Forum Groups

 

Forums / Talking it Over / Affordable Care Act??

Affordable Care Act??

34 posts
  1. Trevor Monreal
    Trevor Monreal avatar
    5 posts
    7/1/2013 12:07 PM
    I pay for my own insurance.
    Just got the notice from our provider.
    Starting in September I will get a $260 a month increase...OUCH!
    This is just for my wife and I.
    That's nearly a 40% jump.
    The letter it states "This increase is not a reflection of claims submitted but of provisions needed to comply with new federal rules/regulations"
    I guess this is "Change We Can Believe In"



  2. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    7/1/2013 2:07 PM
    On October 1st you will be eligible to purchase insurance through an exchange and prices should be significantly less than what you were paying before unless possibly you are very young and in very good health. Then it may be a little more. Do you mind sharing the name of the insurance company and what type of coverage you have presently.



  3. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
    7/1/2013 4:07 PM
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: On October 1st you will be eligible to purchase insurance through an exchange and prices should be significantly less than what you were paying before unless possibly you are very young and in very good health. Then it may be a little more. Do you mind sharing the name of the insurance company and what type of coverage you have presently.


    There are some that will see a decrease and it is most likely a result of the subsidies received from the rest of us. If you are in Ohio, get ready for an 88% increase:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/10/ohio-dept-of-insurance-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-health-premiums-by-88-percent/?partner=yahootix



  4. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    7/1/2013 6:07 PM
    We will have to wait and see. An 88% increase for common people would increase the number of uninsured it would seem.



  5. Timothy Walker
    Timothy Walker avatar
    0 posts
    7/1/2013 9:07 PM
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: We will have to wait and see. An 88% increase for common people would increase the number of uninsured it would seem.


    But that will be illegal Scott...you will be breaking the law if you are uninsured with this bill - correct?



  6. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    7/1/2013 10:07 PM
    The way the law reads, if you have enough money to afford it you will pay 9.5% of your pre-tax income on health insurance premiums. There is nothing in there about dramatic increases in premiums and Draconian efforts against those who choose not to participate. A year from now all of these BS comments will be exposed for what they are.



  7. Douglas Eggert
    Douglas Eggert avatar
    1 posts
    7/2/2013 3:07 PM
    Problem I see the 9.5% of pre-tax.....Who's the yahoo that figured that number? I just got hit with my son with juvenile diabetes at age 15, $260 a month for his medicines, not to mention mine. Along with 2% state income tax increase last season.... Along with a $60 a month increase with my 2 kids insurance plan. If i didn't receive my insurance from my employer, I'd probably not deal with my own personal medical issues.

    9.5% seriously, I'm one of those right now barely living check per check. In an effort to stop my financial hemorrhage I'm to the point of cancelling my medications to pay for my sons, and I'm not the only one in this type of position. I've made personal choices and sacrifices to earn and keep this job, but If big brother insists on being a well keeper of it's constituents, then tax me for it and they can pay for my insurance, but to pay up to 1K per month to insure my 2 children, and pay out of pocket is ridiculous.

    I'm all for health care for everyone, it should be a personal choice, not a mandate.



  8. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
    7/2/2013 5:07 PM
    Douglas Eggert said: Problem I see the 9.5% of pre-tax.....Who's the yahoo that figured that number? I just got hit with my son with juvenile diabetes at age 15, $260 a month for his medicines, not to mention mine. Along with 2% state income tax increase last season.... Along with a $60 a month increase with my 2 kids insurance plan. If i didn't receive my insurance from my employer, I'd probably not deal with my own personal medical issues.

    9.5% seriously, I'm one of those right now barely living check per check. In an effort to stop my financial hemorrhage I'm to the point of cancelling my medications to pay for my sons, and I'm not the only one in this type of position. I've made personal choices and sacrifices to earn and keep this job, but If big brother insists on being a well keeper of it's constituents, then tax me for it and they can pay for my insurance, but to pay up to 1K per month to insure my 2 children, and pay out of pocket is ridiculous.

    I'm all for health care for everyone, it should be a personal choice, not a mandate.


    We are unqualified and thus incapable of making such decisions for ourselves.

    All letters of appreciation should be addressed to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave...c/o ...Daddy B.O.



  9. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    7/2/2013 8:07 PM
    Douglas Eggert said: Problem I see the 9.5% of pre-tax.....Who's the yahoo that figured that number? I just got hit with my son with juvenile diabetes at age 15, $260 a month for his medicines, not to mention mine. Along with 2% state income tax increase last season.... Along with a $60 a month increase with my 2 kids insurance plan. If i didn't receive my insurance from my employer, I'd probably not deal with my own personal medical issues.

    9.5% seriously, I'm one of those right now barely living check per check. In an effort to stop my financial hemorrhage I'm to the point of cancelling my medications to pay for my sons, and I'm not the only one in this type of position. I've made personal choices and sacrifices to earn and keep this job, but If big brother insists on being a well keeper of it's constituents, then tax me for it and they can pay for my insurance, but to pay up to 1K per month to insure my 2 children, and pay out of pocket is ridiculous.

    I'm all for health care for everyone, it should be a personal choice, not a mandate.


    At 9.5% of pre-tax income, you are making a pretty good living especially if you are supporting a family ($66,000+/yr with a family of four). It can be much less than that depending upon your circumstances. In addition, under the ACA your son cannot be refused insurance coverage because of a pre-existing condition and after January 1st, 2014 an adult cannot be refused coverage for a pre-existing condition. If you are getting coverage from your employer now and it is a good deal, the law anticipates you will continue with that. If you are too young for medicare, do not qualify for medicaid, but otherwise have the money to retire you can purchase affordable coverage through the insurance exchange. You can apply on October 1 to find out what is available to you and start your plan on January 1.

    It has to be a mandate in order to obtain the economies of scale and thus make it affordable.



  10. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    7/2/2013 9:07 PM
    There is a lot of good information at "Enroll America":

    "Enroll America is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to maximize the number of uninsured Americans who enroll in health coverage made available by the Affordable Care Act. Enroll America is a collaborative organization, working with partners that span the gamut of health coverage stakeholders—health insurers, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, employers, consumer groups, faith-based organizations, civic organizations, and philanthropies—to engage many different voices in support of an easy, accessible, and widely available enrollment process - http://www.enrollamerica.org/get-enrolled"



  11. Douglas Eggert
    Douglas Eggert avatar
    1 posts
    7/2/2013 9:07 PM
    Currently my employer only covers the single employee costs. Any coverage above and beyond are the employees expense. Currently I pay about $425 per month out of pocket per month under a separate plan for my children. Under my employers plan it would be $900 a month, plus additional out of pocket. So if all goes as the ACA assumes, my costs would double to take the employer plan. This would be before any planned rate increases.

    So where is anyone's incentive to take mandated insurance? If you are healthy you are getting forced coverage. If you're not, you are getting forced coverage you may not afford.

    None of my staff will be able to afford this expense. Most would rather pay the fine. In my case forgoing coverage for my son is out of the question. This is the dilemma some people will be forced to make.

    Then there is the full time status of seasonal employees, they're going to get the shaft with reduced hours. No employers are planning on paying fines.

    All I know is that my 2% raise is not covering the proposed increases or new drug costs.

    What's annoying in this whole ACA, is nobody has a clear answer.

    Sorry if I sound like I'm venting, I just find this frustrating....



  12. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
    7/2/2013 11:07 PM
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said:

    It has to be a mandate in order to obtain the economies of scale and thus make it affordable.


    Affordable is a relative term used by the administration to give the impression that all can comfortably pay for their insurance. Its a red herring for those that will find the contrary. The idea of the plan is good. Insurance for all. Subsidies will be given to help those who fall within insurance poverty boundaries. More good news! But when the insurance bills come due, the bad will rear it's ugly head when many will not be able to afford the cost even with the subsidies.



  13. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    7/3/2013 1:07 AM
    Douglas Eggert said: Currently my employer only covers the single employee costs. Any coverage above and beyond are the employees expense. Currently I pay about $425 per month out of pocket per month under a separate plan for my children. Under my employers plan it would be $900 a month, plus additional out of pocket. So if all goes as the ACA assumes, my costs would double to take the employer plan. This would be before any planned rate increases.

    So where is anyone's incentive to take mandated insurance? If you are healthy you are getting forced coverage. If you're not, you are getting forced coverage you may not afford.

    None of my staff will be able to afford this expense. Most would rather pay the fine. In my case forgoing coverage for my son is out of the question. This is the dilemma some people will be forced to make.

    Then there is the full time status of seasonal employees, they're going to get the shaft with reduced hours. No employers are planning on paying fines.

    All I know is that my 2% raise is not covering the proposed increases or new drug costs.

    What's annoying in this whole ACA, is nobody has a clear answer.

    Sorry if I sound like I'm venting, I just find this frustrating....


    If you go to the website I listed you can find people who can give you good information. This is not the end of the world and you will be able to afford coverage, as will your employees.



  14. Sean Hoolehan
    Sean Hoolehan avatar
    0 posts
    7/3/2013 9:07 AM
    Last week I sat in on a webinar on "Health Care Reform and Employers Update". Below are some of the highlights.

    Seasonal employees will not be counted in the definition of a Large employer with 50 or more employees.

    Employers will pay substantially less in fines then the actual cost of health care but the government is betting that employers will maintain health care benefits to remain competitive.

    Exchanges will offer Essential Health Benefit plans only but in 4 levels of premium cost with Bronze being the federally mandated minimum 60% (for employers to avoid paying a tax).

    It is cheaper for employers to offer no insurance than below 60%.

    The ACA is not designed to lower costs but to broaden coverage.

    Only 15 States presently approved for State Based Exchanges. 27 States will have to use the Federal Exchanges because they have not decided to play.

    Front loaded cost mean that the majority of the Medicaid expansion will be covered by the federal government until 2020.

    By current definition 60%+ of employers offer Cadillac plans, and will be subject to further taxes in 2018.

    Employers that offer a good health care benefit will have to reduce benefits to the minimum essential coverage to avoid paying additional taxes, which places more cost on employees.



  15. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    7/3/2013 10:07 AM
    Thanks Sean for that information, quick question, on seasonal employees in a large business, do they not count toward your 50 employee count, or you can't use the term seasonal and have to offer them insurance if they work over 30 hours? Did they define what a seasonal employee is as to how many months and hours they can work?

    Seems most people like the idea of the ACA, pre-existing conditions covered, no cap on maximum, covering more preventive testing. Then there are the issues that people are running into and as Sean explained. I have a rhetorical question (I suppose it is anyway)....why hasn't congress worked to fix these issues instead of trying to repeal it? I know my congressman always talks about wanting to repeal it even though he supports things like the pre-existing condition and other items, then why don't they go to work on fixing these issues? Look at the seasonal employee issue and how it effect certain industries, fix these other issues that people have complained about, (Maybe since we have until 2018 to fix the Cadillac issue, let's get to work congress).

    Just my two cents, and I am a supporter of the ACA as I have a situation similar to Douglas, heck we have one prescription that is $500 per month co-pay, (I think it is a month, the way a teenage boy eats and him needing the medicine before every meal...) and that is the cheaper drug. We do have a good employer provided plan, they pay premium at 100% and we pay 100% for the family to be on the same plan, we basically pay $449 per month for them, my cost is $466, so it is $915 per month for our insurance.

    I think I have been able to attach the summary sheet of the plan.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  16. Kim Brock
    Kim Brock avatar
    3 posts
    7/3/2013 7:07 PM
    It should be named: The Affordable Insurance Act! This whole thing has never been about affordable care. Not one thing in this bill addresses the rising costs of care. If the government didn't have so much regulation on drug producers and doctors or hospitals didn't have to carry millions of dollars of insurance protection Maybe Costs would be affordable. I haven't heard of one person who can read and understand this 2000 + page bill.



  17. Sean Hoolehan
    Sean Hoolehan avatar
    0 posts
    7/4/2013 12:07 PM
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Thanks Sean for that information, quick question, on seasonal employees in a large business, do they not count toward your 50 employee count, or you can't use the term seasonal and have to offer them insurance if they work over 30 hours? Did they define what a seasonal employee is as to how many months and hours they can work? As i understand this only pertains to determining if a company is defind as a large employer of 50 or more full time equivalents (FTE). Seasonal employees will not be calculated but part time will ie.. 2 part time employees working 20 hrs a week = 1 FTE, 2 seasonal employees working 40 hours a week = 0 FTE

    Seems most people like the idea of the ACA, pre-existing conditions covered, no cap on maximum, covering more preventive testing. Then there are the issues that people are running into and as Sean explained. I have a rhetorical question (I suppose it is anyway)....why hasn't congress worked to fix these issues instead of trying to repeal it? I know my congressman always talks about wanting to repeal it even though he supports things like the pre-existing condition and other items, then why don't they go to work on fixing these issues? Look at the seasonal employee issue and how it effect certain industries, fix these other issues that people have complained about, (Maybe since we have until 2018 to fix the Cadillac issue, let's get to work congress). This was about legacy and historic legislation not affordable care. In 2009 the congress could have easily pass reforms you mention but they wanted the whole enchilada. Politics as so partisan i see little hope.

    Just my two cents, and I am a supporter of the ACA as I have a situation similar to Douglas, heck we have one prescription that is $500 per month co-pay, (I think it is a month, the way a teenage boy eats and him needing the medicine before every meal...) and that is the cheaper drug. We do have a good employer provided plan, they pay premium at 100% and we pay 100% for the family to be on the same plan, we basically pay $449 per month for them, my cost is $466, so it is $915 per month for our insurance. Even with your sons condition in general children are cheap to insure. The rule requiring plans to cover children until 26 only amounted to .05-1% increase in our plans premiums. Remember with health insurance plans there is a direct correlation between premiums and benefits/experience. Most self insured plans have between 7 and 12% administrative fees the ACA allows plans to have up to 20% admin fees. Are you sure your new plan will cover you and your family at the same level. Co-payments are just a extension of your premium, it is a way plan design can manage costs effectively The insurance my company offers co-payments are generally low but our premiums are about $800/mo employee (100% paid by employer) and $560/mo family (100% paid by employee) are high. Many of the increases in premiums people will have with the change is reflective of the required co-payment and Out of Pocket maximums the ACA requires.

    I think I have been able to attach the summary sheet of the plan.

    Mel



  18. David Brandenburg
    David Brandenburg avatar
    3 posts
    7/4/2013 5:07 PM
    Sean Hoolehan, CGCS said: Last week I sat in on a webinar on "Health Care Reform and Employers Update". Below are some of the highlights.

    Seasonal employees will not be counted in the definition of a Large employer with 50 or more employees.
    .


    Sean,

    Our HR department disagrees and it comes down to the definition of seasonal. True 3 month summer seasonals are not eligible but even in Wisconsin golf courses use 6-8 month seasonal employees who could be eligible and will for sure count against the 50 employee limit.

    Then the employer can choose how to look at the 30 hour limit. They can choose to look back 3, 6 or 12 months. At 12months our employees would not be eligible for insurance but at 3 or 6 they would be.

    We have what is considered a cadillac plan and it cost the employer over $20,000 per year. We will not offer 6-8 month seasonal employees making happily $15-$20,000 a year $20,000 insurance policies.

    Around our area all the schools have moved their classroom aids and much of the secretarial staff from 30-40 hour a week employees depending on the weeks schooldays to 27 hours per week to get under the limit. So suddenly decent second jobs in the family have become not decent jobs because there is not enough hours to pay the bills.

    The entire thing is a cluster of rules still to be defined. Then to confuse the issue even more the news said on the 3rd that the treasury department announced the fines for companies with more than 50 employees not offering insurance would be delayed from 1-1-2013 to 1-1-2014.



  19. Sean Hoolehan
    Sean Hoolehan avatar
    0 posts
    7/5/2013 7:07 AM
    David,

    There is still a lot of guessing on implementation and final definitions. The webinar sat in on was presented by a HR assn. the presenter was a Attorney out of California that specializes in HR law. I sit on the committee that oversee's our self-insured health plan. We find no shortage of experts on the PPACA. The problem is very few are saying the same thing.

    If your plans premium is $20,000 i would assume it includes family. If that is the case it is not Cadillac. My wife works for the local education service district. Their health insurance premium is about $14,000 (employee/family) which the employee pays about 5-8% depending on the level of benefit. Way under the Cadillac threshold. If most employer plans included family coverage (not voluntary) they would likely be under the Cadillac threshold.



  20. Douglas Eggert
    Douglas Eggert avatar
    1 posts
    7/5/2013 7:07 AM
    Dave,

    Our HR dept is looking at it the same way yours is. Most of the Park District courses in the area are also looking at it this way also. I've heard that a neighboring PD is mandating that NO Part time or seasonal employees can work over 1500 hours for the year. If one employee goes over, it would automatically throw their entire group into full time status. Thus they would also be over the 50 employee threshold.

    As for the 30 hours per week, I know of 4 Park Districts in my area already mandating that golf course and/or park maintenance departments being reduced to 30 hours or less, if not a full timer. One has even gone to 25 hours per week. So much for getting a reliable staff.

    So it comes back to this question, what is the employee's incentive to work at all? To pay for insurance they can't afford? Most of the seasonal's probably would qualify for assistance even if they decide to take insurance, but what about the employees that are barely making it now? Where's their help? The employee that gets some insurance paid for and in my case have to cover 2 children out of pocket, that where's the pinch is going to be. Based on my income and expenses, i might qualify for about a $100 a month...So instead of 900-1k per month, I'd be at 800 a month.

    Does the premium assistance get paid every month? Or do you have to payout all year for a tax credit at the end? That will certainly have spending implications regarding personal cash flow... What happens if you owe federal taxes? Do you still get assistance then? Owe child support?

    I have had a bad feeling about this whole ACA when it finally rolls out, I see a mini recession kicking in again. And most of us live off of somebody's discretionary monies, so we'll be the first to feel it.

    Scott has mentioned that 66K a year is supposedly a good job per the ACA? How far does 66k go anymore? Who picked that number? Who's making $28.85 hour and living comfortably off it? None of our staff are. Most of us are hopefully above it, based on annual salaries, but some aren't.

    Even though the January 2014 date is the date, the ACA is here and we're already dealing with it....



  21. Sean Hoolehan
    Sean Hoolehan avatar
    0 posts
    7/5/2013 7:07 AM
    I think I have been able to attach the summary sheet of the plan.

    Mel
    Mel,

    Thanks for sharing your plan summary. I see they have simply defaulted to the PPACA preventative schedule. The 3 largest contributors to premium cost is 1. Health/age of the Pool, 2. schedule of benefits, 3. location.

    No mention of dental or vision coverage in your plan is that a separate policy?



  22. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    7/5/2013 9:07 AM
    Sean Hoolehan, CGCS said: I think I have been able to attach the summary sheet of the plan.

    Mel

    Mel,

    Thanks for sharing your plan summary. I see they have simply defaulted to the PPACA preventative schedule. The 3 largest contributors to premium cost is 1. Health/age of the Pool, 2. schedule of benefits, 3. location.

    No mention of dental or vision coverage in your plan is that a separate policy?

    Sean, They have defaulted to a lot of the PPACA preventative schedule and much of it ahead of the implementation date. And even with that, as I have mentioned before no premium increases the past year.

    Our vision and dental coverage would be a separate policy. When we have figured the cost of insurance for those items compared to what we typically spend it would have been a wash or we would have been behind, I guess it's good the boy doesn't need braces. I guess with just 3 of us, we didn't see the added value. We do deduct all those cost on our taxes along with all the other costs associated with our medical and insurance costs. We easily hit the 7% (or whatever it is) to itemize our deductions.

    Our parks department and all city departments have had the 1500 hour rule in place for years (I think it was something that came up years ago where governmental entities where getting around not paying benefits and pensions by not working people 40 hours per week). We might be so large that what Douglas is seeing is a moot point for us. I could possibly see some of the small cities around us having to watch out for staff levels in the summer, but maybe not, I know they don't offer all the programs that we do.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  23. Lisa Wick
    Lisa Wick avatar
    1 posts
    7/8/2013 2:07 PM
    Hi all!
    The webcast Sean Hoolehan mentions is now available On Demand. I will tell you that the information is somewhat confusing but Rachel Cutler Shim knows her stuff. You can register for the webcast in the education section.

    My real reason to interject here is that a new decision came down last week to "delay the employer mandate" until 2015 to give businesses more time to prepare. So you might watch the webcast on a rainy day....Lisa

    Lisa Wick, sr. manager, e-Learning Programs

  24. Corey Eastwood
    Corey Eastwood avatar
    80 posts
    7/11/2013 3:07 PM
    Another point of view on government Health Care.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... vHFeGZwFoQ

    Corey Eastwood CGCS, Stockton Golf & CC, Retired

  25. Thomas Brown
    Thomas Brown avatar
    0 posts
    7/13/2013 6:07 AM
    Corey Eastwood, CGCS said: Another point of view on government Health Care.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... vHFeGZwFoQ


    Thanks, Corey! Germany's plan sounds good to me in light of our present alternatives.

    I haven't looked at the website that Scott mentions but since my employer no longer provides health insurance for any employees, one of my guys w/o insurance said that his research into coverage found that the "affordable" plans have $10,000 deductibles.

    Tom



  26. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    7/13/2013 11:07 AM
    Thomas Brown, CGCS said:
    Corey Eastwood, CGCS said: Another point of view on government Health Care.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... vHFeGZwFoQ


    Thanks, Corey! Germany's plan sounds good to me in light of our present alternatives.

    I haven't looked at the website that Scott mentions but since my employer no longer provides health insurance for any employees, one of my guys w/o insurance said that his research into coverage found that the "affordable" plans have $10,000 deductibles.

    Tom


    Tom,

    It is good that your employee can even get coverage right now affordable or not. If I lost my employer provided healthcare I would not be able to get coverage, not even catastrophic coverage. My issues are not even that extraordinary. If you can get coverage I would think the catastrophic coverage would be the thing to do now until Jan. 1, 2014 when your ACA coverage would take affect. You can look into it now at the website I listed and I believe you can apply beginning Oct. 1.



  27. Corey Eastwood
    Corey Eastwood avatar
    80 posts
    7/15/2013 11:07 AM
    I think that there is a lot of false negative statements made against the Act. Remember it has not even officially started yet. Give it a chance and if it is not good we can get rid of it. As I understand it this act is not required by small business with less than twenty five employees full time. And business that are between twenty-five and fifty will receive a subsidy.

    Corey Eastwood CGCS, Stockton Golf & CC, Retired

  28. Hulteen Mike
    Hulteen Mike avatar
    7/16/2013 11:07 AM
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: The way the law reads, if you have enough money to afford it you will pay 9.5% of your pre-tax income on health insurance premiums. There is nothing in there about dramatic increases in premiums and Draconian efforts against those who choose not to participate. A year from now all of these BS comments will be exposed for what they are.


    Tagged for a good laugh, just like "we have to pass this bill to see what's in it"



  29. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    7/16/2013 2:07 PM
    [quote">A New Reason Not To Work

    By Rick Newman | Daily Ticker – 6 hours ago
    Pop quiz: Why do Americans have jobs?

    If your answer is, to earn money, you're only partially right. There's one other important reason: To get health insurance. And as President Obama's health-reform law starts to go into effect, it could give hundreds of thousands of workers a reason to quit.

    A new study distributed by the National Bureau of Economic Research finds that somewhere between 530,000 and 940,000 Americans might quit their jobs after January 1, 2014, as they're able to get affordable health insurance through one of the public exchanges to be set up under Obamacare. That could provide ammunition for both critics and supporters of the politically explosive law. Critics might see it as evidence that Obama's reforms encourage idleness while contributing to a growing welfare state. But it might also be a sign that workers have more freedom to pursue meaningful work or other interests instead of sticking to one job just because of the benefits, a phenomenon economists have dubbed "employment lock."

    Study authors Craig Garthwaite, Tal Gross and Matthew J. Notowidigdo arrived at their estimate by studying changes in Tennessee's Medicaid program, which expanded in 1994 to include more people, in ways similar to the way Obamacare will be structured. Costs became unaffordable, however, and a decade later the state forced about 170,000 childless adults—roughly 4 percent of the state's working-age population—out of the program.

    The researchers focused on what those people did for insurance once they could no longer get it through the state. For starters, there was a sudden surge in Google searches emanating from Tennessee and including phrases such as "job openings," while there was no such surge in neighboring states. In the two years following the change, employment levels among childless adults in Tennessee—the same group knocked out of Medicaid—rose by 5.7 percent, a far bigger jump than elsewhere. And sure enough, by 2006 there was a sharp increase in the percentage of Tennessee adults with private insurance. Losing subsidized public insurance, in other words, forced more people to get jobs.

    The opposite may happen with Obamacare, since under the program, anybody under 65 should be able to get insurance at a public exchange, with no income requirement except that those who earn more will pay a bit more for coverage. (Those 65 and over will already be covered through Medicare.) There are about 8.9 million Americans who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid and who also get health insurance through an employer. The study estimates that, based on what happened in Tennessee, 4.2 million of those people will switch from employer-provided insurance to a publicly subsidized plan under Obamacare. Of those, as many as 940,000 could quite their jobs, since they work primarily for the insurance coverage and enroll in Obamacare instead. That's far higher than other estimates.

    On the surface, that suggests Obamacare will create an incentive not to work while shrinking the size of the labor force. But that‘s not the same thing as killing jobs, one of the charges frequently levied against Obamacare by Republican critics of the law. The study authors point out that people entering or leaving the work force by choice, because of the need for insurance, is different from employers reducing payrolls because of insurance or labor costs. Some of the people who leave jobs and opt for Obamacare could be workers close to retirement age who aren't yet eligible for Medicare, or spouses who took a job with benefits simply to obtain insurance coverage their working spouse can't get. Besides, with unemployment high, there's an oversupply of workers in many industries, so for every person who leaves the labor force, that might mean somebody else gets a job.

    If Obamacare were to end up improving workers' ability to move among jobs, it could even be good news for the economy. "Now you can pick the employer that's best for you, without having to consider the benefits they offer," says Craig Garthwaite of Northwestern University Kellogg School of Management, one of the study's authors. "That will certainly be a benefit to that individual person." The U.S. economy is unique in that it's the only big market in which healthcare coverage is linked directly to employment. Some analysts think that prevents workers from taking entrepreneurial risks, moving to a better economic climate or trying new things that could make them better off.The real issue, says Garthwaite, is whether the benefits some people receive from Obamacare will be worth the costs imposed on others, such as new taxes that will help subsidize expanded coverage and penalties imposed on individuals and employers who don't comply with the law. It will take years to gather data on that, and even then, interpretations will vary based on political ideology, just as they do now.

    Interesting article, I agree with the bold statement, when in between this job and my last job I considered starting up a sports field maintenance company, just fertilizing and aeration services for maybe towns and school districts that did have the equipment and manpower, it was the need for health insurance that stopped me. (although I'm glad it worked out, still in the golf business)

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  30. Steve Nelson
    Steve Nelson avatar
    0 posts
    7/17/2013 7:07 AM
    Mel, I read that article too, and although I am Republican born and raised I have always believed we should have some sort of basic national health care for those same reasons. Remove the responsibility from the employer so we can lower labor costs and be more competitive, and free employees to pursue careers that they have a passion for. I believe this would dramatically increase our national productivity.

    Now, whether or not ACA actually will accomplish this is an entirely other question.



View or change your forums profile here.