Skip to main content

View Diary: You may want your Employer to Drop Subsidizing your Insurance (76 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You are wrong in writing, diarist does not support (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kareylou

    ACA.  I do support it, and when I see errors in it, I want them fixed before they damage ACA or the people's trust in Democrats.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 02:47:16 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Don't know why you posted this myth then. (0+ / 0-)

      You should retract right away now that you know it doesn't stand up to a smell test.  

      We are all in this together.

      by htowngenie on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 03:11:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are wrong that this is myth. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peregrine kate

        If you believe employers will routinely subsidize employee health insurance at the rate of $2400/yr (and lowering their profits) knowing that their employee's family will be worse off by $6,000/yr then you will believe this is a myth.  But people with experience in the real world immediately understand this is not what will happen, except for the few less bright business people taking time to understand this.

        I have experience in having health insurance programs setup at several companies and how company subsidies work.

        The mathematics of ACA combined with how employee subsidized healthcare frequently works brings this problem.

        Democrats are going to take a political beating on this issue, and getting hurt in the 2014 elections unless they are seen as being proactive in fixing this problem.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 03:32:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  HR'd for plagerism. (0+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Hidden by:
          nextstep

          Like I said, this hypothetical family is $1500 the better for having ACA.  But considering you plagerized the original article almost entirely and can't explain your support of this story adequately even with a background in insurance is very telling.  I have a summa cum laude degree in finance and 30 years in corporate banking.  I'm not not your average low information reader.  Your explanation and excuses don't fly with me.

          We are all in this together.

          by htowngenie on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 03:54:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You both need to pull the HRs. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nextstep, kareylou

            As both of you are abusing their intent. First, htowngenie, your charge of plagiarism is unfounded. I reviewed his source article myself and he does a good job of paraphrasing what's being said, but certainly does not plagiarize (and after all my years of teaching, I can assure you I know what plagiarism is.) Your HR for this is incorrect and should be removed. If you want to argue that he doesn't actually understand what he's saying, fine, but that's a difference of opinion and not HR worthy under any circumstances.

            On the other side of this, nextstep, you also need to remove your HR for two reasons. First, it's very poor form to HR someone in your own diary, a mistake I made in the past when less familiar with the community standards on this kind of thing. Second, this is a retaliatory HR, which is also frowned upon to put it mildly.

            Since we just had the comment system updated, this is not a good time to be throwing around HRs just because you have a serious disagreement. Let's clean this up and just argue your points as forcefully as you think necessary, okay?

            Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. Sun Tzu The Art of War

            by Stwriley on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 07:53:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  You don't make a case to argue this a myth (0+ / 0-)

        other than repeating the word myth.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 04:08:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you have an actual case of this happening? n/t (0+ / 0-)

          We are all in this together.

          by htowngenie on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 06:14:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Several people have already commented to the diary (0+ / 0-)

            saying that is the case for them.

            In three of the Silicon Valley tech firms I where I am on an advisory board, this would occur in all these companies. Other companies in the area have similar policies as the three companies were following local norms.

            If you think through the math of this, this issue occurs whenever both of the following occur:

            • an employer provides an employee, with a family, a subsidy that puts the employee under the "affordable" ACA designation so the family is no longer eligible for government subsidy - this will be common for middle class families with employer subsidies as subsidies are provided to households with annual income up to $94,000.
            • cost of employee plus family  insurance less employer subsidy is greater than the cost of company employee insurance plus family insurance through the exchange less otherwise government subsidies.  Unless only very expensive insurance is available through the exchange, this will be common as well.

            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

            by nextstep on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 07:19:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Every case explained here in the comments has (0+ / 0-)

              NOT been to an exchange to see the ramifications on them personally.  They are worried about what it MIGHT do.  Your diary did them harm by adding to their worries.

              What I want to see evidence of is an actual middle class family who tried to get insurance on the exchange and was presented with a situation where they were harmed by ACA - rather they were compelled to spend more than what was available to them before passage.  Until you can come up with one, this diary is a scare tactic that is harmful to people and the ACA.  Like I said before, I think you should delete it.  

              We are all in this together.

              by htowngenie on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 07:33:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You should read up on how "Affordable" (0+ / 0-)

                insurance from employers impacts employee family access to government subsidies.  You may understand the issue then.  Right now you simply refuse to understand and mistakenly believe you are defending ACA.

                The management of companies already see this issue.

                As I wrote in the diary.  The issue will be big once the exchanges are up and running and people can go to them in volume.

                I am an associate at an economic policy institute at a top 5 university.  To me, the impact of what will happen is obvious, others will need to see Democrats take major political damage before they recognize this. Based upon your comments, you need to see the damage first.

                The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                by nextstep on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 08:40:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well if you are all that, (0+ / 0-)

                  how come you didn't write your own diary?  And back it up with a scenario that actually made sense, ie, a middle class family hurt by Obamacare.  Because that is what the thesis of the other article was...that the middle class would suffer unintended consequences.  But, the case was weak.  All I'm asking for is a scenario that explains the collateral damage you claim or and actual instance of it happening.  

                  It seems to be me you are coming at this from a business standpoint with a veiled threat that businesses will quit offering subsidies to their employees because of ACA or will do away with health insurance as a benefit.  As I said before, fine by me, healthcare should not be tied to employment, the sooner we get rid of it the better.  

                  In the meantime, where is that middle class family that is going to be hurt by Obamacare?

                  We are all in this together.

                  by htowngenie on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 09:17:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Absolute nonsense (0+ / 0-)

                Is the diarist misinterpreting the law? If so, please tell us in what way.

                We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

                by denise b on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 12:21:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Based on what I have read (0+ / 0-)

            I think this situation can definitely arise. Whether it has happened yet or not is irrelevant.  What exactly is incorrect in the analysis?

            We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

            by denise b on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 12:17:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site