According to Boston.com…
Legislators reach health care deal
By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff
Legislative leaders reached a tentative deal today on the most contentious part of the health care bill, agreeing to assess employers who don’t provide health insurance $295 for each employee, according to Beacon Hill officials.
The tentative agreement, to be described at a 3:30 p.m. news conference, clears the way for the Legislature to enact a sweeping health care reform bill and make the state eligible for $385 million in federal Medicaid funds.
At a State House meeting that included representatives of the business community, Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and Senate President Robert Travaglini agreed that companies that have 10 or more employees and do not provide health coverage will pay $295 a year for each worker.
Read the rest at Boston.com … snipped in consideration of copyright.
it’s a “tax increase” on certain businesses, although it means that the rest of us aren’t on the hook for as much Free Care $$.
<
p>
So does Mittster sign it?
Actually, I bet he does. I think it looks worse for him not to have done something about health care when he has the chance and also to save the Federal money. Plus he can always spin the “tax” on those “tax-and-spend” Democrats on Beacon Hill.
But I’d lean your way and say he’ll sign it. He’s already been on the stump praising his health care accomplishments and he’ll look even worse than the flip flopping RINO turned Winger he’s currently dealing with on the presidental trail, if he loses the health care issue he’s already took dredit for.
<
p>
In terms of justifying the taxessment…he regale the Republican primary voter of the great battle he waged against the liberals who wanted a 6% tax on wages to fund the program.
He can always blame blame the feds for threatening to cancel the funds
Look for an assessment on currently non-contributing employers of $200-300 per employee.
…he had the best sense of how this was going to play out today. His sources predicted a $300 annual assesment and the deal came out to $295.
He nailed it. The “executives” in on the negotiations must have been close in their numbers. The real question is how much money the assessment raises.
funds. More importantly it will be off the table and allow the legislature to work on the economic stimulus package that has been held up subject to the dispostion of Health Care. It will also push the issue out of the election cycle .
Last June, our legisatures looked like they would really learn about the healthcare industry and various reforms, but when I went to the Roadmap conference in Oct (sponsored by BC/BS Foundation), the lack of will to make real reform was present even that day. It is becoming more obvious for the need for a constitutional amendment (www.healthcareformass.com). This will require our legislatures to do their job- and with this “mandate” it will actually make it easier for them to make some difficult decisions and compromises. The hard part is going to be educating the public on the issues – getting them to come to a meeting to learn. This issue does not lend itself to quick soundbites, but the consumer aspect will drive the citizen aspect. That is the consumer driven and high deductible plans will get people to think more about the costs and the way the system works. The question is how and what will happen on May 10 ConCon- will Travelini bring it to vote? JJA
ALL uninsured employees,
<
p> – or –
<
p>
all uninsured employees for businesses larger than x employees. If the latter, what is x?
Anyone know how employers who don’t insure part-time employees fit into this? My employer (a non-profit human service organization, ironically) only provides health insurance if someone works 30 or more hours a week. So many folks end up working two jobs, both part-time, and getting insurance from neither! For a while, I worked 28 hours a week (and 10 hours a week at another job) and had to self-insure.
<
p>
This isn’t unique–I’ve worked in other situations where one job went for 20 hours a week and the other went for 20 or 25, and I had no insurance. And part-timers are a LARGE portion of the workforce in recent years.
<
p>
Anyone know anything about this?
And how about the self-employed?
<
p>
Nothing I’ve read about this plan, or the other ones that were floated, addresses the obvious run-arounds businesses can use.
<
p>
What happens if they suddenly reclassify employees as contractors?
<
p>
What’s the definition of “full-time?”
<
p>
What’s the incentive to continue to provide health benefits in the first place? $295 a year is way cheaper than the annual cost of providing health insurance to an employee. For example, a rough check of my own situation puts my employer’s costs for my health insurance at about $4,000 annually. (not including dental)
… is the same it has always been. Want good people, offer good compensation (wages + benefits). Want to hold on to mediocre employees? Offer insurance; few folks are willing to walk away from a job that offers insurance unless they’ve got another with insurance in hand.
<
p>
Offering insurance helps land good employees, and helps reduce voluntary turnover, a benefit to companies. That’s their incentive.
<
p>
For those businesses who don’t believe that those benefits are worth it, they’ll have to cough up the $295 per employee per year to help cover the costs that their uninsured employees bear on the system.
about corporate behavior. More importantly, I think you’re assuming that jobs are fungible. If a person doesn’t like one, he can get another. Unfortunately, there are a lot of other factors involved. It’s quite likely that a person would be stuck in a bad job without insurance.