|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
• What the Law Says - Employer Mandate All employers with 11 or more full-time employees or "full-time equivalent" When
the Federal funding did not come through on June 30, 2008 as expected and
because there were shortfalls in MassHealth and Commonwealth Care
(enrollment was more or less flat), and the state could not sustain the
insurance law, more money was needed from the businesses. Thus, the
regulations were changed to increase their “shared responsibility.”
Firms with 50 or fewer employees that met the 2-part “or” requirements
along with covering staff employed for at least 90 days could still avoid
the $295 per employee charge, but for companies with more than 50 workers,
the “or” would be changed to “and” - these companies would have to
meet both criteria. However, an exception was added that allowed larger
firms to be exempt if more than 75% of its full-time employees
participated in the employer’s group health plan. These |
|
||||||||||
|
Massachusetts-style health insurance |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
It
should be noted that the approximate $22 million additional funds to be
contributed by employers who did not meet their responsibility to cover
their employers was still By the way, we’ve read and heard that President Obama and many members of Congress want to use tax credits as a means to help individuals and small businesses pay for health insurance in the national plan. Perhaps some small businesses can handle this, but most individuals can’t pay their monthly bills with a tax credit, and certainly don’t want to reduce or lose credit toward Social Security earnings that will be their sole or main source of income down the road. So, thanks, but no thanks. You’d better go back to the drawing board. What this means - 35 hours a week is considered "full-time" for the mandate's purposes, even if it is not for any other employee benefits or other work-related matters. - Hospitality employers (restaurants, bars, hotels, etc) are not mandated to provide insurance unless the employee makes more than $400 in monthly payroll wages. This is an unusual circumstance, as these employees generally make the service employees minimum wage of $2.63 per hour. These employees are, however, forbidden from getting state insurance. - The employer can choose any plan that they want, as long as it meets the
-
Hospitals are obligated under the law to report the employers of
people receiving uncompensated care. - The "Section 125" plan may be an immediate "quick fix" for those who have no faith in the Social Security and Medicare programs, but otherwise all should be very aware that when their contributions to these plans are reduced, so are their future benefits. Also, both State and Federal governments stand to lose many millions of dollars in taxes with the implementation of this option, thereby further depleting the tax coffers. - The massive paperwork and reporting that are required for this program are very burdensome for small employers. This most certainly adds to their often knife-thin profit and/or reduces employee wages. See more about reporting here. -
If a small business owner with 9 or 10 employees wants to
expand, he or she will have think twice about this because the
cost to offer insurance will probably negate the profit gained
from hiring an additional 1 or 2 employees. We know several
businesses in our communities facing this predicament. Employers have been successful, thus far, in blocking efforts to make them pay more of the costs and the state may have good reasons to allow the status quo. It’s the old quid pro quo. The state doesn’t want to deal with an ERISA challenge and also needs the support of the businesses regarding this health insurance law. |
|
|
|
The Individual Mandate explained / The Connector Authority / Affordability / The Appeals Process |
|
Religious Exemption / Income estimation / Tax enforcement and Criminal penalties / Data Gathering |
|
Estate Recovery / Insurance plan "lock-in" / State as health insurance / Primary Care Shortage |
|
|
|
|
