Obamacare and the hourly worker

Remove all ads!

So far, I still don't think anyone understands how Obamacare is supposed to work or how it is supposed to be paid for. The one thing that I am seeing is the pain it is causing for the hourly workers. The one thing that is somewhat clear is that the definition of a full time employee is now 30 hours. The large retail and restaurant chains are starting to reduce the hours of their employees to be under the 30 hours. Simple math tells us that means a 25% pay cut. I don't know very many people who get paid by the hour (as opposed to salaried) that can afford to lose 25% of their pay.

Is the new norm going to be people working two 20 hour jobs and still getting no employer provided benefits? What's worse is if they work two 25 hour jobs, as they will lose out on overtime pay.

Teen Snook has a part time job and he has actually picked up additional hours as they are transferring hours from the former 40 hour workers to the 15 hour high school workers.

Nation's biggest movie theater chain cuts hours

 

"The Nation's largest movie Theatre chain". I don't see how losing hours while working at a Movie Theatre chain equates to "pain". What do they pay? Minimum wage? Everytime I go to the movies, its all kids working there. Which makes the majority of the workforce have to be part time as it is. It is not an industry with "career" written all over it.

If it impacted industries that have a majority of their jobs with "career-like" positions, basically jobs that pay, then it's worth looking into.

 

Yeah casualisation of the workforce is the latest cost cutting measure for businesses all over the world (some estimates put the amount of the workforce made up by casuals over here as high as 40%), US businesses must be glad to have a convenient scapegoat in Obamacare, businesses in other countries just have to cry poor as they cut employee benefits, even if they're making record profits (have seen some absolutely hilarious examples of that over here in recent years, even knew a guy who got fired from his full-time job, then was offered it back as a casual, the most pitiful is when a business claims they only want to hire people on a casual basis because they want to offer 'flexibility' to their employees... yeah nothing says flexibility like not knowing how many hours you'll get next week, never knowing when the axe could fall, and being terrified of taking a sick day.).

 

While I largely agree with Blades, I will say this: The Affordable Health Care Act has done nothing to stem the ever-increasing tide of health care costs. In fact, the rate at which they have increased (in the form of insurance premiums) may have accelerated since the passage of the law. I just look at my company, and what I pay. In the last five years, not only has my out of pocket expense doubled for premiums alone, my employer provided insurance switched plans to one that covers less than what the old one did. So, as compared to five years ago, I'm paying twice as much to receive less benefits.

We were basically forced into an HLA plan here. (Technically we could have stayed with the old plan, but that increased to $350 per paycheck for the family plan, and you still had a $2,000 dedectuble before it kicked in.)

HLA plans essentially cover you only for catastrophic health issues. It doesn't cover anything for the first $6,000 worth of medical care you receive each year. It then pays half up to a maximum out of pocket expense of $10,000, and then you have what can be called a standard health care plan. Of course, you still have to pay into it - about $100 per paycheck just so you can pay the first $6,000 worth of expenses yourself. Obviously, you still need to purchase this crap insurance plan, just in case something happens like you get into a car accident, and you can easily blow past that $10,000 mark in a hurry.

But for the most part, the plan just sucks. If you're like most families, you won't have $10,000 worth of health care expenses for the year. Many families won't even reach $6,000. And then you're totally getting hosed, because you're paying into the insurance plan, but still paying your own way. Gee, thanks. No wonder why I'm looking for a new job (and I actually may have found one).

But there is a larger point here: I make a salary where it is possible to pay out that kind of money in heath care costs per year. If you are an hourly employee on the other hand, and making a much lower salary, you simply don't have the money for any of that. Once you add in the premiums and the out of pocket expense, I have to budget (at minimum) $7,200 for health care this year. That's a pretty decent percentage of my annual salary. But for an hourly employee who may only be making about $10 per hour? It's probably approaching half of their annual salary (if they were working full time).

What I want to know is who are these people needing all this health care? I've been on my company's health care plan for the last 12 years, and I've received more in benefits than I've paid out in premiums exactly one year out of those 12 - the year that my son was born. Other than that one time, I've given more than I've received. Who is routinely racking up over $10,000 worth of medical bills on an annual basis?

 

The elderly, maybe?

 

We were already paying for them - they have Medicare. So no, it's not the elderly as that was a sunk cost before Obamacare every happened.

 

I agree Aldeth. But the there is a caveat to that assumption. if I am only making 10 bucks/hr, I am working a 2nd job, like I did for a large portion of ages 18-30. I worked 60-80 hrs a week, busting my ass. Sometimes I had a third job, usually bartending or doing side contruction work, on the weekends. In areas that have any type of population base, part-time work is available all over the place, if you are willing to go look for it and willing to actually take the job at a low pay-rate. Bite the bullet for a while. People need to get off there asses and actually help themselves when in a predicament, not complain poor me. Then the % of healthcare isn't as large a piece of your paycheck and life become more managable. It is not that tough to get ahead in this country, you just have to earn it. I say do it in your younger years, it's easier on the body then. But, if the wife and I were to lose our nice paying jobs we currently have, I have no issue with and fully understand the need to possibly work 2 jobs again to make sure I am covered financially/medically. It's all about effort.

 

Doesn't your auto insurance cover that? (Up to a point anyway.)

 

Most people will never come close to receiving benefits equal to their premiums. First off, companies providing coverage need to cover their own costs plus make a profit; I seem to recall that, in Canada, insurance companies have something like a 25% spread between payouts and premiums. Secondly, in addition to covering overheads and profits, premiums need to be as large as they are to cover off the costs of claims that are made, and those costs can be huge. I wouldn’t be surprized if the cost of any one of a number of medical treatments in the US requires a half dozen people paying premiums under a full plan, and a couple dozen paying under an HLA plan (whatever that is – I assume it’s a bare-bones type of plan); in other words, you and several (say 5 – 20) of the people in the plan need to pay the annual premiums you do just in case one of you gets, say, cancer. And that doesn’t factor in the costs of lesser medical treatments (although that apparently doesn’t apply to a HLA plan the way you describe it).

 

I think my auto insurance covers a few thousand bucks for personal injury. But like I said, if you get mangled in a car and they rush you by ambulance to the ER, you can easily bust $10K.

Well, it's not a bare-bones type of plan. You do have insurance, it's through a major carrier (Blue Cross Blue Shield) and thus you can go pretty much anywhere you want for medical care. The difference is that the costs are front loaded, in the sense that you still submit the charge to the insurance (so there's a record of payment), but you are the one paying the bill. The maximum annual cost out of your own pocket is $10K, plus your premiums. The reason the premium costs less than a standard type of plan is that you are assuming the full risk of all costs for the first $6K, and half of the next $8K worth of costs. Since most people don't receive anywhere near the premiums in benefits, it essentially means that you are very low risk to the insurance company. Unless something major happens, chances are they won't have to pay out anything for you over the course of the year, but they still get your premium.

 

Off the top of my head, I think $100K is more in the neighborhood of a typical catastrophic auto insurance coverage amount (at least in my neck of the woods), but even that will get eaten up quickly if you need anything more than a bandaid.

 

TBH, I'd have to check. I thought the $100K one was for damage to property - like if you drove your car through someone's house.