<p>Perhaps that doctor should pay his staff member better. Sounds like one of those cost-reduction policies given to people with incomes below 200% of the poverty line. </p>
<p>^if the deductible is $250, I can pretty much guarantee the employee is making less than 150% of the poverty level :)</p>
<p>This may be a crazy former-canuk notion, but I’m thinking if you’re a school district and you find yourself with a sub who has worked more than 30 hours a week for 12 months…maybe it means you should HIRE them 
I mean, obviously you like them enough to keep USING them! They could be the hired filler-inner! Again, madcap notion.</p>
<p>Re: Robinhood notion…this phenom is called the multiplier and is becoming popular in states where huge gaps in resources due to assessments have created a night/day urban/suburban differential in ed funding. So in Michigan, which allegedly “equalized” funding two decades ago, it worked out somehow that kids in Bloomfield Hills got $13k a head to be educated and kids in urban districts got $7300 a head. So the state applied a very low, slow graduated formula in an attempt to bring the urban schools up…they got to about $7800 – whoopie :)</p>
<p>Not ultimately a very effective strategy, IMHO.</p>
<p>“The schools are getting something like a third from the State and any bonds they sell need to be financed out of the annual budget they have from both State and county taxes. I currently pay 1.20% for my local school.”</p>
<p>Don’t think so. <a href=“http://www.schoollawsection.org/facilitiesfinance.html”>http://www.schoollawsection.org/facilitiesfinance.html</a></p>
<p>For stadiums/recreational facilities: </p>
<p>“The bonds must be payable from revenues from rental, rates, and charges from the recreational facilities and may be secured by mortgages on the real property on which the facilities are located.”</p>
<p>For general obligation bonds: </p>
<p>“A district must be able to demonstrate, before issuing tax bonds, that the district has a projected ability to pay the principal of and interest on the proposed tax bonds and all previously issued tax bonds from a tax at a rate not to exceed $0.50 per $100 of valuation.”</p>
<p>“A portion of a district’s debt service due on its tax bonds may be paid by the State of Texas if the district applies for and is awarded Existing Debt Allotment or Instructional Facility Allotment funds pursuant to Chapter 46, Texas Education Code.”
.</p>
<p>"Perhaps that doctor should pay his staff member better. "</p>
<p>Most doctors pay prevailing wages for office staff. Otherwise they will find other jobs. I don’t believe many who work for independent doctors get insurance through their job since the practices tend to be 5-10 people. People working for hospitals on the other hand get insurance and some may take the money instead of insurance.</p>
<p>EB - I have no idea if the source you cite is correct or not but OTOH, I have not seen stadium requests in my district so I have not followed up on how they repay. They did float 2 billion dollar construction of new schools over the last 3-4 years and I don’t see ANY disagreement in what you posted and what I stated. The school district needs to pay it back through their own funding.</p>
<p>Here is the stadium proposal that was shot down.</p>
<p><a href=“Second stadium source of conflict for Katy ISD’s $99 million bond”>Katy | Houston Community Newspapers | HoustonChronicle.com - Houston Chronicle;
<p>The discussion seems to hint that the funding has to come from taxes,</p>
<p>“I don’t see ANY disagreement in what you posted and what I stated.”</p>
<p>You posted this:… “any bonds they sell need to be financed out of the annual budget they have from both State and county taxes.”</p>
<p>I think all the funding must come from additional taxes levied on property owners in a district not any monies the district gets from the State. And while districts in Texas receive 1/3 of their funding from the State those funds cannot be used to service the debt from bond issues (unless they apply for the allotment funds.) </p>
<p>Maybe they have since changed the requirement for stadium funding - but they still have to service that debt with taxes levied on district property owners - not any money they get from the State. </p>
<p>I now know more than I ever wanted about funding in Texas school districts. 
</p>
<p>“I think all the funding must come from additional taxes levied on property owners in a district not any monies the district gets from the State”</p>
<p>I am not sure that is the correct interpretation. As I said I pay 1.2%. However, what they are stating is that out of that, all bond payments are restricted to 0…5% and no more and in addition they can petition the state to fund some but that is not guaranteed. They can’t raise taxes if they are already spending 0.5. As in the case of Katy district, what they are saying is they are currently at 0.4% and have the capability to manage the stadium since they have 0.1% available to them. Let us say my school district is currently at 0.4 too and want to make it 0.5. They have to figure out a way to adjust their numbers such that what they want to pass on to home owners is palatable since an increase of taxes by 0.1 simply will not fly. So they will go cut some budgets, staff etc, and come up with an increase of 0.02-0.03 to make it pass.</p>
<p>Bluebayou, The design of ACA is to get more people insured. ;)</p>
<p>Kmcmom13, i like your post.</p>
<p>Ok. I don’t read it that way but perhaps they do play with the numbers to get voter approval. </p>
<p>I did read in one article, which I didn’t post, that districts are trying to get the State to increase the 0.5% districts can levy for bonds. </p>
<p>In any event, it’s not related to ACA, just something I was curious about, so we can leave it at that, </p>
<p>^ It would be if they are willing to build buildings but cut healthcare in order support the buildings. :p</p>
<p>My school taxes used to be much higher at one time (1.65?) but they did some reform in 2005 and state had to chip in more through other taxes.</p>
<p>Kmcmoms post ignores the obvious fact that not all substitute teachers and part-time employees want to become full-time employees with the district. And many (most) of them were not uninsured. But, now they will get less hours. It’s a trade off that some may be okay with and others will grumble about. It’s all a trade-off. </p>
<p>LOL, true. </p>
<p>Last year my district voted no (I voted no, too) on a proposal for a new track and improvements to the football field (calling it a stadium would be laughable.) Absolutely unnecessary as there is nothing wrong with the present facility. But, we have a property tax cap now in NY (not sure of the number) and a district’s budget needs to be approved by 2/3’s instead of a simple majority if they propose a budget more than the tax cap allows. That passed overwhelmingly, it wasn’t even close. And the budget includes cost of salaries and benefits for the school year, and salary and benefit costs are a fixed cost, negotiated with the teacher’s union. A district cannot cut those at all unless negotiated and then approved by union vote. </p>
<p>Don’t forget that some/many subs do it as a second income, so they may have spousal coverage available; many are PT by lifestyle choice. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is one purpose. But as the Congressional Budget Office points out, employers will act rationally and cut hours below the threshold. So while some/many can now get coverage, others have seen their incomes reduced. (The perverse incentive to which I alluded.)</p>
<p>edited for math error – back to starbucks!</p>
<p>You mean 20k right or else everyone would want that job.</p>
<p>“Many subs do it for the PT money – which can be really good, at $100/day in our district; $200k annualized – and that money is so high because they don’t get benefits.”</p>
<p>That is a real problem. That people use incorrect numbers to support their opinions is a very BIG problem.
Leads to distortion. Leads to very bad policies.</p>
<p>That has been kind of my argument for over 10 years on CC. That is why I ask people what are the numbers? I have been doing this for more than 10 years. :)</p>
<p>(i know it was just a mistake in your case bluebayou. I respect your ability with numbers…or at …least…I used to ). </p>
<p>You simply can’t say subs will get less hours. a) you don’t know what the baseline is or was. b) da lookback, boss, da lookback.</p>
<p>A sub would have to be working near continually over a long period in order to see a threat in reduction of hours. If you work 10 days/month at 8 hours, that’s 80 hours over 4 weeks. 20/week. Remember, the lookback is at least 3 months, can be up to 12 months. If you do a 2 month maternity fill in, it could be 240 hours over 8 weeks-- but the lookback period is larger. You can follow the math.</p>
<p>That is a real problem. That people use incorrect numbers to support their opinions is a very BIG problem.
Leads to distortion. Leads to very bad policies.</p>
<p>This is very true. Someone should really vet the “official” numbers on this thing. They are shaky imho. </p>
<p>LF- No part-timers will be cracking 30 hours in the future. Isn’t that a fact, yet?</p>
<p>The numbers are being vetted.</p>
<p>Acasignups numbers are pretty good. My numbers are pretty good too. 
My numbers are accurate and my estimates are lower than CBO’s or Charles Gaba’s. Although Charles’ estimates are coming down. His estimates may be more accurate than mine. :)</p>
<p>I havent seen anybody with numbers 10 times off except for those that said only a few hundered thousand would sign up on an exchange. Lol</p>
<p>If you go to acasignups.net you can see pretty good numbers…they are not the administration’s numbers.</p>
<p>Flossy, I don’t think that is a fact. I think districts will decide on a case by case basis. For instance, if they love a particular sub and use that person a lot - long time fill-ins for maternity leaves, for example - they may not cut that subs hours. Districts, at least where I live, like particular subs, more than others. Good subs are in high demand. </p>