Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Akoto

(4,267 posts)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:20 PM Jun 2012

Question from my mom re: ACA

Starting off, I'd like to say that I'm thrilled by today's decision. At age 27, I am on SSI due to an incurable condition. I suffered without insurance for years while fighting for admittance to the program, and I have since come to see what a blessing Medicaid (or any kind of help) is. I hope many more people receive it.

Now, about my mom. She doesn't really follow politics closely, just the parts which sound scary to her. I need a reasoned way to answer her question.

My dad works for a very rich man, the sort who's always looking to 'tweak' the businesses and properties he owns in order to get more profit. Often, these tweaks come at the expense of people he doesn't care about (like dad).

She asks: "Now that everyone is required to have health insurance either way, what's to keep employers from dumping their employee coverage? It seems like it would be cheaper for them."

I'm a bad explainer when it comes to legislation, so if anyone has something concise, it'd be muy appreciated.

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Question from my mom re: ACA (Original Post) Akoto Jun 2012 OP
I'll give it a try, without getting to specific. rgbecker Jun 2012 #1
Tax penalty is greater for employers Harmony Blue Jun 2012 #2
Thanks for the explanations, guys! They have proven helpful. n/t Akoto Jun 2012 #3

rgbecker

(4,836 posts)
1. I'll give it a try, without getting to specific.
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:38 PM
Jun 2012

If your employer has more than 50 employees he has got to cover them or pay a "Tax/Penalty". This will encourage the employer to provide the insurance. If the employer drops the coverage, which many well might, the employee will be able to buy insurance like everyone else through the "Exchange". That insurance will go with him where ever he works so there will no longer be any incentive to stay with a lousy employer just because he offers insurance. The Employer will be competing with other employers for employees and will offer pay and benefits that get him the employees he needs. Some industries will most likely continue to offer health coverage and others, like now, won't want to be bothered.

The important thing is that you will be able to get insurance even if you walk funny or have bad teeth, regardless of color of skin, age or mental health. Oh yeah, and even if you don't have a penis.

Harmony Blue

(3,978 posts)
2. Tax penalty is greater for employers
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:42 PM
Jun 2012

than individual person.

But even assuming the employer chooses to pay the penalty tax (which goes to the government). Individuals that work there will be eligible to look for insurance through a "marketplace" and browse the options depending on each state.

More options for the consumer = victory

This is why corporate health insurance industry fought it tooth and nail because they don't want to offer too many options as they want to give you the illusion of options.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Question from my mom re: ...