so difficult?</p>