Republicans want to end your employer-provided health care

[Ohiogal]

This is no joke! While we're all preoccupied on the shithole thing, look what those sneaky bastards are trying to sign into law!

I can't believe it....

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/14/us/politics/employer-mandate.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[brush]

1. And just after they gutted the ACA. They are heartless and their supporters will suffer along with..

the rest of us.

[Ms. Toad]

6. The employer mandate is part of the ACA

(so it is not AFTER gutting the ACA; they are still trying to gut the ACA)

[brush]

7. They've already done a lot of damage to the ACA, premiums have risen, insurers have pulled out.

[Ms. Toad]

10. I was just pointing out that the the employer mandate is also part of the ACA.

In other words, this it not doing something else AFTER mucking withe the ACA; they are still mucking with the ACA.

It is not a trivial distinction, because most people think repealing the ACA would not impact people receiving coverage through work - when, in fact, most people covered under the ACA are covered through work plans that (1) have to meet ACA standards and (2) are mandatory.

[Igel]

11. To reduce panic,

it's also worth pointing out that a lot of people already had employer-based health insurance before the ACA. And will continue to have it if the mandate's revoked.

I have no sense as to how many employers instituted health insurance as a result of the ACA. I remember lots of projections but few hard numbers; same for how many employers that offered insurance rescinded it.

[Ms. Toad]

16. There are a lot of low-wage-level jobs that did not offer ACA compliant coverage

My daughter, for example, earns about $13,000/year. Her billed medical care is $60-$100,000 every year. Most low-wage companies didn't provide coverage pre-ACA that would permit someone making $13,000/year to have access to health care to cover needs like my daughter's - and people with needs like my daughter's often can't manage the kind of job that would provide coverage (pre-ACA) that would cover her medical care.

My daughter is still trying, after a decade, to earn a college degree - specifically because of her medical condition. Until she earns a degree, she will be stuck with a job that - absent the mandate both to provide coverage AND to make that coverage ACA compliant - won't meet her medical needs.

So, while I agree, that a lot of people had employer-based health insurance before, the ACA provided full employer coverage for a population that didn't have adequate access before.

So I disagree with your implied assessment that there is less reason to be concerned about this particular attack.

[standingtall]

12. This will do more damage to the ACA than anything they have done so far

Far more people got their insurance through their employers as part of the ACA than they did the individual market.

[brush]

14. Yes, that's what I was getting at.

All but eliminating the ACA and employer-provided health insurance means only the rich will have health insurance (and of course their employees in the legislature).

[Fullduplexxx]

2. Of course, we elected monsters . Ths is what they do

[m3n0z]

3. Isn't that what single payor supposed to do

Seems to me that paying premiums pretax out of your weekly pay check and having to pay thouands out of pocket before the insurer pays anything , hardly qualifies as provided healthcare coverage.

[Igel]

13. Programs vary.

I pay premiums pre-tax. I have copays. My insurance pays the first $1000 then there's a donut hole. That's employee-side costs.

To help with the donut hole or the copays, my employer chucks some money into an FSA account. Not a great deal, but most years between insurance and the FSA account I have no out-of-pocket costs after premiums.

However, the employer also chucks a bucket of money into the insurance program to help keep the premiums down; this is in addition to negotiating the rates and benefits. During the '00s salaries were flat but compensation increased a lot for a lot of employees because of this kind of thing. Instead of paying you an extra $2k, they'd put that towards your insurance; and they wouldn't list it as income because then it was certainly non-taxable but also because it wasn't part of your base pay for future increases or subject to serious threats of litigation if it were reduced. It's why the news was always that salaries hadn't increased; compensation did during the '00s for most skilled or white-collar workers and it's where all the 'wage increases' that were expected went. It's also why the "wage level hasn't really increased since 1975" always needs a footnote. While wages have barely budged, I really have no idea of compensation's increased or decreased, and by how much.

And now I'm wondering if all the "wages haven't increased during the recovery, and it's a mystery" talk isn't partly due, at least, to the cash's showing up elsewhere in the compensation or overhead for employees.

[CrispyQ]

4. They will go after the tax credits next, claiming the govt can't afford them.

snip...

Such a move could also increase costs for the federal government. Even though Congress has eliminated the penalties for people who go without insurance, millions of consumers are still eligible for financial aid in the form of tax credits to help them pay insurance premiums. These subsidies increase with the rapidly rising cost of insurance. If fewer people receive coverage from employers, more will qualify for subsidized coverage in the public marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act.

[m3n0z]

5. In response to the article...

Trump draws fire to create a path for his agenda. 2018 is here and if the people, party and media keep targeting his personality , the midterm blue wave could become a swirling exudos.

Likewise, on the republican side.

[lpbk2713]

8. Another law written up by the megacorps.

They prepare it and send it to their pet politico
for rubber stamping along with a sizeable check.

[smirkymonkey]

9. I am seeing guillotines in their future.

This will not go over well.

[Hortensis]

15. Of course????!!! Anti-TAX, anti-REGULATION, anti-LABOR

RIGHTS. NO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROFITEERING.

Healthcare costs started taking increasingly large bites out of profits a long time ago and have been increasing ever since. The ultimate separation of most healthcare from employment is inevitable, with only high-level employees offered this benefit.

But a good thing.

Just not the way the greedy dark-money extremists are conspiring for. All insurance private, purchased by those who can afford to at market prices, whether singly or in private group plans. And nothing for those who can't.

NO government programs.

Get it? They probably won't get near it before we stop them, but that is their plan.