Mass. law about to take effect - some interesting points

Insurers would not be allowed to set limits on coverage per sickness, year, or lifetime, nor could they set a dollar maximum for any medical service

This part makes me wonder how this will impact the charges that medical providers use.
 
john_petrowski said:
somarco said:
Failure to comply will mean a $295 per employee assessment

The penalty is not severe enough to force compliance. I can see many employers paying the $295 and thumbing their nose at the law.

. . .

But now they have some 'splain to do to their employees. The employees would now get to confront the owner and ask why they don't have coverage since the law took effect. Now the owner comes off looking like a douchebag and loses the respect of the employees - especially if said owner has a nice fat S-class, huge house and a boat. The employees now see him as a law-breaker and someone willing to pay a fine instead of offering coverage. And there goes your workforce.

And how does that employer hire? Say that employee size is 20 and a newbie gets a job. He's all excited to see the health package but the empoyers says "Nah, I don't comply. I just pay the fine instead - it's cheaper." Well, there goes your hiring ability.

You also have your peer group. They're all complying and you're not so now you're an outcast in the small business community.

Also, would an employee now be able to sue that employer? After all, the employer is violating a law and thereby denying coverage. Sounds like a great civil case.

Oh yea, lets play the class card! And if the evil business owners don't except their duty to supply H/C, let's sue the bastards. Who the hell do they think they are!
 
Well James we can at least agree on this much; every trial attorney in the entire state of Mass. has probably put a down payment on that new boat they've been eyeing.
 
I have no doubt that most politicians are lawyers and most love this new program of Mass.. Surely they are eyeing a bunch of new toys at the cost of those some claim these type of laws help. In fact they do nothing more than raise prices and line the pockets of people like John Edwards of NC that is now eyeing a run for the Democratic Nomination for 2008, fat chance though but he is running.

Lawyers should be banned from entering politics, an obvious "Conflict of Interest", that alone would help more so than any mandatory H/C bill.
 
And how does that employer hire? Say that employee size is 20 and a newbie gets a job. He's all excited to see the health package but the empoyers says "Nah, I don't comply. I just pay the fine instead - it's cheaper." Well, there goes your hiring ability.

You also have your peer group. They're all complying and you're not so now you're an outcast in the small business community.

Also, would an employee now be able to sue that employer? After all, the employer is violating a law and thereby denying coverage. Sounds like a great civil case.

That's why they'd comply. You don't comply and the guy down the road does, and you won't be able to hire competent employees.

So, you comply. The fine is meaningless
 
would an employee now be able to sue that employer? After all, the employer is violating a law and thereby denying coverage.

Sue on what basis?

The employer has a choice. Provide health insurance or pay a fine. My guess is many will pay the fine and go forward.
 
Failing to offer health insurance which puts in violation of state law.

Say you found somehow that your boss didn't have workers comp on you and you're a construction worker. You confront him and he bottom-lines you: "Yep, I'm breaking the law and don't care. You're not covered and if you don't like it quit."

That's a slam dunk lawsuit.
 
john_petrowski said:
I'm all in favor of forcing people to protect themselves

I love the smell of totalitarianism in the morning. But anyway...

Let's figure the cost of imposing this on a business. Assume a 10-man group, average employee age 35. Average premium is $350/month, employer pays half.

So $175 X 10 employees = $1750 a month for the employer.

And $1750 x 12 months = $21000 a year for the employer

Add in the hidden costs of administration, overhead and extra man hours, and you've got a lot of money being siphoned out of your economy.

Ah, but what does it matter. No one will listen anyway. No one ever questions the idea of government being involved in the health care business in the first place.
 
I think your math is right on. And if this fails the backlash will be that employer who has 12 employees firing 3 so he doesn't have to comply. The other employer who has 25 employees might have to lay off 5 or 6 just to be able to afford this. If that happens it'll really harm the hourly worker. You might also see a lot of employers opting to only give 25 or 30 hour work weeks in an effort to avoid paying for health insurance.
 
Back
Top