Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Health care: The gutting begins

By

Remember the great $295 debate? That’s the per-employee annual assessment for employers that don’t offer health care — the linchpin that held the whole deal together, in spite of Romney’s cynical, toothless veto.

Well, apparently that’s too much for a lot of employers, and they’re working pretty hard to water down that part of the law, really beyond recognition:

At issue is a rule proposed by the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy to define what constitutes a “fair and reasonable” health care contribution for employers with 11 or more workers. The law uses that language as a benchmark to determine which employers must pay the $295 per-worker annual assessment to help finance the initiative.

The rule is expected to be made final next month.

It would enable companies to avoid paying the $295 if they agree to contribute 33 percent of the cost of an individual employee’s health care premium. As an alternative, employers could avoid the fee if at least one-quarter of their full-time employees choose to enroll in the company’s group health plan, regardless of how much coverage is included. Employers can’t meet the 25 percent requirement by counting workers insured through spouses.

There’s no requirement to cover part-time, seasonal and contract workers.

Critics cited data showing that employers nationwide who offer insurance cover more than three-quarters of their full-time workers’ individual health costs — far above the 33 percent minimum in the state rule.

No, no, no. Providing health care means you provide health care, not that you screw your employees and the state both.

Someone pays for that health care; if it’s not the employer paying for regular check-ups, then it’s the rest of us paying for ER care. What the hell sense does that make? Seriously, this sounds like getting deadbeat dads to pay child support.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. remember how the soviet union would dress up and re-paint their tanks so that the old rattletrap clunkers would look good rolling by the stand of dignitaries on may day?

    <

    p>
    the fate of healthcare reform is not going to swing one way or the other on a $295 assessment.. we can pretend that this is an important new paradigm, but until we scrap the archaic practice of relying on a persons employer to facilitate healthcare delivery, we are just slapping more coats of shiny new paint on an old broken down box of bolts.

  2. check this out from State House News:

    <

    p>

    EMPLOYERS WANT GRACE PERIOD ON HEALTH SURCHARGE

    By Gintautas Dumcius
    STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

    BOSTON, AUG. 8, 2006……The state’s largest employer group asked regulators Tuesday to approve a grace period from a surcharge designed to help pay for health care treatment given to workers whose employers do not offer health insurance.

    The request came as health care access activists and union officials said proposed state rules governing “fair share” health insurance contributions to be made by employers that don’t offer health insurance need to be reworked….

    At the lightly attended afternoon hearing, a senior official at the Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) said regulations stipulating responsibilities of employers under the so-called free rider surcharge are unclear enough to warrant a “grace period” during the first phase of implementing the new health care reform law.

    “From A.I.M.’s perspective, this free rider surcharge portion of the health care reform law is not clear and poses some additional risk for employers if interpreted more expansively than was the intent of the parties who helped to craft the compromise on the employer responsibility components of health care reform,” testified Eileen McAnneny, AIM’s vice president of government affairs.

    The regulations would be clarified under legislation making “technical” changes to April’s health care access law, she said. That bill was among many that didn’t win approval prior to the July 31, the end of formal legislative sessions for 2006, but the group has been told it will be taken up soon, during twice-weekly informal sessions. The Senate Ways and Means Committee is currently reviewing the bill.

  3. For crying out loud, that’s…$25 a month…less than the price of cofee and donuts…

    <

    p>
    Of course the previous poster is correct that employer-provided health insurance is an idea whose time has come and gone, many long years ago. Unfortunately, it’s all that a state government can really do…we need a national, single-payer health insurance system. The Democratic party needs to stop listening to the insurance/big pharma lobbyists and pay attention to the people for a change.

Archives