Obamacare Is Going To Change The Way You Work And Retire

[FarCenter]

The biggest effect of Obamacare is obvious: Starting this winter, it will make it easier for tens of millions of Americans without health insurance to get it.

But Obamacare will also lead to big changes for workers who do have health insurance and for the firms that employ them.

Workers will find it easier to change jobs, and to enter and leave the labor force at will, without worrying that doing so will cause them to lose access to health insurance.

In other words, Obamacare will tilt power in the labor market away from employers and toward employees.

This is a big deal, and it's a sleeper issue that animates the left-right fight over Obamacare even though it is rarely discussed in the open. Conservatives concerned that we are turning into a nation of "takers" see employer-provided health care as one of the few remaining forces that keeps Americans working. Liberals don't just want health coverage for all; they want workers to be able to press their employers for higher wages and better conditions, which they can more easily do if they're less afraid of losing health insurance if they lose their jobs.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-will-change-how-you-work-and-retire-2013-9

[msongs]

1. your employer will cancel health insurance plans and dump you into the exchanges but will NOT

pass any savings on to you as increased wages or other benefits.

[babylonsister]

2. And how do you know that, how can you generalize like that? Oye. nt

[oldhippie]

31. Because it makes economic sense for a company .....

.... to shed unnecessary costs? maybe?

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. It also makes economic sense to undercut competitor prices

If that's your logic. It makes economic sense to steal employees from other companies with slightly higher salaries, even if you do keep 45% of the cost savings. All those things make economic sense, so using "economic sense" to justify the predictably gloomy predictions upthread doesn't make much, well, sense.

[leftstreet]

3. ACA: built in incentives for employers to dump good coverage

Depending on the coverage, of course

Obamacare attempts to change this dynamic. Under the law, health plans that cost over $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family will have to pay an excise tax of 40 percent on every dollar that they exceed that cutoff beginning in 2018. As Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economics professor who helped design the law, explained to the New York Times, the tax is meant to reorient the way that employers approach their workers’ health problems and their associated costs. “It’s focusing employers on cost control, not slashing,” said Gruber.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/28/2064441/employers-obamacare-cut-wasteful-spending/

9: What is a “Cadillac Health Plan”?

The PPACA imposes a 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans. This new tax will apply to health plans valued in excess of $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. Those thresholds will grow annually by inflation plus 1 percent. The tax takes effect in 2018.
http://www.cpehr.com/affordable-care-act-obamacare-for-business

How Obamacare Is Encouraging Employers To Cut Wasteful Spending And Promote Workers’ Health

By Sy Mukherjee on May 28, 2013 at 4:05 pm

In an effort to cut wasteful U.S. medical spending, certain employers will be scaling back expensive health plans available to their employees and encouraging workers to pursue more preventative and ongoing primary care. The move is being prompted by Obamacare provisions that encourage a more cost-sensitive and efficient approach to Americans’ health care than the status quo.

Recently-released government data shows that Americans’ medical bills are completely random, with some hospitals charging as much as $100,000 more for the same services performed at other facilities. In turn, that drives up the costs of many private health plans, and increases companies’ spending on employer-sponsored insurance.

Obamacare attempts to change this dynamic. Under the law, health plans that cost over $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family will have to pay an excise tax of 40 percent on every dollar that they exceed that cutoff beginning in 2018. As Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economics professor who helped design the law, explained to the New York Times, the tax is meant to reorient the way that employers approach their workers’ health problems and their associated costs. “It’s focusing employers on cost control, not slashing,” said Gruber.

Companies aren’t waiting until 2018 to shift their health care models. Some are increasing their use of high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) — which charge workers low monthly premiums but high annual deductibles — in an effort to raise employees’ awareness of how much their health care consumption costs.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/28/2064441/employers-obamacare-cut-wasteful-spending/

[dkf]

6. Maybe it is designed for employers to be more active in controlling costs...

But beware the law of unintended consequences.

They tested this in Massachusetts, but what an insurance company and employers do in one state is different when you do it nationwide. Sometimes it's not worth the effort to adjust everything for just one, but I expect to see the "genius" types think up a whole lot of ideas when the entire market has been shifted.

I bet the ACA designers are going to see a lot of effects they did not anticipate.

[leftstreet]

7. The ACA should be controlling the costs

I see your point, but absent cost control at the front end, all that happens on the 'consumer' end is controlling access

[ladyVet]

30. "How Obamacare Is Encouraging Employers To Cut Wasteful Spending And Promote Workers’ Health "

This must be related to something my parents got the other day. It's a brochure from some company that says they will help folks find cheaper alternatives to things like medical tests, prescriptions, etc.

My mother was freaking out that it meant she and my father would have to give up their doctors (she had breast cancer last year, and my father has a bone marrow disease) or not get the treatment they must have to live.

I looked it up, and as far as I can tell, it's just a way for the insurance company to save money. But, there's not a lot out there, just links to other companies and some cities that are using the same service.

For me, I don't expect to see any change. I still can't afford to buy insurance, much less go to the doctor, and as far as I can tell I still won't qualify for Medicaid, so I'll be a criminal when the mandate kicks in. Awesome.

[SoCalNative]

11. Employers with 50 or more employees

aren't allowed to do that

[Jim Lane]

28. Isn't that 50 or more FULL-TIME employees?

One problem is that employers can manipulate that metric. If, currently, there are three full-time employees doing a particular portion of the work, and it can be restructured so as to be done by five part-time employees instead, then the employee count for purposes of this threshold is reduced by three. I'm under the impression that some companies that aren't far above the 50-employee threshold are already engaging in such restructuring so as to get below the threshold.

[JDPriestly]

18. If your employer does that, start looking for another job with an employer who cares about the

employees' healthcare. The way an employer handles the employees' healthcare will determine the quality of employee that employer attracts.

Thus, while in the beginning employers may try to take advantage of the new system, ultimately they may find employees leave them if they don't help on the healthcare issue.

Besides, this system makes it easier to get your own insurance with a provider you choose instead of being stuck with some carrier that your boss chose for reasons related to his bottom line.

[pnwmom]

23. They'r already free to do that in the absence of union agreements -- but with no

exchanges to send you to.

[roamer65]

25. It will become all about $$$.

I do expect a lot of companies to dump their employees out to the exchanges, BUT if they want to retain good workers they will have to increase compensation to keep them.

I know if my company dumps us and does not give a salary increase for healthcare I will bolt. If I have my own exchange-based plan, then it's gonna be all about $$$.

In Canada, people change jobs much more often because they are not hostage to employer-based health insurance. In five years, we are going to resemble Canada much more.

If you have your insurance basically guaranteed, as the ACA will do in Medicaid expansion states, then you are going to feel more comfortable flipping jobs.

[bhikkhu]

34. In the long-run, if they can no longer use health care as a form of coercion and control

that still works out for the better.

[SheilaT]

4. There are companies that are either cutting hours

or dropping their own health care, claiming "Obamacare" is to blame.

Wouldn't you think that companies would eventually realize that retaining good employees is A Good Thing, and compete to offer the best possible health care? Alas, more money in the pockets of upper management wins every time.

[notadmblnd]

8. I thought that under the ACA an employer with more than 50 employees had to provide insurance?

[FarCenter]

9. They can pay a penalty of $40,000 plus $2000 per employee after the first 50

So a 100 employee firm would pay a $140,000 penalty per year. That is cheaper than providing health insurance.

Plus, if a company's health insurance doesn't meet new ACA requirements, the company could get hit with a $3000 per employee fine.

[JDPriestly]

19. So, then the employee can choose his insurer, get a plan that is right for his family,

and maybe even get financial help from the government to pay for it. And I would encourage employees to start looking at the job market if they don't like the way their employer handles their healthcare.

If your employer doesn't cover you, then you may be eligible for a subsidy. And if you are put on part-time, use the additional time to improve your working skills and scout for another job. Maybe you can even join with some friends and start your own business. No one has to be beholden to an employer too cheap to pay for a full time job. The business of being an employee in the US is just not a good one to be in.

This is a time of great change, and it is really tough for everyone.

Good luck if your employer cuts your hours. But remember, the reason is not Obamacare. Obamacare is just an excuse. If your employer really needed extra work done, it would not lower your hours.

Fact is, the labor market is full of workers. This is the time to improve skills and use leisure to perfect skills you have.

[Art_from_Ark]

29. Starting one's own business is often a losing proposition these days

Unless the small business owner can fill a lucrative niche that has been left vacant by the Big Boys, there is a big chance that that business will fail and the business owner will end up with debt and nothing to show for it.

[bhikkhu]

35. That's been the case for decades

if you look at the how many businesses fail within the first year.

The difference is that health care will be affordable. I can say that as one who's wife runs a small business, and who considered shuttering it just for the sake of going to work for and getting health coverage from a corporate competitor. Now it won't be a part of the equation at all.

[Art_from_Ark]

36. I wonder how much health care (insurance) will actually help small businesses?

In my hometown, for example, there had been lots of mom-and-pop businesses in the downtown area that had survived for decades. But they started going kaput after Wal-Mart became the dominant retailer back in the '70s. Today, there are only three or four of the old-time businesses still around, and nearly all the new shops that open in the downtown area close their doors within a couple of years.

[soryang]

21. After Jan 1, 2015

the so called employer mandate was postponed a year, quietly by the administration a few weeks ago.

[FarCenter]

10. Benefits that are available to all employees are ineffective at retaining good employees

Companies carefully watch how many employees are leaving and what their performance ratings are.

If too many good employees are leaving, then they put more money in the raises of the good people and take it out of the raises of poor performers. They watch total compensation to make sure enough people of the right kind are leaving.

[SheilaT]

15. It's been my limited observation that that's not necessarily true.

A savvy company certainly should be doing that.

People also stay because the perceive, rightly or wrongly, that they can't get another job, or not one that pays as well. People also stay for health care because of the 'pre-existing condition' crap. It's going to be very interesting to see how that plays out over the next few years.

[oldhippie]

33. The problem with that approach .....

Wouldn't you think that companies would eventually realize that retaining good employees is A Good Thing, and compete to offer the best possible health care?

... is that a lot of companies are capable of running perfectly well and make a nice profit using only mediocre or even poor employees, as long as they are cheap and plentiful. High turnover is not a problem with some businesses.

[Hoyt]

5. This is good. More of us will be working for multiple employers/clients, even at the same time.

The days of working for same employer for years are over. And, more and more people will be working in a consulting capacity where we work less than full-time for several clients at a time. Obamacare will help us maintain health coverage.

[Scurrilous]

12. K & R

[pampango]

13. Latest Pew poll shows republicans (particularly tea partiers) think the change will be for the worse

http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/16/as-health-care-law-proceeds-opposition-and-uncertainty-persist/

[SheilaT]

16. I'm one of those for whom personally the ACA makes no difference.

I work for a company with good benefits. I'm extremely healthy. I just turned 65, so I now have Medicare Part A. I'll figure out Part B someday when I stop working.

Meanwhile, I'm hoping this is the first step in what will eventually become Medicare For All, no matter what they call it.

[hunter]

14. Having been bit hard by a COBRA once...

... I think this will be a great improvement.

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. K&R n/t

[Chaco Dundee]

20. that is so far fetched

The employee is not going to change companys on a whim.if he has health insurance regardless,he will only change jobs if there is an incentive.countrys like those of europe proved and understood that.its the employer the very man who insists on free markets and vulture capitalism who drives his employees to change jobs to a company which apreciates his efforts instead of exployting them.

[SHRED]

22. It's allowing me to retire

[pnwmom]

24. One of our young relatives turned down a promising job with a start-up

because the insurance coverage was so poor (only 50% of hospital costs) and they were planning on starting a family. He took a job at a larger company instead.

The ACA will free people to choose the best jobs, as opposed to the ones with the best insurance.

[NoOneMan]

26. This is how people feel in Canada

Its made being a business owner with a family a possibility.

But make no mistake, its not what you'll be getting in the states. Pretty article though

[Cha]

27. thanks FarCenter