"Senate Version of HCR will encourage corporations to Free Ride:

[amborin]

snip

"Employers who provide health insurance that is unaffordable for some of their employees—that is,
insurance with premiums that would cost the employee more than 9.8 percent of their income, a
level that is likely to be exceeded for a substantial number of workers who are poorly compensated
by their employers—will also have strong incentives to free ride. These employers will have the
same incentive as those who do not offer any health insurance to reduce the number of full-time
workers and increase the number of part-time workers.

Because their assessment is based on the
number of full-time employees who receive premium tax credits for insurance purchased through
the exchange, these employers will also have an incentive to employ workers who are likely to be
eligible for Medicaid (ones with incomes under 133 percent of poverty) rather than workers who are
likely to be eligible for a premium tax credit (between 133 and 400 percent of poverty). While it
would be difficult (and almost certainly illegal) for employers to base hiring or firing decisions on a spouse’s income, low-wage employers could, on average, reduce their assessments by paying low....

snip

"the Senate bill would create an incentive for employers to free ride by increasing the
number of people they employ in the “no-responsibility” categories and reduce the number of
people they employ in the single “responsibility” category (full-time employees with a family income
between 133 and 400 percent of the federal poverty line). The House does not create this kind of
incentive for employers to free ride.

The nature and extent of the free-rider incentive in the Senate bill would depend on whether or not
the employer provides affordable health coverage to their employees. For employers who do not
provide any health coverage, the most troubling incentive would be to reduce the amount of their
assessment by reducing the share of their employees who work full time and increasing the share
working part-time. "

snip

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/free-ride-2009-12.pdf

Research conducted on Hawaii’s employer mandate, which was limited to
employees working more than 20 hours a week, suggests that “employers’ primary response to the
mandate was increased reliance on the exempt class of workers …”5 The House bill
avoids creating this kind of perverse incentive by ensuring that employers are responsible for all
employees, not just those working above an hourly threshold set by the employer.
Employers who provide health insurance that is unaffordable for some of their employees—

snip

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/free-ride-2009-12.pdf

[FrenchieCat]

1. They will always have a free ride......

the point can't be so much about the corporations,

it has to be about if there are folks who are gonna get something out of it
that they ain't getting now.

If you want to hamstring insurance companies,
at the price of denying those who don't have healthcare,
then this article is for you.....


but like I said, this is the last time that we will have a chance to pass anything,
because after that SCOTUS decision, if you think the ride has been free up to this point,
then you haven't seen nothing yet.

In essence, posting this helps noone....in particular those folks who don't have shit now,
and won't have shit if you get your way.

[amborin]

3. "if you want to hamstring insurance companies"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

12. Cause that should be the only singular focus.....

and everything else, including people be damned.

[Hello_Kitty]

4. Congratulations, Frenchie, you are officially a corporate tool with that comment.

In addition to being a propagandist.

[jannyk]

7. +1

[FrenchieCat]

11. Calling me names solves your problem, perhaps......

yet the problems still remain.

As apparently these Millions of "Stray Cats" (as poor people are now being called)
must not simply be worth it far as you're concerned?
and we need to concern ourselves much more with the
corporations who will always have more, and the employers,
who pretty soon will be employing us for even less,
because congress will reflect corporate wishes
more than even now?

no matter how many labels you want to attach to me
in order to help you feel righteous,
you are still missing 1/2 of the picture;
the half that breathes and lives or dies....

Cause you've decided by your own decree that you are one of the good ones,
and so you demonize those who don't see it exactly your way,

[laughingliberal]

13. Perhaps the difference for those of us who do not support the Senate blow job of the industry is

we do not wish to see the poor or the working and middle classes ground up into cat food and fed to the fat cats. Those of us who oppose this bill take our fair share of demonization. Is your message to take what we can get now no matter how harmful and be ever so grateful to our corporate masters for it? Or is it our corporate masters' pet legislators to whom we should show our gratitude?

There are plenty of progressive Democratic representatives in the House who were duly elected by their constituents to represent them. They do not feel feeding us to the Lions is a good idea and they are standing against it.

[Hello_Kitty]

16. Good lord. So many strawmen in that it should be declared a fire hazard. eom

[leftstreet]

2. K&R

[Hello_Kitty]

5. An individual mandate but no corporate mandate

What could possibly go wrong with that? :sarcasm:

[laughingliberal]

10. +1000 nt

[iamtechus]

6. Employers should have NOTHING to do with healthcare insurance

When the boss provides your healthcare insurance you dare not piss him off or he will fire you and thereby deny your family healthcare.

This is a form of servitude.

[laughingliberal]

14. It is a form of servitude. Now, with the Ensign amendment they get to know about the health concerns

of your family. Kiss your job goodbye if you're diagnosed with any chronic health problems.

[Hello_Kitty]

15. I agree you shouldn't have to depend on your job for health insurance.

But employers need to pay their fair share toward the maintenance of a healthy workforce. The Senate bill places a ridiculously weak penalty on employers who don't provide coverage. It's $750 a year for each worker for companies with a payroll of over $750k, whereas the House bill hit them with an 8% penalty on their payroll. Think about that. You can provide coverage for your employee and their whole family for thousands a year or you can pay a $750 fine for just that employee.

[Autumn]

8. #5 Rec Good article

thanks for posting it.

[laughingliberal]

9. A bonus! Discourage hiring of full time employees along with serving us to the monsters.

That's a jobs program we can get behind.

These types of things buried in this bill are the types of unintended consequences I keep talking about that will make this bill one of the worst things we ever did for those not in the upper 1% of this country. People have little ability to look beyond the talking points and see the far reaching effects of this. And, anyone who thinks this sort of thing will get 'fixed' after they pass the bill well....good luck with that. There are dozens of these types of poison pills in this bill and none of them are likely to get 'fixed' in reconciliation if it passes.