Grocery Store Chain Cuts Health Care for Part-Time Workers...

[OzmO]

You'd think Drudge wouldn't run a story like this...  props to them.


http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130710/BUSINESS/130719892/1003

The Rochester-based grocer that has been continually lauded for providing health insurance to its part-time workers will no longer offer that benefit.

Until recently, the company voluntarily offered health insurance to employees who worked 20 hours per week or more. Companies are required by law to offer health insurance only to full-time employees who work 30 hours or more per week.

Several Wegmans employees confirmed part-time health benefits had been cut and said the company said the decision was related to changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act.

However, part-time employees may actually benefit from Wegmans’ decision, according to Brian Murphy, a partner at Lawley Benefits Group, an insurance brokerage firm in Buffalo.

“If you have an employee that qualifies for subsidized coverage, they might be better off going with that than a limited part-time benefit,” Murphy said.

That’s because subsidized coverage can have a lower out-of-pocket cost for the insured employee while also providing better benefits than an employer-paid plan.

Under the Affordable Care Act, part-time employees are not eligible for health insurance subsidies if their employer offers insurance.

“It’s a win-win. The employee gets subsidized coverage, and the employer gets to lower costs,” Murphy said.

Wegmans declined to comment.

“As a private company, we don’t share specifics of our employee benefits programs. It’s a given that health care reform will result in some changes to our benefits program, but it will not change our commitment to meeting the needs of our employees,” Wegmans said in a statement.

Wegmans employs roughly 1,433 full-time employees and 4,304 part-time employees in the Buffalo Niagara region.

[Soul Crusher]

Obama really cares , no really he does.    Lmfao.   They probably voted for him too so f em.

[Archer77]

This was the intention all along.  It's back door universal health care.  If I didn't have insurance I'd take advantage of it.

[Soul Crusher]

This was the intention all along.  It's back door universal health care.  If I didn't have insurance I'd take advantage of it.

No you won't cause the subsidies only apply under limited circumstances and not many doctors are going to accept obamacare.

[OzmO]

They will.  not all, prolly as much as medicare.

[Soul Crusher]

They will.  not all, prolly as much as medicare.

Lol. Do you even read the news?   Many doctors are refusing Medicare a going to all cash practices.   Obamacare exchanges are not even set up for these people to get anything as well.

[OzmO]

Lol. Do you even read the news?   Many doctors are refusing Medicare a going to all cash practices.   Obamacare exchanges are not even set up for these people to get anything as well.

You have demonstrated well the "news" you read and how you interpret it.

It doesn't matter, there will be doctors/hospitals that take it just as there is are plenty that take medicare.

Fact is,  its a win, win.

However, in the spirit of discussion, NOT "tool time discussion", instead "simple discussion":  I wonder how the coverage will compare.

[dario73]

That’s because subsidized coverage can have a lower out-of-pocket cost for the insured employee while also providing better benefits than an employer-paid plan.



I will believe it when I see it.

[Soul Crusher]

The subsidy is not going to even come close to covering what it costs the employee who previously had it as part of his job.   Hope that helps.

ObamaCare is a bigger trainwreck than even I thought, as evidenced by Obama himself putting off the mandate another year to employers.   

You have demonstrated well the "news" you read and how you interpret it.

It doesn't matter, there will be doctors/hospitals that take it just as there is are plenty that take medicare.

Fact is,  its a win, win.

However, in the spirit of discussion, NOT "tool time discussion", instead "simple discussion":  I wonder how the coverage will compare.

[OzmO]

That’s because subsidized coverage can have a lower out-of-pocket cost for the insured employee while also providing better benefits than an employer-paid plan.



I will believe it when I see it.

unfortunately we will all mostly have to wait a while to see the effects of the OC Scam

[OzmO]

The subsidy is not going to even come close to covering what it costs the employee who previously had it as part of his job.   Hope that helps.

ObamaCare is a bigger trainwreck than even I thought, as evidenced by Obama himself putting off the mandate another year to employers.   

How so?

details, not rheotirc

[Soul Crusher]

How so?

details, not rheotirc

The employee who was getting coverage was being subsidized by his employer a certain amount for probably a shit policy - but something. 

However!  ObamaCare mandates we all have a basic minimum plan as dictated by the Fed. Govt which includes a lot more than the previous policy said employee had, whether he wants or needs it or not. 

The subsidy support allegedly offered by the Fed Govt under obamacare is a lot less than what the employee was getting from his employer, especially since the premiums now are going up rapidly due to the increased mandated coverages. 

 

[OzmO]

The employee who was getting coverage was being subsidized by his employer a certain amount for probably a shit policy - but something. 

However!  ObamaCare mandates we all have a basic minimum plan as dictated by the Fed. Govt which includes a lot more than the previous policy said employee had, whether he wants or needs it or not.

so you are saying he gets more under the "basic minimum plan"? 

The subsidy support allegedly offered by the Fed Govt under obamacare is a lot less than what the employee was getting from his employer, especially since the premiums now are going up rapidly due to the increased mandated coverages. 

But now you are saying they are getting less?

 

[Soul Crusher]

so you are saying he gets more under the "basic minimum plan"? 

But now you are saying they are getting less?

 

What ObamaCare requires is a lot more than most people want and costs a lot more. 

Example - I go into Ford dealer for a basic F150.   I can afford 27k for basic model does everything I want.   Only model they have now is the 35k model but had neon lights, cargo nets, fancy interior, etc. and now the Govt says that is the only F150 I can buy whether I want the added bs or not.   

[OzmO]

What ObamaCare requires is a lot more than most people want and costs a lot more. 

Example - I go into Ford dealer for a basic F150.   I can afford 27k for basic model does everything I want.   Only model they have now is the 35k model but had neon lights, cargo nets, fancy interior, etc. and now the Govt says that is the only F150 I can buy whether I want the added bs or not.   

Need details.   Otherwise how do you know for sure?

Additionally, from the employee stand point why should they be against OC?  Further more, from the Employer stand point why should they be against OC if they pay less using OC vs they paying directly for it?

[Soul Crusher]

http://meganmcardle.com/2013/07/10/obamacare-gets-easier-to-implement-all-the-time-as-long-as-you-dont-care-about-losing-major-functions


Obamacare is already collapsing and is a train wreck

[OzmO]

Need details.   Otherwise how do you know for sure?

Additionally, from the employee stand point why should they be against OC?  Further more, from the Employer stand point why should they be against OC if they pay less using OC vs they paying directly for it?

[Soul Crusher]

The employer does not care since he dumps the employee into the exchange .   Its cheaper for the employer to pay the fine than the healthcare however - the employee is stuck w the mandate and now into a pos system not even functioning.

So again - who gets FUCKED - the average guy as always under this ghetto crackhead admn

[OzmO]

The employer does not care since he dumps the employee into the exchange . 

Not in this case. It make better sense to stop providing healthcare and let OC take of it allowing them to keep the P/T worker

 Its cheaper for the employer to pay the fine than the healthcare however - the employee is stuck w the mandate and now into a pos system not even functioning.

So again - who gets FUCKED - the average guy as always under this ghetto crackhead admn

That doesn't make any sense.

1.  Employer pays less AND keeps P/T employee
2.  P/T employee gets better care

Win, Win.

[Soul Crusher]

Not in this case. It make better sense to stop providing healthcare and let OC take of it allowing them to keep the P/T worker

That doesn't make any sense.

1.  Employer pays less AND keeps P/T employee
2.  P/T employee gets better care

Win, Win.

False - there is no exchange set up and the employee has to purchase a plan he may or may not be able to afford now.  Additionally, many primary care docs are leaving practice so there will be far too many people seeking services from not enough providers

An employee may not qualify for coverage if spouse gets coverage through his or her job. 

[OzmO]

False - there is no exchange set up and the employee has to purchase a plan he may or may not be able to afford now.  

Not according to the article:

“If you have an employee that qualifies for subsidized coverage, they might be better off going with that than a limited part-time benefit,” Murphy said.

That’s because subsidized coverage can have a lower out-of-pocket cost for the insured employee while also providing better benefits than an employer-paid plan.

Additionally, many primary care docs are leaving practice so there will be far too many people seeking services from not enough providers

That's IF that actually happens to a significant degree. Changes are it won't at all, as i am sure these where the same tired arguments regarding medi care.  But for now, its moot to discuss it with out it actually happening.  

An employee may not qualify for coverage if spouse gets coverage through his or her job.  

WRONG.  If the spouse gets it through their job, they will be able to add them at a usually good cost.

[Soul Crusher]

This guy is guessing that when the exchanges have yet to even be
 set up.    

Not according to the article:

“If you have an employee that qualifies for subsidized coverage, they might be better off going with that than a limited part-time benefit,” Murphy said.

That’s because subsidized coverage can have a lower out-of-pocket cost for the insured employee while also providing better benefits than an employer-paid plan.

That's IF that actually happens to a significant degree. Changes are it won't at all, as i am sure these where the same tired arguments regarding medi care.  But for now, its moot to discuss it with out it actually happening.  

WRONG.  If the spouse gets it through their job, they will be able to add them at a usually good cost.

[OzmO]

This guy is guessing that when the exchanges have yet to even be
 set up.    

Being that he's in the industry....

Brian Murphy, a partner at Lawley Benefits Group, an insurance brokerage firm in Buffalo.

It's more credible then most of the opinion writers who blabber about OC with the purpose of spin.

[Soul Crusher]

Being that he's in the industry....

Brian Murphy, a partner at Lawley Benefits Group, an insurance brokerage firm in Buffalo.

It's more credible then most of the opinion writers who blabber about OC with the purpose of spin.

LOL - and just this week Obama HIMSELF had to put off one of the major parts of obamacare another year why? 

[OzmO]

LOL - and just this week Obama HIMSELF had to put off one of the major parts of obamacare another year why? 

I am not arguing the OC overall.  You know where i stand on it.

But the issue here still remains.

Its a win, win, unless someone can come up with some actual details.

1.  Employer pays less AND keeps P/T employee
2.  P/T employee gets better care