The Obama-Affect ... An "UNWINDING" ???

Governor Brown signed SB 1446 Monday.

The bill allows businesses with fewer than 50 employees to renew and continue to offer health plans which were already in effect as of December, 2013 until December, 2016.

In effect, plans will be grandfathered until that date, even if they do not comply with Obamacare mandates on "essential benefits."

Small Business Advocate Scott Hague told Employee Benefits News, "I think it’s just mucking up the system and delaying things."

He added, "It’s going to make it more difficult to implement the ACA"

SOURCE


WOW !!!

I thought California:

1. Was a Democrat-State.
2. Had a Democrat-Governor.
3. Was home to Nancy Pelosi.

Now I'm wondering how much the ACA ( i.e. Obamacare) has influenced companies to move to Texas?

Raytheon recently relocated its space and airborne systems from El Segundo to McKinney, Texas.

Other big California companies that have relocated to Texas since 2011 include Titan Laboratories, Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Superconductor Technologies, Pacific Union Financial, and Med-Logics.

There's Little Wonder Why Toyota Moved to Texas

SOURCE

-
OPINION: YES, "UNWINDING" ... ( and stay-tuned )
.

Small business owners are the largest employers in this country.

And most just so happens to have 50 employees and less.

The ACA would destroy small business owners who are already taking a beating.

Take a good look at the ACA as it is one of the finest examples of how outsourcing happens.

Business leaving California to go to Texas where it's cheaper.

[WARNING: RANT FOLLOWS]

I hope that it either becomes more 'affordable' or is removed altogether.

I have a healthcare plan that's just over 1k per month for my entire family. I'm grandfathered in, but at first blush, went to see what the "Affordable" care would save me.

Ready for the 'savings' and how 'affordable' it is?

Less coverage, more costs absorbed into MY pocket... $2487.00.

So, let's do the math (no, I won't do this common core style, lol)

$2,487.00 = "Affordable"

$1,015.00 = Current coverage (much better coverage and less in costs out of my pocket with meds and co pays)

The savings of the "Affordable" care?

-$1,472.00

Yea, great savings and very 'Affordable". This giant waste of a bill needs to go by the wayside and needs to be either completely re-vamped with common sense, or repealed.

Better yet, let's revisit why we can't just make co-ops and or have 'private' non-employer groups be able to create groups to go to insurers to get savings for better coverage and better rates? Oh, that's right, the POLITICIANS made it illegal to do so. So in the interest of expeditiousness, let's just repeal that law and the groups would naturally come together and approach insurance companies for better coverage and pricing...NO POLITICIANS, STUPID LAWS OR A GOV'T WHO CAN'T SEEMINGLY KEEP A BUDGET, CONTROL IT'S SPENDING OR WIPE IT'S OWN @$$ without stepping on the rights and lives of it's citizens who by enlarge still blindly trust them who have proven time and time again that they CANNOT be trusted with even the most simple of things....

Ugh.

[END RANT]

I currently work for an insurance broker...at least for 6 more weeks. Anyways, when they were first trying to pass the ACA I kept telling people what was going to happen. I'm on threads here from that time. I said it was going to be more expensive. I said people were going to lose jobs over it. I said that small businesses would be dropping coverage and sending employees to the exchange. I was given a hard time over those statements. So here we are, and what do you know. I was right. I feel vindicated!

I TOLD YOU SO!

a reply to: FarleyWayne
I may be wrong, but I thought that businesses with less than 50 employees were exempt from the ACA employer mandate.
Also, in my opinion, anyone who thinks that Gov. Brown and the Cal. Dems are trying to throw a wrench into the ACA gears, has got be living in Bizarro-World.

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: FarleyWayne
I may be wrong, but I thought that businesses with less than 50 employees were exempt from the ACA employer mandate.
Also, in my opinion, anyone who thinks that Gov. Brown and the Cal. Dems are trying to throw a wrench into the ACA gears, has got be living in Bizarro-World.

They are exempt from the mandate.

But they aren't exempt from the minimum coverage part.

Anything they buy would have to meet the Federal Standards.

The mandate you are thinking about just means they won't be fined for not buying insurance.

The Obama.Care Chicken is being plucked one feather at a time.

Correct, they are exempt. However, *Obama* has also tried to impose fines and penalties for employers who drop their coverage and send their employees to the exchange. People did not expect the under 50 employers to drop coverage, but they have. We have been losing small group employers by about 1 per week since the ACA became law, but the small employers we opting not to renew back in the middle of last year so we knew well in advance what was coming.

Previously, the delay in implementation was for the end of this year to allow Democrats running for Congress a little break.... So that voters wouldn't feel more pain before the election.
This delay is to allow less pain to be felt before Hillary gets elected.

a reply to: Diderot

They weren't until President Phone and Pen arbitrarily rewrote the law to change it to 100 employees.

a reply to: butcherguy

They also arbitrarily delayed the deadline for large employers like my husbands who cover the majority of Americans. They did this after the backlash that started with the small business mandate. Now the large employer Armageddon is set to hit this fall, and we are dreading it because we don't yet know which way my husband's employer will decide to jump.

a reply to: ketsuko
Okay. I do recall a recent change in the coverage, and I think you're right! That means that many more small businesses are exempt from the employer mandate. Now in your opinion, is this supposed to be a bad thing?

a reply to: Diderot

It simply makes it easier for them to drop employee coverage. Just because they aren't forced to pay for employee health care doesn't mean that the policies that will be available to them will be any more cost effective because they will still be the same overly-regulated policies that everyone else has to choose from. So all it really means is that if they don't choose to keep coverage, they won't be paying the penalty tax for not offering it.

a reply to: ketsuko
Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no penalty tax on employers with less that 100 employees. I think that at this point I would ask you what the ideal approach to healthcare is in the USA. Do you want to go back to pre ACA, and give even more power to insurance companies? Do you want to trash coverage for preexisting conditions and coverage for children and young adults under the parents' plan? Is the Heritage Foundation/Romney Mass. plan too socialistic for you?

a reply to: Diderot

If I were doing it? I would mostly scrap insurance except for catastrophic care. ideally, those policies would be purchased for a person at their birth like a life-insurance plan, and they would follow you through your life like a life insurance plan. You could then add special riders for things like chronic conditions or long-lasting illnesses that crop up. Those would add to your premiums, but hopefully not a lot because you have already carried your policy for so long.

As for most of the rest of your health care ... you pay for it out of pocket at a price set between you and your doctor which was mostly the way it used to be. HSAs and other, similar means should be drastically expanded and encouraged to help pay for this.

Part of the problem with health care costs is that we allowed the market to price itself into a third party pocket rather than our own, and those other parties have pockets far deeper than ours could ever be. The market adjusted according to take advantage, and the average buyer was priced out pretty quickly. Remove the insurance companies and the government program payers, and you will see an adjustment back into the pockets of the average person. If they don't, they go out of business.

a reply to: ketsuko
Hello again Ketsuko, Your response is compelling. I think that you are calling for a complete privatization of healthcare
and an absolute minimum of (Federal) government interference in the process. If that is the case, then how do you explain the government involvement of very many successful healthcare systems of developed nations around the world?

The problem with ACA is it is a half-assed attempt at universal coverage. Trust me when I say that the ACA was fully endorsed by the insurance companies because it was a win win for them. Heck, they wrote portions of the bill! It needs to be scrapped, and a new approach has to come forth. Either all in and up our taxes, or regulate the crap out of it. Open all states to competition. No more keeping companies out of other states. Caps on premiums. Limit frivolous lawsuits. But it also has to encompass the hospitals as well. No more $100 tylenol. The flip side is big pharma has to also be reigned in. No more $1,500 per pill. There are so many ways to keep costs down so that even someone without insurance could afford to pay for care out of pocket it isn't even funny.

I don't have a problem with businesses making profits. What I do have a problem with is them making at the expense of someone's health and/or life! Stop the AMA, FDA and USDA from pandering to big pharma and allow holistic medicine to compete with synthetic drugs. Allow natural remedies and medicines. The point is that government should not be playing nanny. Let people decide for themselves how to treat their ailments.