What happens with Health Care (Page 3)

Thanks, that was my impression too, ie no direct tax implications for those making less than $200K. 

I've seen something like this too, but thought it was something to do 60% meant you got a full tax credit whereas 40% meant you got an 80% tax credit etc......  It's been a LONG while since I saw that, so I could be mixing things up.

Oh so as long as we tax somebody else it's all good!!!

Can you really get much more hypocritical than this.

My take on your second question, is that many 50+ companies are seriously thinking about dropping coverage all together and sending employees to state exchanges.  There are many reasons for this, but the ones that I've researched are following:

1) It's 1/2 the price to drop the coverage and pay the penalty, than continue to keep the insurance coverage, and the associated increases that will likely come.  MUCH cheaper to just drop insurance all together and send employees to the exchange.

A couple things you're leaving out here are that 1) it currently is more advantageous for a company to not offer heatlhcare.  Why do they not drop it today?  they would save money, would they not? 2) does this not create more competition in the health insurance market?  In order to keep participants, they can not charge too high a price.  the larger their pool of participants the more effective they can be.  I only bring these up as market conditions that effect pricing.

As it's more advantageous to not offer healthcare right now, employees have no alternative to affordable health insurance, so a company must be competitive in the market place, plus our company cares for it's employees.  That is why it's a big unknown, how companies will eventually make the decision to offer or not offer coverage.  When the exchanges open, and employees can go to the exchange and pay the same as they are paying now, and get a credit for the remainder, they now have an alternative and companies have an alternative to providing health coverage.  In our instance, it may be more affordable for them to go to the exchange anyway and leave our company with a possible penalty.  Our company set the amount they would pay a few years ago, and passed increases along to the employee (to share costs).  After the passage of ACA, our company decided to stay with a 60/40 split going forward, as we had gotten to a 55/45 split.  So, is it an easy decision, no.  Is there reason to seriously consider dropping coverage all together, yes.  I think it's a toss up on what premiums will do based on the market.  That may or may not be a risk a company wants to assume. 

2) Even though you provide coverage, does not guarantee that you will not be penalized and taxed as a company.  Employees will be free to leave your plan, and go to the exchange to purchase insurance.  For many businesses, it will be  more advantageous for the employee to go the exchange and get the subsidy, than to keep the insurance that the employer provides.  If your employee does this, the company has to subsidize the insurance up to what they would have paid anyway, and pay a penalty.  And, it's my understanding, that the employee can take the full or partial (offset by the employer subsidy) benefit of the subsidy offered via the government too (I'm a bit fuzzy about this though).

I agree this part of the law is all kinds of convoluted and whacky.

Either way, it's generally setup, where the incentive is for the employer to drop coverage, and send employees to the exchange.  Hence, the argument, that the ACA was setup as a first step to a one payer system.

Currently employees have the option to leave and get healthcare elsewhere and while it won't cost the company anything, there is a disincentive to offer healthcare as much now as in 5 years.  In fact it seems to me there is a greater incentive to offer a more affordable option so that employees DON'T go to the exchange.

Yes, employees have the option to leave now, but they don't have an affordable option.  Now, with the credits and the exchange, it becomes much more attractive as an alternative to the employer provided coverage.  Of course, the exchange may or may not offer better coverage.  That remains to be seen.  The employer may be tired of dealing with health insurance, it's costs and possible future unknowns, that now they have an option to send employees to the exchange without feeling bad about it, as they have an option now that was not presented before.  Each company will be different, based on employee makeup, etc.  I'm probably wrong about employers possibly dropping coverage, as it's all speculation right now, but it would not surprise me if they got out of the health insurance business all together, and used the ACA as the excuse.

Now, the big unknown, just as it was when employers started offering health insurance as a benefit, is how competitive companies will get to attract employees with insurance coverage.  But, that is only sustainable up to the point where the business can afford to pay for the insurance and the increases of premiums.

I agree it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

I could be wrong on some of the above, but that is what I've gathered from the times I've looked through the information of the ACA and a couple of classes I've taken that have discussed it.    I might have misinterpreted something or multiple items.