Dunlapian

Dunlap, TN

#73565 Mar 23, 2013
The Original Amused wrote:
Actual political posts, what a pleasant morning surprise.
Knock on wood, I hope it stays that way!
Overtaxed

Thorn Hill, TN

#73566 Mar 23, 2013
Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
My accountant and my insurance broker both say it actually helps those businesses with less than 25 employees. However, they both said it hurts businesses of my size. That is just my luck :)
Thanks for all your info!
I hate that "Pete"...it is small business which has taken the brunt of the economic downturn as the multi-nationals have raked in record profits and it is small business that provides Americans with most of the jobs in this country. It is a testament to their owner's business saavy that ANY still exist. I will be glad to contact my Congressman and our Senators and include my support for changes to the law to protect small businessmen like you, when we know which provisions will adversely affect you. Please let me know...as I have friends who employ people in numbers such as you. I know they will be willing to join that effort. This law should not harm those who hire American Workers and try to do the right thing by providing them with health insurance.
Timbuk2

Boca Raton, FL

#73567 Mar 23, 2013
Unreal wrote:
<quoted text>
It was the first I had heard about the 9.5% rule, and I did find it hard to believe. I also thought it gave them bigger problems than how to eliminate benefits for the PT and PRN employees. It will still be interesting to see what their policy will look like at the end of the year. Since I am accustomed to paying the premiums for family coverage out of pocket anyway, hopefully I will find more flexibility and a policy better suited to our needs. Thanks.
The law says employers must provide "affordable" insurance, and they can ask that workers chip in to pay for it, however, the worker contribution cannot be more than 9.5% of HOUSEHOLD income.

Got that? You will have to tell your employer what your spouse or significant other makes, your teenage kid makes, your alcoholic brother in law gets in unemployment benefits, and in the case of 4 single people sharing an apartment, what everyone else makes.

If you want to screw up a good idea, just let the gumuint think it up.

What business is going to be able to keep track of all this information? For over 50 employees, it'll be a full time job. Who will lose their job to pay for this new employee or in the case of a large company, an entire department?

In addition, if the company screws up in it's record keeping, or you lie about your "household" income, the fine is $3000.

Plus, 9.5% may be affordable to a middle management person, but it may be unsustainable for the warehouse clerk.

Welcome to the new world of part time jobs.
Timbuk2

Boca Raton, FL

#73568 Mar 23, 2013
Overtaxed wrote:
<quoted text> I hate that "Pete"...it is small business which has taken the brunt of the economic downturn as the multi-nationals have raked in record profits and it is small business that provides Americans with most of the jobs in this country. It is a testament to their owner's business saavy that ANY still exist. I will be glad to contact my Congressman and our Senators and include my support for changes to the law to protect small businessmen like you, when we know which provisions will adversely affect you. Please let me know...as I have friends who employ people in numbers such as you. I know they will be willing to join that effort. This law should not harm those who hire American Workers and try to do the right thing by providing them with health insurance.
There's a fellow who owns a small business that makes wooden crates at eleven facilities in Texas, OK, Miss, TN, GA, FL, and VA. Only half of his current employees get insurance at work.

Under the new law, he will have to enroll them, find out how much their husbands and wives make, and set the employee contribution at a level deemed "affordable". He says this will be an administrative nightmare.

His other option is to stop insuring everyone, and pay the $2000 per employee fine, which will be about $1million per year.

That exceeds his current profit.
Overtaxed

Thorn Hill, TN

#73569 Mar 23, 2013
Timbuk2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The law says employers must provide "affordable" insurance, and they can ask that workers chip in to pay for it, however, the worker contribution cannot be more than 9.5% of HOUSEHOLD income.
Got that? You will have to tell your employer what your spouse or significant other makes, your teenage kid makes, your alcoholic brother in law gets in unemployment benefits, and in the case of 4 single people sharing an apartment, what everyone else makes.
If you want to screw up a good idea, just let the gumuint think it up.
What business is going to be able to keep track of all this information? For over 50 employees, it'll be a full time job. Who will lose their job to pay for this new employee or in the case of a large company, an entire department?
In addition, if the company screws up in it's record keeping, or you lie about your "household" income, the fine is $3000.
Plus, 9.5% may be affordable to a middle management person, but it may be unsustainable for the warehouse clerk.
Welcome to the new world of part time jobs.
That is NOT what it says. The law allows the employee to access a tax credit subsidy if their contribution to health insurance exceeds 9.5% of salary AND their income is under 400% of the Federal Poverty Rate. This reporting requirement is not an employer requirement, it is an employee requirement to get the tax credit. The reporting of "household" income will be done by the employee through their tax form. Nothing in the law says that employers must pay all premiums over 9.5% of the cost of insurance.
Unreal

Dandridge, TN

#73570 Mar 23, 2013
Timbuk2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The law says employers must provide "affordable" insurance, and they can ask that workers chip in to pay for it, however, the worker contribution cannot be more than 9.5% of HOUSEHOLD income.
Got that? You will have to tell your employer what your spouse or significant other makes, your teenage kid makes, your alcoholic brother in law gets in unemployment benefits, and in the case of 4 single people sharing an apartment, what everyone else makes.
If you want to screw up a good idea, just let the gumuint think it up.
What business is going to be able to keep track of all this information? For over 50 employees, it'll be a full time job. Who will lose their job to pay for this new employee or in the case of a large company, an entire department?
In addition, if the company screws up in it's record keeping, or you lie about your "household" income, the fine is $3000.
Plus, 9.5% may be affordable to a middle management person, but it may be unsustainable for the warehouse clerk.
Welcome to the new world of part time jobs.
I believe it will be the job of the IRS in the form of your tax return to keep up with your alcoholic brother-in-law, not the employer.
Timbuk2

Boca Raton, FL

#73571 Mar 23, 2013
ACA winners and losers:

Winners:

Low income childless adults: They currently do not qualify for medicaid. Now they will.

Households earning up to %92,200 for a family of 4 who pay for their own insurance. After 2014 they will get a taxpayer funded subsidy.

Young adults under 26 can stay on their parents plan.

Newcomers to the US. The law expands programs to serve people of diverse languages and cultures, regardless of immigration status.

Racial and ethnic minorities will benefit from federally funded programs to train a diverse healthcare network.

Government employees are winners since the added administration of the law requires thousands of new government workers.

Insurance companies are both winners and losers. They now have guaranteed customers. They'll lose in the long run since most people will qualify for medicaid.

Chronically ill people are also winners and losers. They will benefit from rules barring insurers from putting lifetime caps on their care, but they will be vulnerable to the impact of funding cuts to hospitals and dialysis centers.

Losers:

Nurses and hospital employees. Hospitals will face funding cuts, budgetary pressures. Whenever medicare cut payments to hospitals, nursing care was the first to feel it.

Hospital patients will wait longer.

Taxpayers who earn $250+.

Unions members who have "Cadillac" health plans.

Doctors can expect more work and less pay.

Women who want to keep their medical records private.

SENIORS: Seniors pay for more than HALF of Obamacre through cuts to medicare and medicare advantage. They will get less care.

Unreal

Dandridge, TN

#73572 Mar 23, 2013
Overtaxed wrote:
<quoted text> That is NOT what it says. The law allows the employee to access a tax credit subsidy if their contribution to health insurance exceeds 9.5% of salary AND their income is under 400% of the Federal Poverty Rate. This reporting requirement is not an employer requirement, it is an employee requirement to get the tax credit. The reporting of "household" income will be done by the employee through their tax form. Nothing in the law says that employers must pay all premiums over 9.5% of the cost of insurance.
Thanks for continuing to clarify the misinformation. I am not sure if this is being done intentionally or what. The company I work for is a large corp., and I am sure they have the best lawyers, so I have trouble believing that they are misinformed - it seems more like wording things ambiguously to confuse...
Overtaxed

Thorn Hill, TN

#73573 Mar 23, 2013
Unreal wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for continuing to clarify the misinformation. I am not sure if this is being done intentionally or what. The company I work for is a large corp., and I am sure they have the best lawyers, so I have trouble believing that they are misinformed - it seems more like wording things ambiguously to confuse...
Well, what I have so far came straight from the Federal Govt. On one of these updates, it states that the small and medium sized companies that believe their plans will exceed the 9.5% rule will have the ability to access employee coverage through the exchanges. BUT since we have no idea YET if the exchanges will be cost effective enough to meet the 9.5% rule...your company may be as in the dark about this as the rest of us. Or they may have made the determination that it is more cost effective to pay the penalty than to continue to furnish coverage....this MAY be a mistake if the labor situation ever improves, since health coverage is always a consideration when a qualified person goes job hunting, and IF they raise wages to compensate for the lack of coverage, the cost increases by the employer portion of payroll taxes as well as the increase in salary.
OR the company may have access to more information than I am being given at this time and ole "Timbuck" has it right ! Stranger things have happened !!
Timbuk2

Boca Raton, FL

#73574 Mar 23, 2013
Overtaxed wrote:
<quoted text> That is NOT what it says. The law allows the employee to access a tax credit subsidy if their contribution to health insurance exceeds 9.5% of salary AND their income is under 400% of the Federal Poverty Rate. This reporting requirement is not an employer requirement, it is an employee requirement to get the tax credit. The reporting of "household" income will be done by the employee through their tax form.
You missed the point. The 9.5% is based on HOUSEHOLD income, not the employees' income. That means that you will have to ask him/her for the information.
Overtaxed wrote:
<quoted text> Nothing in the law says that employers must pay all premiums over 9.5% of the cost of insurance.
Nowhere did I say that. If the 9.5% is exceeded, the employee has the right to apply for medicaid subsidy, and the employer will be fined.
tinky winky light bear

United States

#73575 Mar 23, 2013
Otay,idk who is who on here,but its gettin kinda creepy lmao they want out,but not for good reasons :)
Hey

Cookeville, TN

#73576 Mar 23, 2013
I still believe the problem is in the cost it self and the treatments which usually are meds made up of chemicals (something which has never existed before on earth)so they can get a patent because that's where the money is.And even better is these meds really don't cure anything so now we can take these things everyday for the rest of your life cause this too is where the money is.
As I said once before Jerry Lewis was told what the cure was for Muscular Dystrophy and he told those who do the like walk for the cure, and collect lots of cash, and those ungrateful slobs fired Jerry.
Their are many natural cures for these ailments.Mental patients had filled the institutions and one fella realizes that these people have the same symptoms as a person with Pellagra a vitamine deficiency.So they get the cure a lowly vitamin B and 40 percent are sent home.Well maybe these folks still left need more of this cure and sure enough 80 percent walk out.
Wow the institution lost alot of boarders and the drug company a lot of customers. But I bet there was a whole lot of happy souls who got there life back.
Alternative medicine is full of these answers.
Well Vitamine B is really really cheap and there are no side effects of suicides and school shootings but the system would go broke and we would not want that to happen would we?
If we cure diseases we go out of business.
So FU everybody.
tinky winky light bear

United States

#73577 Mar 23, 2013
R u the good one or the bad one? Like ill blieve ya :) loves ya
Hey

Cookeville, TN

#73578 Mar 23, 2013
Cancer feeds on glucose,loves that sugar crap hates that oxygen.
It does seem reasonable that to eliminate the food for this culprit would be a real good place to start,and it is and it dies.
But a first round of Chemo is around $17,000.00 and the radiated option ain't cheap either and if you cure someone without the treatment of choice that the FDA who backs the system well you could end up losing your license to practice the cure.And they have had their stuff confiscated and shut down,
Some have gone to Mexico.Well I guess that boarder is open both ways.
A Canadian University has found something interesting for cancer but it's matural and no coporation wants to touch it cause no patent no big bucks.SO the University is scraping for donations to do more research.I hope they get what they need.
So I hope Obamacare works out for ya.
tinky winky light bear

United States

#73579 Mar 23, 2013
Tobacco comes from the earth n has been proven to calm ones nerves :) i need about 30 rt now :) patience is tryin to let loose n go bonkers on evryone n i wont let her,shes a loone that must b stopped.
Unreal

Dandridge, TN

#73580 Mar 23, 2013
Hey wrote:
I still believe the problem is in the cost it self and the treatments which usually are meds made up of chemicals (something which has never existed before on earth)so they can get a patent because that's where the money is.And even better is these meds really don't cure anything so now we can take these things everyday for the rest of your life cause this too is where the money is.
As I said once before Jerry Lewis was told what the cure was for Muscular Dystrophy and he told those who do the like walk for the cure, and collect lots of cash, and those ungrateful slobs fired Jerry.
Their are many natural cures for these ailments.Mental patients had filled the institutions and one fella realizes that these people have the same symptoms as a person with Pellagra a vitamine deficiency.So they get the cure a lowly vitamin B and 40 percent are sent home.Well maybe these folks still left need more of this cure and sure enough 80 percent walk out.
Wow the institution lost alot of boarders and the drug company a lot of customers. But I bet there was a whole lot of happy souls who got there life back.
Alternative medicine is full of these answers.
Well Vitamine B is really really cheap and there are no side effects of suicides and school shootings but the system would go broke and we would not want that to happen would we?
If we cure diseases we go out of business.
So FU everybody.
I agree with you that the costs are too high, and the meds are too widely prescribed. If you go to the doc and look at your EOB, you see the small amount of the charge that the insurance company actually pays for those high priced services and meds. We are not ones to run to the doc for every little thing, and the actual amount the insurance pays out on us is a fraction of the amount we pay in premiums. If individuals could get the same prices as the insurance companies, and if not for the risk of catastrophic illness, it would be less expensive to pay out of pocket.
My spouse's doctor prescribed two patent meds for cholesterol that were approximately $300 each per month. He took them for a couple of years, but they caused severe joint pain (not to mention the potential serious liver side effects), so he stopped taking them. I knew he needed to control it in some way and I had heard about red yeast rice and garlic, so I got it for him to try. His doc said his cholesterol is better than it has ever been, but he wasn't too happy when he found out it was because of the inexpensive supplements instead of the prescriptions…
Hey

Cookeville, TN

#73581 Mar 23, 2013
Unreal wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you that the costs are too high, and the meds are too widely prescribed. If you go to the doc and look at your EOB, you see the small amount of the charge that the insurance company actually pays for those high priced services and meds. We are not ones to run to the doc for every little thing, and the actual amount the insurance pays out on us is a fraction of the amount we pay in premiums. If individuals could get the same prices as the insurance companies, and if not for the risk of catastrophic illness, it would be less expensive to pay out of pocket.
My spouse's doctor prescribed two patent meds for cholesterol that were approximately $300 each per month. He took them for a couple of years, but they caused severe joint pain (not to mention the potential serious liver side effects), so he stopped taking them. I knew he needed to control it in some way and I had heard about red yeast rice and garlic, so I got it for him to try. His doc said his cholesterol is better than it has ever been, but he wasn't too happy when he found out it was because of the inexpensive supplements instead of the prescriptions…
Halleluja
tinky winky light bear

United States

#73582 Mar 23, 2013
Now thats just freaky...yall doin otays?
tinky winky light bear

United States

#73584 Mar 23, 2013
Wat?
tinky winky light bear

United States

#73585 Mar 23, 2013
Yays!:)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Greeneville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Just announced! 500th post wins trip to Hawaii. 9 min Trunketeer 13
What goes on at Timberfell? (Sep '11) 12 min Dr Wu 216
Effects from smoking cigarettes 22 min hello 9
Why so paranoid? 36 min Dixie iron fist 80
fun thing to do ***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Sep '10) 42 min Jennifer Renee 5,588
Feeling lonely for the holidays 42 min Dixie iron fist 132
Greeneville Snobs 58 min Dixie iron fist 26
"Greeneville police: 2 infants found dead in ho... 1 hr Rope 87
Principal at Mosheim 14 hr Friend Of 58
Greeneville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Greeneville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Greeneville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Greeneville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:04 pm PST

Bleacher Report 4:04PM
Highlights, Recap for Pats vs. Jets
Yahoo! Sports 4:08 PM
Browns lose Manziel in 17-13 loss to Panthers
NFL 5:13 PM
Cam: Panthers fans 'classless' to cheer Manziel injury
NBC Sports 5:30 PM
Manziel leaves Browns' loss with hamstring injury - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report 6:22 PM
Can NFC South Winner Steal Playoff Win?