More small businesses buy health insurance thanks to "Obamacare"

[Upgrade Dave]

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/06/more-small-businesses-offering-health-care-to-employees-thanks-to-obamacare/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By RICK UNGAR
The first statistics are coming in and, to the surprise of a great many, Obamacare might just be working to bring health care to working Americans precisely as promised.

The major health insurance companies around the country are reporting a significant increase in small businesses offering health care benefits to their employees.

Why?

Because the tax cut created in the new health care reform law providing small businesses with an incentive to give health benefits to employees is working.

We certainly did not expect to see this in this economy,” said Gary Claxton, who oversees an annual survey of employer health plans for the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. “It’s surprising.”

Via Los Angeles Times

How significant is the impact? While we won’t have full national numbers until small businesses file their 2010 tax returns this April, the anecdotal evidence is as meaningful as it is unexpected.

United Health Group, Inc., the nation’s largest health insurer, added 75,000 new customers working in businesses with fewer than 50 employees.

Coventry Health Care, Inc., a large provider of health insurance to small businesses, added 115,000 new workers in 2010 representing an 8% jump.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City, the largest health insurer in the Kansas City, Mo. area, reports an astounding 58% increase in the number of small businesses purchasing coverage in their area since April, 2010-one month after the health care reform legislation became law.

“One of the biggest problems in the small-group market is affordability,” said Ron Rowe, who oversees small-group sales for the Kansas City operation for Blue Cross Blue Shied. “We looked at the tax credit and said, ‘this is perfect.”

Rowe went on to say that 38% of the businesses it is signing up had not offered health benefits before.

Whatever your particular ideology, there is simply no denying that these statistics are incredibly heartening. However, for those of you who cannot get past your opposition, even for a moment of universal good news, let’s break it down.

The primary, most enduring complaint of the opponents of the ACA has been that the law is deathly bad for small business.

Apparently, small businesses, and their employees, do not agree.

The next argument has been that the PPACA is a job killer.

If these small businesses found the new law to be so onerous, why have so many of them voluntarily taken advantage of the benefits provided in the law to give their employees these benefits? They were not mandated to do so. And to the extent that the coming mandate obligations might figure into their thinking, would you not imagine they would wait until 2014 to make a move as the rules do not go into effect until that time?

Of course, there is the nagging banter as to how Obamacare is leading us down the road to socialism.

Let it go, folks.

Private market insurance companies are experiencing significant growth because of a tax break provided by the PPACA. I may have missed the day this was discussed in economics class, but I’m pretty sure this is not a socialistic result of federal legislation.

When data like this appears, we have the opportunity to really find out who is talking smack for political benefit and who actually cares about getting affordable and available health care to America’s workers. Certainly, there will be elements of the new law that will not work out exactly as planned. That’s simply reality when it comes to any new piece of landmark legislation. But if you cannot celebrate what appears to be an important early success, you really should give some thought as to where your true interests and intents lie.

If you’re all about beating up on President Obama, you can conveniently forget this bit of data as if it never really happened. However, if your interest is to make health care available to more Americans, this should be a happy day for you – no matter what your ideological beliefs.

 

[QueEx]

Thanks UD.

<font size="3">

38% of the businesses it is signing up had not offered health benefits before.

Whatever your particular ideology, there is simply no denying that these statistics are incredibly heartening.

However, for those of you who cannot get past your opposition, even for a moment of universal good news, let’s break it down:

• <font size="3">The primary, most enduring complaint of the opponents of the aca has been that the law is deathly bad for small business.
  
  Apparently, small businesses, and their employees, do not agree.</font size>

• <font size="3">The next argument has been that the ppaca is a job killer.
  
  If these small businesses found the new law to be so onerous, why have so many of them voluntarily taken advantage of the benefits provided in the law to give their employees these benefits? They were not mandated to do so. And to the extent that the coming mandate obligations might figure into their thinking, would you not imagine they would wait until 2014 to make a move as the rules do not go into effect until that time?</font size>

. . .

<font size="4">of course, there is the nagging banter as to how obamacare is leading us down the road to socialism.

Let it go, folks.</font size>

. . . on the other hand

<font size="4">If you’re all about beating up on President Obama, you can conveniently forget this bit of data as if it never really happened.

However, if your interest is to make health care available to more Americans, this should be a happy day for you – no matter what your ideological beliefs.

</font size>

 

[Upgrade Dave]

And they can't claim it's because of the mandate (though I'm sure some will)because the mandate doesn't kick in until much later, 2014 I think.

 

[QueEx]

And they can't claim it's because of the mandate (though I'm sure some will)because the mandate doesn't kick in until much later, 2014 I think.

You're on it! As the article notes:

<font size="3">They were not mandated to do so.

And to the extent that the coming mandate obligations might figure into their thinking, would you not imagine they would wait until 2014 to make a move as the rules do not go into effect until that time?
</font size></font size>

 

[QueEx]

And they can't claim it's because of the mandate (though I'm sure some will)because the mandate doesn't kick in until much later, 2014 I think.

You're on it! As the article notes:

<font size="3">They were not mandated to do so.

And to the extent that the coming mandate obligations might figure into their thinking, would you not imagine they would wait until 2014 to make a move as the rules do not go into effect until that time?
</font size></font size>

 

[QueEx]

And they can't claim it's because of the mandate (though I'm sure some will)because the mandate doesn't kick in until much later, 2014 I think.

You're on it! As the article notes:

<font size="3">They were not mandated to do so.

And to the extent that the coming mandate obligations might figure into their thinking, would you not imagine they would wait until 2014 to make a move as the rules do not go into effect until that time?
</font size></font size>

 

[QueEx]

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I heard you the first time.

 

[QueEx]

I heard you the first time.

LOL. But they're not responding ! ! !

`

 

[Upgrade Dave]

bumping since Gunner and Chitown are making appearances again.

 

[QueEx]

bumping since Gunner and Chitown are making appearances again.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Too busy hating on Jews and defending Sarah Palin.

 

[Fuckallyall]

I have never said that the PPACA could not benefit some. Shit, I could come to your house, take your stuff, sell it, and use the money to buy my kids some clothes. Would that not benefit somebody ? But it comes with a cost. The cost is huge, and the benefit will not be as promised. Nothins this post suggests says otherwise. And I would like to see some more of the numbers. There is an old phrase " There are three types of lies; you have lies, damn lies, and statistics". More to come...

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I have never said that the PPACA could not benefit some. Shit, I could come to your house, take your stuff, sell it, and use the money to buy my kids some clothes. Would that not benefit somebody ? But it comes with a cost. The cost is huge, and the benefit will not be as promised. Nothins this post suggests says otherwise. And I would like to see some more of the numbers. There is an old phrase " There are three types of lies; you have lies, damn lies, and statistics". More to come...

This is one. I hope the rest do better than this.

What's this cost you're leery of? Let's discuss it.

 

[thoughtone]

I have never said that the PPACA could not benefit some. Shit, I could come to your house, take your stuff, sell it, and use the money to buy my kids some clothes. Would that not benefit somebody ? But it comes with a cost. The cost is huge, and the benefit will not be as promised. Nothins this post suggests says otherwise. And I would like to see some more of the numbers. There is an old phrase " There are three types of lies; you have lies, damn lies, and statistics". More to come...

Generalities from the right as usual. Gives use some concrete evidence.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Adding something just so I'm not bumping for the sake of bumping

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_repeal_fact_check;_ylt=AiIFfNJMcJHXUrgbnn8qVV1H2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTNnNzRzMHZiBGFzc2V0Ay9zL2FwL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX3JlcGVhbF9mYWN0X2NoZWNrBGNjb2RlA2dtcHJhbmRvbW5icgRjcG9zAzMEcG9zAzMEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNmYWN0Y2hlY2tzaGE-

FACT CHECK: Shaky health care job loss estimate RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press – 17 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Republicans pushing to repeal President Barack Obama's health care overhaul warn that 650,000 jobs will be lost if the law is allowed to stand.

But the widely cited estimate by House GOP leaders is shaky. It's the latest creative use of statistics in the health care debate, which has seen plenty of examples from both sides.

Republicans are calling their thumbs-down legislation the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." Postponed after the mass shootings in Tucson, a House vote on the divisive issue is now expected Wednesday, although Democrats promise they'll block repeal in the Senate.

A recent report by House GOP leaders says "independent analyses have determined that the health care law will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy."

It cites the 650,000 lost jobs as Exhibit A, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as the source of the original analysis behind that estimate. But the budget office, which referees the costs and consequences of legislation, never produced the number.

What follows is a story of how statistics get used and abused in Washington.

What CBO actually said is that the impact of the health care law on supply and demand for labor would be small. Most of it would come from people who no longer have to work, or can downshift to less demanding employment, because insurance will be available outside the job.

"The legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount _roughly half a percent_ primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply," budget office number crunchers said in a report from last year.

That's not how it got translated in the new report from Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other top Republicans.

CBO "has determined that the law will reduce the 'amount of labor used in the economy by.roughly half a percent.,' an estimate that adds up to roughly 650,000 jobs lost," the GOP version said.

Gone was the caveat that the impact would be small, mainly due to people working less. Added was the estimate of 650,000 jobs lost.

The Republican translation doesn't track, said economist Paul Fronstin of the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute. "People voluntarily working less isn't the same as employers cutting jobs," he explained.

For example, CBO said some people might decide to retire earlier because it would be easier to get health care, instead of waiting until they become eligible for Medicare at age 65.

The law "reduces the amount of labor supplied, but it's not reducing the ability of people to find jobs, which is what the job-killing slogan is intended to convey," said economist Paul Van de Water of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The center advocates for low-income people, and supports the health care law.

In theory, any legislation that increases costs for employers can lead to job loss. But with the health care law, companies can also decide to pass on added costs to their workers, as some have already done this year.

To put things in perspective, there are currently about 131 million jobs in the economy. CBO projects that unemployment will be significantly lower in 2014, when the law's major coverage expansion starts.

A spokeswoman for House Ways and Means Committee Republicans pointed out that CBO's report did flag that some employers would cut hiring. "The CBO analysis does not claim that the entire response is people exiting the labor market," said Michelle Dimarob.

The law's penalties on employers who don't provide health insurance might cause some companies to hire fewer low-wage workers, or to hire more part-timers instead of full-time employees, the budget office said. But the main consequence would still be from more people choosing not to work.

That still doesn't answer the question of how Republicans came up with the estimate of 650,000 lost jobs.

Dimarob said staffers took the 131 million jobs and multiplied that by half a percent, the number from the CBO analysis. The result: 650,000 jobs feared to be in jeopardy.

"For ordinary Americans who could fall into that half a percent, that is a vitally important stat, and it is reasonable to suggest they would not characterize the effect as small," she said.

But Fronstin said that approach is also questionable, since the budget office and the GOP staffers used different yardsticks to measure overall jobs and hours worked. The differences would have to be adjusted first in order to produce an accurate estimate.

Said Van de Water, "The number doesn't mean what they say it means."

 

[Greed]

Small businesses struggle with health care law

Small businesses struggle with health care law
Joyce M. Rosenberg, AP Business Writer
7:30 a.m. EDT March 22, 2015

Complying with the health care law is costing small businesses thousands of dollars that they didn't have to spend before the new regulations went into effect.

Brad Mete estimates his staffing company, Affinity Resources, will spend $100,000 this year on record-keeping and filing documents with the government. He's hired two extra staffers and is spending more on services from its human resources provider.

The Affordable Care Act, which as of next Jan. 1 applies to all companies with 50 or more workers, requires owners to track staffers' hours, absences and how much they spend on health insurance. Many small businesses don't have the human resources departments or computer systems that large companies have, making it harder to handle the paperwork. On average, complying with the law costs small businesses more than $15,000 a year, according to a survey released a year ago by the National Small Business Association.

"It's a horrible hassle," says Mete, managing partner of the Miami-based company.

But there are some winners. Some companies are hiring people to take on the extra work and human resources providers and some software developers are experiencing a bump in business.

Companies must track workers' hours according to rules created by the IRS to determine whether a business is required to offer health insurance to workers averaging 30 hours a week, and their dependents. Companies may be penalized if they're subject to the law and don't offer insurance.

Businesses must also track the months an employee is covered by insurance, and the cost of premiums so the government can decide if the coverage is affordable under the law.

Many companies have separate software for payroll, attendance and benefits management and no easy way to combine data from all of them, says John Haslinger, a vice president at ADP Benefits Outsourcing Consulting. And early next year, employers must complete IRS forms using information from these different sources. The process is more complex for businesses with operations in different states.

Mike Patton's health insurance broker is handling the extra administrative chores for his San Francisco Bay-area flooring company DSB Plus, but he's paying for it through higher premiums — about $25,000 a year.

To pay for the extra services the business is getting from his broker, Patton cut back on workers' bonuses and raises.

"They understand it didn't emanate from us," Patton says. "They're just disappointed that $25,000 could have gone into a bonus pool."

That kind of spending has led to a surge in business for payroll providers, human resources consultants and health insurance brokers that track hours and keep records for small businesses, and even file documents with the government.

Sales have more than doubled in the last year at human resources provider Engage PEO. Many of its clients are small companies.

"They want to comply with the law and don't want to be subject to an unintended penalty," says Dorothy Miraglia King, executive vice president of the St. Petersburg, Florida-based company.

Businessolver, a company whose primary business is creating software to help companies administer benefits, also reports an uptick in demand. In 2013, when clients started becoming aware of the law's paperwork requirements, they asked for software that could take care of all their needs, says Rae Shanahan, a human resources executive at the West Des Moines, Iowa, company.

"The traditional systems that people have can't handle it," she says.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/03/22/affordale-care-act-small-business/24959177/