Posted on 11/11/2012 8:03:51 AM PST by Renfield
Businesses with 50 or more employees who average at least 30 hours of work a week will be subject to the Obamacare insurance coverage mandate.
Companies are reportedly planning large layoffs due to the implementation of Obamacare.
But, companies can potentially avoid being subject to Obamacare's insurance requirements by limiting employees’ weekly hours to less than the 30 hour level defined by Obamacare as “full-time.”
A little-known section in the ObamaCare health reform law defines “full-time” work as averaging only 30 hours per week, a definition that will affect some employers who utilize part-time workers to trim the cost of complying with the ObamaCare rule that says businesses with 50 or more full-time workers must provide health insurance or pay a fine.
“The term ‘full-time employee’ means, with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week,” section 1513 of the law reads. (Scroll down to section 4, paragraph A.)
That section, known as the employer mandate, requires any business with 50 or more full-time employees to provide at least the minimum level of government-defined health coverage to those employees. In other words, a business must provide insurance if it has 50 or more employees working an average of just 30 hours per week, which is 10 hours per week fewer than the traditional 40-hour work week.
Thus, by cutting employees’ hours to ensure they average less than the 30 per week, employers could potentially avoid the cost of providing the minimum insurance levels mandated by Obamacare.
People were happy because they had no idea what these provisions of Obamacare involved. Keeping the kids on the insurance plan until the age of 26 wasn't intended to provide medical coverage for more people. It was a huge windfall for the insurance industry (whose lobbyists basically wrote Obamacare, by the way) to keep an enormous group of insured customers who would be having premiums paid for them while typically making very few claims for them.
And the mandate for insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions doesn't necessarily correlate to the cost of a new policy. One Freeper a few weeks ago presented a hypothetical scenario that he/she had researched, involving a 35-40 year old uninsured person who suddenly decided to get on a medical plan after being diagnosed with a major medical problem. The Freeper did some shopping around, and learned that the average annual premium in that case was something like $36,000. What the heck is the point of a "pre-existing conditions" mandate if that's what the insured has to pay for coverage? LOL.
I like these work hours!
“We get up at noon and go to work at one.
Take an hour for lunch and at two were done...-” Wizard of Oz”
You don’t understand. We simply force US companies not to outsource. Now the jobs will be in the US. It’s not like the guy in some third world country willing to do the work for less could be employed by anyone else. Our jobs. Here. Done deal. Fist of government trumps invisible hand, works every time.
You’re being sarcastic, right?
(I’d love to be hiring older employees on Medicare right now).
*********************************************************
I had not thought about that. However, I think there may be a law regarding coverage gap, so that anything not covered by Medicare would have to be covered, if it was covered for the rest of the FTEs. Do you know if that is the case?
I was just thinking that, if the work force restructures to part-time, I might look for a part time job. Can’t make more than around $14,000 or my Social Security gets reduced.
If I went back to work full time, We would be in a higher tax bracket, and loose Social Security dollars too, so we would be feeding the beast.
Still, I would probably be working, if my daughter didn’t need me to babysit. I really think it is better to avoid day care.
The New Normal.
Watch the unions demand that anything they work over 30 hours is now overtime!!!
Absolutely I am. Unfortunately, many people think that way.
I think we kid ourselves. When you look at the metrics, we’re a shadow of our former selves. We could turn it around, and so I do advocate for it. If we don’t in short order though, we’ll never be what we used to be.
We are on the verge of falling below China. It’s shopping for a major military base in South America.
This is not just fun and games any longer, not to infer that’s what you engaged in.
Thanks. My point was the bennies started in 2012, but the horrendous true costs clobber us in 2013 and thereafter. The layoffs we are seeing this week are the tip of the iceberg.
This was another dereliction by Romney. He said he would repeal the monstrosity, but didn’t explain what it will cost society.
According to the timeline I saw, the 30 hrs limit does not kick in till 2014.
doesnt wal-mart already do this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.