It's an annual penalty.
Obamacare
- Thread starter vantexan
- Start date
It's an annual penalty.
STFXG
Well-Known Member
Haha that's what I thought. Reading this thread got me confused.
If anything your deductibles will just go up to keep from paying the exchange penalty. I doubt they will drop your benefits plan. They will want to retain a few decent drivers and the cost of benefits with future lower wages is cheaper than paying a higher salary an offering no benefits. I just wouldn't plan on keeping the great benefits you have all come to expect
If anything your deductibles will just go up to keep from paying the exchange penalty. I doubt they will drop your benefits plan. They will want to retain a few decent drivers and the cost of benefits with future lower wages is cheaper than paying a higher salary an offering no benefits. I just wouldn't plan on keeping the great benefits you have all come to expect
My numbers are wrong. If it's 9.5% of income max and I gross $36k then it would be a little over $3400, not $4200. But still pretty bad.
STFXG
Well-Known Member
With cutting hours and targeting a younger work force the cost of insurance will also decrease. The company will not have to pay for the cost of family and dependent health insurance.
The cost of training and employee retention is less than the difference between the penalty and the group health cost. By paying less in salary and offering a less attractive health care plan the company will be able to keep unskilled employees in those positions. Add in the tax deductions for offering benefits and it doesn't make sense to drop benefits all together.
We've pretty much settled that FedEx is self insured and pays the bills. So it most likely will save them serious money to just dump it.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
To the poster who said that UPS provides 100% coverage---this is not entirely true. It depends upon whether you are covered by the UPS Health Paln or by a Union Health Plan. Here in Upstate NY we are covered by the Teamsters Health Plan which is administered through BC/BS. We have co-pays and an annual deductible with no premium.
That was me and yes we had all that too. But have a heart attack and you weren't responsible for 10-30% of it.
Are you a republican or suicidal?
j/kRicochet1a
Well-Known Member
The way the "Affordable Care Act...." is set up, it provides INCENTIVES for employers to just up and stop providing health insurance for its employees - and to accept the "annual penalties". It is CHEAPER to pay the penalties than to offer actual insurance coverage.
The whole unstated (but well known) design of the Act, was to gradually push employers to STOP providing their own insurance, have them pay the "penalty" (health care tax) and have their employees forced into one of the government administrated "exchanges". The goal was to gradually have most Americans placed into these "exchanges", therefore providing a stealth method of establishing a de facto single payer heath care system (analogous to the British NHS or the Canadian system).
From the Canadian Health Care site Canadian Health Care
"Canada's health care system is a group of socialized health insurance plans that provides coverage to all Canadian citizens . It is publically funded and administered on a provincial or territorial basis, within guidelines set by the federal government."
Replace Canadian with American and "provincial or territorial" with state - and you have a valid description of the Affordable Care Act - aka Obamacare.
The whole unstated (but well known) design of the Act, was to gradually push employers to STOP providing their own insurance, have them pay the "penalty" (health care tax) and have their employees forced into one of the government administrated "exchanges". The goal was to gradually have most Americans placed into these "exchanges", therefore providing a stealth method of establishing a de facto single payer heath care system (analogous to the British NHS or the Canadian system).
From the Canadian Health Care site Canadian Health Care
"Canada's health care system is a group of socialized health insurance plans that provides coverage to all Canadian citizens . It is publically funded and administered on a provincial or territorial basis, within guidelines set by the federal government."
Replace Canadian with American and "provincial or territorial" with state - and you have a valid description of the Affordable Care Act - aka Obamacare.
Ricochet1a
Well-Known Member
Obamacare had the INTENDED side effect of establishing penalties to employers who DON'T provide coverage that meets the minimum requirements of the act - which were LOWER than the cost to actually provide the insurance on their own.
When "penalties" are assessed (normally), the intent is to provide a dis-incentive for the behavior being penalized.
Not with Obamacare. The penalties are LOWER than the cost to provide coverage that meets the requirements. So business has an incentive to NOT purchase health care coverage, and merely pay the "penalty" (health tax by any other name), and let the government worry about providing health care.
Now, employers who have a need to provide top notch health benefits to attract and maintain a qualified workforce can and will maintain to provide their own coverage. Nothing in the legislation prevents that.
Employers who DIDN'T offer any sort of health care coverage - will now be assessed the cost of the annual penalty for each employee they have that meets certain criteria (hours worked). They won't decide to provide health coverage, they'll just pay the "tax" and let the government have at it.
And I believe this is a major contributor to the economy still lagging after 4 years - when traditionally most recessions only last about 2 years and a return to "normalcy" occurs. The anticipation of this "employment head tax" has inhibited hiring of employees - especially by small business, the traditional "engine" of growth out of a recession.
The businesses that will be most adversely affected by Obamacare are small businesses. They traditionally have had a difficult time offering health insurance coverage to their employees (they aren't large enough to get the volume discounts on capitation rates offered to large corporations). And don't have the revenue stream to be able to absorb the higher cost of providing coverage to all of their employees without seriously impacting profitability (and business viability).
It is the businesses that are "in the middle", that Obamacare will potentially affect the greatest. These businesses are looking at health care costs that are increasing ABOVE the rate of inflation - and placing an ever increasing burden on the viability of the company. These businesses will be sorely tempted to just "throw in the towel", pay the health care head tax and get out of providing health care for their wage employees....
This is where I see FedEx potentially going in the future. They'll offer their own health care package to the salaried employees - but the wage employees will be forced into the exchanges (FedEx would rather pay the "tax" than continue to worry about escalating costs of providing coverage to their "hired help").
Just as companies are looking at a "two-tiered" approach to compensation (UPS is about to go down that path), I believe that the US health care market will do the same - a two tiered approach. One tier will have coverage for all conditions (and cost upwards of $15-20k a year to provide per family), and the other tier will mirror the British NHS, with long waits for essentially rationed procedures, production line care and "socialized" outcomes. For those who don't have health care now - this will be a "winner". For those that can afford to purchase their own insurance (or who are valuable enough to their employer for it to be provided as part of their benefit package), they will merely pay a few thousand a year extra to maintain what they have now.
For those who have experienced the "joys" of health care as provided by the US Armed Forces (I've experienced this as both a member of the Armed Forces and as a dependent back when care wasn't "outsourced" to civilian providers), I can tell you, I DON'T want my care to be turned into what I saw and experienced. I remember VIVIDLY waiting for HOURS with a broken arm in a military hospital, waiting to be seen, then waiting for the specialist to arrive, then finally having my arm set after about 5 hours. In a civilian (current health care system), that would've NEVER HAPPENED.
It is those in the middle, which stand to lose in this whole deal. They will be shifted out of what is currently the "top tier" (those with insurance provided by their employer), and into the governmental "exchanges" - which will be a public heath system in all but name.
There is a better way of providing some form of heath care to those who can't afford it - while preserving the quality of care for those who currently possess it. Given the tendency of corporate America to shave some extra profit where ever they can manage - providing an "easy out" for corporations ISN'T the correct solution.
This is why I sincerely hope that Obamacare will be repealed and thrown into the scrap heap, and talks begin on a way to seriously control the explosive growth of health care costs (tort reform, standardization of billing, establishment of PUBLICALLY disclosed rate schedules for providers, ending of the game of "in-network, out-of-network", ending of cost shifting done to artifically accomodate those who don't have insurance, and a host of other needed changes). Each political party has their terf and ideology they are trying to protect - which needs to be placed aside for the benefit of all. I don't see this happening, but I also don't want to start down the road of socialized health care while Americans realize that they are the ones losing in the debate.
Given that the Couriers of Express haven't realized (as a group) that they are getting shafted - I hold out little hope for Americans to realize they are getting shafted should Obamacare get too much traction. Once an entitlement program gets established, ending it is next to impossible.
When "penalties" are assessed (normally), the intent is to provide a dis-incentive for the behavior being penalized.
Not with Obamacare. The penalties are LOWER than the cost to provide coverage that meets the requirements. So business has an incentive to NOT purchase health care coverage, and merely pay the "penalty" (health tax by any other name), and let the government worry about providing health care.
Now, employers who have a need to provide top notch health benefits to attract and maintain a qualified workforce can and will maintain to provide their own coverage. Nothing in the legislation prevents that.
Employers who DIDN'T offer any sort of health care coverage - will now be assessed the cost of the annual penalty for each employee they have that meets certain criteria (hours worked). They won't decide to provide health coverage, they'll just pay the "tax" and let the government have at it.
And I believe this is a major contributor to the economy still lagging after 4 years - when traditionally most recessions only last about 2 years and a return to "normalcy" occurs. The anticipation of this "employment head tax" has inhibited hiring of employees - especially by small business, the traditional "engine" of growth out of a recession.
The businesses that will be most adversely affected by Obamacare are small businesses. They traditionally have had a difficult time offering health insurance coverage to their employees (they aren't large enough to get the volume discounts on capitation rates offered to large corporations). And don't have the revenue stream to be able to absorb the higher cost of providing coverage to all of their employees without seriously impacting profitability (and business viability).
It is the businesses that are "in the middle", that Obamacare will potentially affect the greatest. These businesses are looking at health care costs that are increasing ABOVE the rate of inflation - and placing an ever increasing burden on the viability of the company. These businesses will be sorely tempted to just "throw in the towel", pay the health care head tax and get out of providing health care for their wage employees....
This is where I see FedEx potentially going in the future. They'll offer their own health care package to the salaried employees - but the wage employees will be forced into the exchanges (FedEx would rather pay the "tax" than continue to worry about escalating costs of providing coverage to their "hired help").
Just as companies are looking at a "two-tiered" approach to compensation (UPS is about to go down that path), I believe that the US health care market will do the same - a two tiered approach. One tier will have coverage for all conditions (and cost upwards of $15-20k a year to provide per family), and the other tier will mirror the British NHS, with long waits for essentially rationed procedures, production line care and "socialized" outcomes. For those who don't have health care now - this will be a "winner". For those that can afford to purchase their own insurance (or who are valuable enough to their employer for it to be provided as part of their benefit package), they will merely pay a few thousand a year extra to maintain what they have now.
For those who have experienced the "joys" of health care as provided by the US Armed Forces (I've experienced this as both a member of the Armed Forces and as a dependent back when care wasn't "outsourced" to civilian providers), I can tell you, I DON'T want my care to be turned into what I saw and experienced. I remember VIVIDLY waiting for HOURS with a broken arm in a military hospital, waiting to be seen, then waiting for the specialist to arrive, then finally having my arm set after about 5 hours. In a civilian (current health care system), that would've NEVER HAPPENED.
It is those in the middle, which stand to lose in this whole deal. They will be shifted out of what is currently the "top tier" (those with insurance provided by their employer), and into the governmental "exchanges" - which will be a public heath system in all but name.
There is a better way of providing some form of heath care to those who can't afford it - while preserving the quality of care for those who currently possess it. Given the tendency of corporate America to shave some extra profit where ever they can manage - providing an "easy out" for corporations ISN'T the correct solution.
This is why I sincerely hope that Obamacare will be repealed and thrown into the scrap heap, and talks begin on a way to seriously control the explosive growth of health care costs (tort reform, standardization of billing, establishment of PUBLICALLY disclosed rate schedules for providers, ending of the game of "in-network, out-of-network", ending of cost shifting done to artifically accomodate those who don't have insurance, and a host of other needed changes). Each political party has their terf and ideology they are trying to protect - which needs to be placed aside for the benefit of all. I don't see this happening, but I also don't want to start down the road of socialized health care while Americans realize that they are the ones losing in the debate.
Given that the Couriers of Express haven't realized (as a group) that they are getting shafted - I hold out little hope for Americans to realize they are getting shafted should Obamacare get too much traction. Once an entitlement program gets established, ending it is next to impossible.
Mr Fedex
Banned
I agree.Health Care should be mandatory for ALL.If you don't have it,you need to pay a penalty.Its in the constitution i think.Why cant we have free Health Care? Canada has it and from what i hear its awesome.
So the gov't will pay more for my insurance than they collect from me in income tax? Yep, no problem there, LOL!!
Mr Fedex
Banned
Rich people will pay the difference. Or am I missing something?
If a company in the near future can drop health insurance and pay a penalty that is less then the cost of insurance.... Then why haven't they dropped insurance already and not have to pay any penalty? There has been more incentive historically for them to have already dropped health care without penalty. What am I missing? The reason they would or wouldn't drop health care is based on the market and if big companies started dropping health care, then yes Fedex could very well follow suit, to me they seem like a follower of the corporate environment. Perhaps the new health care plan see's that coming and at least is putting up a speed bump in doing so.
Oh, you are missing something...
They can drop it because Obamacare will either cover those who are too poor to buy insurance or force individuals who can afford it to get it on their own or pay a penalty. Corporations were offering it to stay competitive for workers but now they can all just put the responsibility on the employee.
And why shouldn't it be on the individual? For a long time it seems people have expected businesses to pay that. Why?
Market. That is what you get when you have very low unemployment, you have companies competing for your services and they give you incentives, like a wage. Why should a company offer more then min wage? Health should be at the gov't to be honest, everyone else has this figured out but us. Your citizens should be covered, we are talking lives here.
