How This Bill Costs Employers
Published on February 21, 2009 By zorven In Politics

So I learned from our HR Director that the new stimulus plan has a provision related to COBRA. For those of you who don't know about this, when an employee is terminated by the employer and the employee has medical coverage through our benefit plan, we have to offer the employee the chance to continue their coverage for 18 months at a set monthly premium (usually higher than they were paying as an employee). However, the employee has only 30 days to make this election.

Our company, like many others, is self-insured. This means that every claim made by the employee under the medical plan is paid for by the company. So the more the plan gets used, the more cash we have to use. Also like many other companies, we require the employee to pay a montly "premium" for their coverage. The premium typically only pays for a small portion of the claims made. So for example, if the total claims made in a year were $1,000,000, the employee's premiums would have paid for $200,000 of this and the company would have paid for the other $800,000.

Now to the stimulus bill. This legislation states that all employees that we let go between Sep 1, 2008 and Dec 31, 2009 now have the opprotunity to elect the COBRA coverage at 35% of what we normally charge for this benefit (this includes employees that have already declined the coverage in the last 6 months). So, if the employee would have normally paid $300 a month, they now get to pay only $105 per month. However, the government will give us a payroll tax credit for the difference. Ok, so the company is whole right? Wrong. First the payroll tax credit is only for 9 months, yet the employee gets to keep COBRA insurance for 18 months. Second, this bill does not cover the additional claims we will have to pay for. So now we will have more ex-employee elect COBRA coverage. Sounds great, right? Yes it does, except that employee that is paying us $105 per month and has a major surgery that costs $80,000 will cost our company $78,000 of money we don't have.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Feb 21, 2009

get used to it. The current politicans that have power are very very anit buesness... after all they want the drones to live off the Gov... so if they cant directly shut you down, they will break ya so you close shop...and boom... they got more welfare people living off them... aint it great?

 

BTW are you a union job? if not... be ready for a less of a % of workers needed to vote in a union. You think you had your hands full now... just wait till ...what... only a 1/3 of the workers want it union?

on Feb 21, 2009

No we are not union. If a union organized here and that caused increased costs we would not survive.

on Feb 21, 2009

zorven
No we are not union. If a union organized here and that caused increased costs we would not survive.

 

 

Well if you got a decent union I guess You could do okay as long as the union has some sense.My local one here that I work for is half way decent ( okay maybe its more us workers than the union itself ) we rather take pay freezes over 5 years and let the new hires come in at a decent wage and at the same time keep our jobs...

on Feb 21, 2009

So presumably companies will think twice before firing employees? if so then it should prove useful. Companies are often too quick to fire their staff without exploring alternative means. It's probably not something you'd want to have around once things get better though (since then a lot more (proportionately) of redundancies would be due to the employees fault rather than the employer just deciding they need to cut costs.

on Feb 21, 2009

aeortar


So presumably companies will think twice before firing employees?

No, because the mecial claims would still be incurred if they were with the company. Companies cut staff to reduce their costs and this bill increases the comany's costs, so now maybe a company needs to reduce more headcount as an offset.

on Feb 21, 2009

watertown1978


Well if you got a decent union I guess You could do okay as long as the union has some sense.My local one here that I work for is half way decent ( okay maybe its more us workers than the union itself ) we rather take pay freezes over 5 years and let the new hires come in at a decent wage and at the same time keep our jobs...

I know there are decent unions out there, that is why I stated "if a union organized here and that caused increased costs"

on Feb 21, 2009

The law of unintentional consequences is immutable, like gravity.  Though in this case, I'm not so sure the consequences were unintentional.

Having said that, doesn't ERISA allow self-insureds to re-insure?  Had re-insurance been in place, wouldn't that have at least passed the hit on to the insurer?  Devil's always in the details.

on Feb 21, 2009

aeortar
So presumably companies will think twice before firing employees? if so then it should prove useful. Companies are often too quick to fire their staff without exploring alternative means. It's probably not something you'd want to have around once things get better though (since then a lot more (proportionately) of redundancies would be due to the employees fault rather than the employer just deciding they need to cut costs.
what its bad to let go of the dead weight? its better to keep on a worker that is not preforming? Either do the job or GTFO should be the the saying. If you cant do the job, let someone who can do it and make the paycheck. Companies goals are to make profits... its just not about providing jobs... if there is no profit why should anyone start a company?

on Feb 21, 2009



Having said that, doesn't ERISA allow self-insureds to re-insure?  Had re-insurance been in place, wouldn't that have at least passed the hit on to the insurer?  Devil's always in the details.

That is called stop-gap insurance, which we have for any individual claim greater than $150,000.

on Feb 21, 2009

what its bad to let go of the dead weight? its better to keep on a worker that is not preforming? Either do the job or GTFO

In a recession workers who are performing are got rid of, not just ones who aren't performing. What is it with people on this forum quoting me without seeming to bother to read what they've quoted?:

not something you'd want to have around once things get better though (since a lot more (proportionately) of redundancies would be due to the employees fault rather than the employer just deciding they need to cut costs

 

 

the mecial claims would still be incurred if they were with the company

Yes but I thought you said that workers who are let go can receive the insurance at a discount ("all employees that we let go between Sep 1, 2008 and Dec 31, 2009 now have the opprotunity to elect the COBRA coverage at 35% of what we normally charge for this benefit"), so you wouldn't get as much from those ex employees as you would from an employee, yet your healthcare liabilities would be expected to be the same, hence it would cost more in that area, meaning the cost reduction achieved from firing the employee is reduced, meaning that alternatives are more likely to be considered.

on Feb 22, 2009

In a recession workers who are performing are got rid of, not just ones who aren't performing. What is it with people on this forum quoting me without seeming to bother to read what they've quoted?:

And you would rather have a copmany not fire employee's during a recession and let the company bankruptso that everyone loses their jobs. Why do some people on JU  only think their opinions half way thru? Always think about the temporary benefits, never about the long term effects. And that is why we are in the shit we are today.

on Feb 22, 2009

And you would rather have a copmany not fire employee's during a recession and let the company bankruptso that everyone loses their jobs. Why do some people on JU  only think their opinions half way thru? Always think about the temporary benefits, never about the long term effects

No, I would have the company cut costs other ways instead of firing employees, meaning they don't become bankrupt. Redundancies are a short term measure, not a long term one. When the recovery starts you'll be regretting firing some of that talent and having to go through the costs of retraining staff, while the company who got their employees to accept a pay cut or work fewer hours will be laughing at you  - why do some people on JU only think their opinions half way through?

on Feb 22, 2009

All this just points to the ridiculous notion that business should provide for employee medical coverage.

Talk about unintended consequences

on Feb 22, 2009

JackDuggan
All this just points to the ridiculous notion that business should provide for employee medical coverage.

Talk about unintended consequences

There's a lot of truth in that.

on Feb 22, 2009

JackDuggan

All this just points to the ridiculous notion that business should provide for employee medical coverage.
Talk about unintended consequences

Do you mean to say that the government should be providing it? I just can't imagine that would be a better system.

2 Pages1 2