<p>
</p>
<p>That doesn’t make sense. The law creates an incentive to split work into smaller chunks, but it doesn’t create an incentive for employers to make the total number of hours worked by all employees to be smaller. If you take an employee who worked 40 hours, and put them down to 20 hours, somebody has to do the work the guy did in the other 20 hours.</p>
<p>Yes, but the employer doesn’t have to provide health insurance to the part time worker. I know a couple of restaurant workers who had their hours cut because of this. So they now have two part time jobs to make up for the loss of one full time job. If these two hadn’t been able to find another part time job to make up the difference, they would be working less and earning less. </p>
<p>Read this article in Newsday regarding the exchange chaos in New York. The last two paragraphs about the woman with breast cancer is heartbreaking.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.newsday.com/news/health/2-largest-health-exchange-insurers-face-criticism-1.6946855”>http://www.newsday.com/news/health/2-largest-health-exchange-insurers-face-criticism-1.6946855</a></p>
<p>As I understand it, the CBO report is focused primarily on people who are voluntarily leaving or reducing employment. Their numbers are tied to labor supply (not labor demand) – they are saying that there will be fewer workers overall in the labor market. That should mean a reduction in unemployment (as more jobs open up)-- possible pressure on employers to increase wages & benefits in order to attract and keep workers. </p>
<p>On the other hand, less people working could have some negative impact on the economy – (less spending money in hands of employed consumers) - but that depends a lot on the demographics of who is leaving the market and why. </p>
<p>The CBO report says that the total hours worked will be less, because some people will voluntarily work less. I don’t know why the jobs those people leave won’t be filled by other job seekers, but the CBO is clearly projecting less total employment because of a reduction in labor supply.</p>
<p>The CBO also says it is NOT seeing a reduction of hours because the ACA is making employers reduce people’s hours to dodge the employer mandate. The report specifically says that while some people offer anecdotal evidence about employers reducing hours for that reason, the CBO is not seeing that trend.</p>
<p><a href=“WellPoint, a Onetime Critic of Health Law, May Yet Profit - The New York Times”>WellPoint, a Onetime Critic of Health Law, May Yet Profit - The New York Times;
<p>I like how some are interpreting that the people who will voluntarily reduce their work hours or drop out of the workforce could be a good thing and not related to gaming the system for subsidies. If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you.</p>
<p>So, it sounds like they expect a number of low wage people to chose not to work as much because it no longer makes.economic sense. If they make more they have spend more on health insurance so they stay under whatever that number is. Why wouldn’t they?</p>
<p>dstark, is Wellpoint now your favorite company since it has become an appendage of the govt? Sure Wellpoint is happy to take taxpayer dollars and bailouts from the federal govt. It’s great when you’re only one of two companies (sometimes the only company) competing for policyholders in most regions.</p>
<p>"Among its most controversial moves has been to embrace, at least in some markets, the idea of narrow networks, where people signing up for a plan have limited choices of hospitals and doctors to bring down the cost of coverage. “You have to do it,” said Ms. Kehaly, arguing that the concept has been around for a decade. “There are only so many levers to pull.”</p>
<p>How nice.</p>
<p>Why wouldn’t someone in a low wage job work more, though it would reduce their insurance subsidy? Isn’t that obvious? Because they’d end up with more money in their pocket, of course. Same reason you work more, even though you have to pay more in taxes-- because you end up with more money in your pocket.</p>
<p>“A for-profit company cobbled together from Blue Cross plans in different states to become one of the nation’s largest insurers, WellPoint had the largest presence in the individual and small-business markets that the law sought to overhaul. The company was thriving under rules that allowed it to avoid covering people with expensive medical conditions and charge much higher prices to people who were old or sick.”</p>
<p>'Why wouldn’t someone in a low wage job work more, though it would reduce their insurance subsidy? Isn’t that obvious? Because they’d end up with more money in their pocket, of course."</p>
<p>CF, you need to work on your math skills.</p>
<p><a href=“Obamacare enrollees hit snags at doctor's offices”>Obamacare enrollees hit snags at doctor's offices;
<p>More ‘glitches’. That doctor that the insurance company swears is in the network may not be. </p>
<p>Tatin, thanks for the article. I am waiting to see how the supporters rationalize the inevitable problems real people are now experiencing with these narrow networks. This was so predictable.</p>
<p>It should be criminal for the exchange to be selling plans with inaccurate information regarding their networks. Anthem’s provider directory is riddled with errors.</p>
<p>My wife has to make an appointment 6 weeks in advance to see her dermatoligist. My mom has to wait 1 week to see hers at Kaiser. </p>
<p>Kaiser looks better and better to me.</p>
<p>^^^^^</p>
<p>Would never join an HMO.</p>
<p>I have been dealing with Kaiser for 2 years with my folks and my daughter. Not perfect, But I am pretty impressed. No network issues. The payment system is easier. My daughter’s doctors have great pedigrees.
I looked at bios of 30 doctors with their photos on the wall and I saw 2 from Harvard, 2 from UCSF, 2 from UC Davis, 1 from Stanford, 1 from Chicago, I from Wash U. Considering there are over 100 medical schools and there were only 30 bios, that was pretty good. If you care about bios…</p>
<p>A friend of mine goes to Eisenhower in So Cal and he pays 500 a year concierge fee to see his doctor. His doctor is a DO. Supposed to be a pretty good doctor. I think the doctor graduated from Western.</p>
<p>One of my friends favorite doctors is a DO in San Rafael. So maybe the pedigree doesnt matter.</p>
<p>I am glad you had good luck with your daughter but I don’t trust Kaiser or any other HMO if I get sick and need comprehensive care from different specialists. I don’t like limited choices.</p>
<p>PS. If you want to be entertained, take a look at the reader comments from the LA Times article Tatin posted.</p>
<p>I believe concierge practices will become the main way to get excellent and timely care in the future. The best doctors will refuse to deal with this law.</p>