Medical Claims Costs Could Rise 81% in Ohio based on ObamaCare

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Medical Claims Costs Could Rise 81% in Ohio based on ObamaCare
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
Mar 31, 2013 10:26 AM
jmog;1416957 wrote:Revisionist history is fun huh? So no one talked about these things during the health care discussions and debates? You can't be serious.
What is even more fun is that most of the ACA ideas have been discussed and proposed in the past by........you guessed it Republicans.
Mar 31, 2013 10:26am
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
Apr 4, 2013 3:11 PM
gut;1415546 wrote:I've seen that idea floating around and my understanding is that isn't going to work. They are going to combine those entities when doing the calculation, even going so far as someone owning several completely separate small businesses is now going to get whacked when those numbers are combined - say your wife owns a restaurant and you run a small construction company and all those people will get lumped together.

The only way around it appears to be reducing people to part time (<32 hours, or maybe 29.5, not sure). I guess #2 will work, but #1 won't.
Just saw this little bit of information cross my desk today.
Employers that seek to reduce their exposure under the Affordable Care Act's "play
or pay" mandate in 2014 by reducing their employees' hours could risk incurring
penalties under a section of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
http://www.hreonline.com/HRE/print.jhtml?id=534355116
Apr 4, 2013 3:11pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Apr 4, 2013 3:26 PM
Bigdogg;1419772 wrote:Just saw this little bit of information cross my desk today.



http://www.hreonline.com/HRE/print.jhtml?id=534355116
I think it's bullshit that they can tell a business how to run itself, and how many hours they give employees.
Apr 4, 2013 3:26pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Apr 4, 2013 3:30 PM
^^^yeah, there are some problems with the way the law is written. Seems you are safe if you make the switch via natural attrition, but it wouldn't be an issue if they had changed the definition of "equivalent heads" to be based on total hours, rather than total employees above a threshold. (i.e. 40 hours is 1 head whether it's 1 person or 2 part-timers).

The other clear problem is low margin, labor intensive industries such as restaurants aren't going to be able to afford this added expense.
Apr 4, 2013 3:30pm