Obamacare/ACA Megathread

[Masark]

That doesn't mean people won't modify their with holdings to skirt the penalty. IMO, people are stupid for giving the government an interest free loan, but, that's just me.

They already can't be bothered to get it right rather than give the government a free loan.

I personally find it weird your government gets away without paying interest. The CRA gives you 4% APR compounded monthly on overremittances. It's a better rate than CSBs or my savings account.

[Laize]

You say that like tax refunds are a rare thing. About 54% of people get a refund.

TIL 54% of people are stupid enough to claim 0 exemptions on their W-2.

[Masark]

Then they're doing it wrong.

I don't dispute that. I'm just saying that's the fact of the matter.

[Felya]

I'm aware doctors aren't scary. I certainly don't fucking enjoy getting stabbed with needles and getting fingers shoved up my ass, though.

"Scary" is a completely different animal from "the subject of rancor because due to ass-pokeage".

Scary is all in your mind. I hate needles, but donated platelets, when they used one needle for draw and one for return. For over an hour...

[Rukentuts]

Then they're doing it wrong.

If you can predict how much student loan interest I'll pay during FY2013 in advance I would have appreciated it.

[Tinykong]

If you can predict how much student loan interest I'll pay during FY2013 in advance I would have appreciated it.

Too much. /10chars

[Felya]

TIL 54% of people are stupid enough to claim 0 exemptions on their W-2.

Or because their 1040, resulted in a higher tax credit, than was owed as a result of 0 on W-2.

[Rukentuts]

Too much. /10chars

A financial planner would probably agree with you, given my interest rates, probably.

I just hate debt.

[Tinykong]

A financial planner would probably agree with you, given my interest rates, probably.

I just hate debt.

Hopefully you weren't part of the 2007 Bait and Switch.

[Laize]

If you can predict how much student loan interest I'll pay during FY2013 in advance I would have appreciated it.

What are your terms? How much principal is left and what's your current interest?

- - - Updated - - -

Scary is all in your mind. I hate needles, but donated platelets, when they used one needle for draw and one for return. For over an hour...

I had to get injections twice a week for over a year including a bone marrow aspiration.

Im not afraid of needles but im certainly not going to line up to get one.

[Endus]

What about this is inaccurate?

Had insurance through employer before ACA. ACA rolls out, employer cancels plan. Buys plan from marketplace, costs more than before. Because of the ACA, their costs went up.

The part in bold is where the issue lies.

The reason their effective costs went is due to that pay cut. And yes, losing your employer-covered health care is a pay cut. If they had converted that cost into a direct pay raise to their employees, to maintain their level of compensation, then it would likely more than cover the difference in the health plan.

If your employer paid 80% of a $500/month plan, you out-of-pocket cost was $100/mo. But your actual cost was $500/mo. You just didn't see that extra $400, before, because it was taken out of your pay before you ever received it. If you now have a health care plan costing you $250/month, your health care costs half as much as it used to. If that's all coming out of your pocket because your employer cancelled your health care, then the issue is that you took a $400/mo pay cut. Alternatively, if you're earning $400/mo more because they put that back in your paycheck, you're netting an extra $250/month compared to pre-ACA times.

[Tinykong]

The part in bold is where the issue lies.

The reason their effective costs went is due to that pay cut. And yes, losing your employer-covered health care is a pay cut. If they had converted that cost into a direct pay raise to their employees, to maintain their level of compensation, then it would likely more than cover the difference in the health plan.

If your employer paid 80% of a $500/month plan, you out-of-pocket cost was $100/mo. But your actual cost was $500/mo. You just didn't see that extra $400, before, because it was taken out of your pay before you ever received it. If you now have a health care plan costing you $250/month, your health care costs half as much as it used to. If that's all coming out of your pocket because your employer cancelled your health care, then the issue is that you took a $400/mo pay cut. Alternatively, if you're earning $400/mo more because they put that back in your paycheck, you're netting an extra $250/month compared to pre-ACA times.

A $400 a month pay cut because of the ACA. None of this changes that all of this occurred because of the ACA.

[Endus]

A $400 a month pay cut because of the ACA. None of this changes that all of this occurred because of the ACA.

No. This is totally and completely false.

Even if your employer was forced to cancel your plan, there is nothing about the ACA preventing them from providing you that portion of your compensation as direct pay. If they choose not to, they are choosing to cut your pay, and it has nothing to do with the ACA.

The ACA in no way controls what a company pays its employees. That's ridiculous.

[Tinykong]

The ACA in no way controls what a company pays its employees. That's ridiculous.

That's not what I said. It has indirectly caused some employers cancel their plans, which resulted in an out of pocket increase to some people. Are you seriously arguing that the ACA isn't indirectly responsible simply because the legislation didn't directly cancel these plans?

[Laize]

No. This is totally and completely false.

Even if your employer was forced to cancel your plan, there is nothing about the ACA preventing them from providing you that portion of your compensation as direct pay. If they choose not to, they are choosing to cut your pay, and it has nothing to do with the ACA.

The ACA in no way controls what a company pays its employees. That's ridiculous.

I might be a bit fuzzy on this... but don't companies pay surcharges if they don't offer health plans now?

[Naxere]

I might be a bit fuzzy on this... but don't companies pay surcharges if they don't offer health plans now?

Think it's a $2000 per employee fine.

[Laize]

Think it's a $2000 per employee fine.

Yeah... there's where your $400/month went.

[Endus]

That's not what I said. It has indirectly caused some employers cancel their plans, which resulted in an out of pocket increase to some people. Are you seriously arguing that the ACA isn't indirectly responsible simply because the legislation didn't directly cancel these plans?

If it's indirectly causing them to cancel plans, then it isn't really at fault to begin with.

Even if the ACA were directly responsible for cancelling the plans, the employer still retains full and complete responsibility for how they compensate their employees. If they are no longer providing a health care plan, unless you got a raise in direct pay commensurate with however much they had been spending on the health care beforehand, you took a pay cut. And the ACA has no share of that responsibility. Not a shred. Not one iota. That's all the corporation, screwing over its employees, and hoping that they, like you, won't notice the pay cut for what it is.

I might be a bit fuzzy on this... but don't companies pay surcharges if they don't offer health plans now?

Yeah... there's where your $400/month went.

I'm assuming that's $2000/year, since $2000/month would mean they'd jump at the chance to offer anything.

At $2000/year, if they were paying $400/month beforehand, they're saving $2800 per year, per employee, just by cancelling health care coverage and paying the fine.

The point of all this is; compare the actual values. What the total value of your health insurance was, pre-ACA, when you consider both yours and your employer's contributions (including any price benefit for group coverage). And what your total compensation is, now and pre-ACA, when you again consider your employer's contribution to your health care plan.

If you aren't factoring in your employer's contribution to those costs in your pre-ACA evaluation, you're making a deliberately false comparison to plans under the ACA that you're covering by yourself.

[Laize]

If it's indirectly causing them to cancel plans, then it isn't really at fault to begin with.

Even if the ACA were directly responsible for cancelling the plans, the employer still retains full and complete responsibility for how they compensate their employees. If they are no longer providing a health care plan, unless you got a raise in direct pay commensurate with however much they had been spending on the health care beforehand, you took a pay cut. And the ACA has no share of that responsibility. Not a shred. Not one iota. That's all the corporation, screwing over its employees, and hoping that they, like you, won't notice the pay cut for what it is.




I'm assuming that's $2000/year, since $2000/month would mean they'd jump at the chance to offer anything.

At $2000/year, if they were paying $400/month beforehand, they're saving $2800 per year, per employee, just by cancelling health care coverage and paying the fine.

The point of all this is; compare the actual values. What the total value of your health insurance was, pre-ACA, when you consider both yours and your employer's contributions (including any price benefit for group coverage). And what your total compensation is, now and pre-ACA, when you again consider your employer's contribution to your health care plan.

If you aren't factoring in your employer's contribution to those costs in your pre-ACA evaluation, you're making a deliberately false comparison to plans under the ACA that you're covering by yourself.

I've never denied or even tried to deny that health insurance was a part of an employee's overall benefits package/compensation.

I'm just saying it's equally disingenuous to claim that the employee is getting shortchanged an extra $400/month when the reality is about $167 of that went to paying the fine levied at the company.

So now the company is saving $233/mo per employee. By not providing health care.

I'd go to my employer and smack him in the face with those numbers and say I want my money. Then I'd point out that it's cheaper to give me what I want than to have all of his employees demanding the same.

[Felya]

I'd go to my employer and smack him in the face with those numbers and say I want my money. Then I'd point out that it's cheaper to give me what I want than to have all of his employees demanding the same.

That's the benefit of unions. Otherwise, you demanding something, doesn't really effect their bottom line. I'm sure your employer won't mind you quitting, to get someone for the same rate you make, without the expectation of coverage.

The above runs the assumption that your employers doesn't realize the savings. Instead of understanding that short of quitting, you have no leverage to get that money. I wouldn't assume your employer is too ignorant to calculate the savings.