Business response to Health Care Reform

[cbscreative]

Let me first state that I seek to discuss this from a business perspective and leave politics aside. Being about the Health Care Reform could easily turn political, but since it has such impact on business, it's better we stick with discussing that.

Here's a very interesting CNN Money article (http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/news/companies/dropping_benefits.fortune/) that essentially proves the critics of the Health Care Reform were right. It's kind of humorous how the whole thing started too.

Rep. Henry Waxman wanted to create a public spectacle to prove how the new Health Care will not shift the burden of health care to taxpayers. After demanding documents from major employers to prove his point, the committee quickly dropped the subject to avoid the embarrassment. The very thing politicians claimed would not happen is what the documents revealed will happen (is happening).

None of this should surprise us. One of the basic laws of economics proves that if you want less of something, tax it. Our leaders were asking us to believe that funding for this new reform would come partly by implementing a heavy tax on "Cadillac policies" so us minions who don't have these will not see our costs increase. I couldn't help but wonder where the money would come from when that well ceases to exist and can't be tapped. After all, who will be volunteering to pay that much tax? It's not like that wasn't predictible. Duh.

So, because this is a business discussion and not a political discussion, how will you be dealing with increased costs and increased taxes? After all, the "big" companies will be passing on any increases they have to the consumer, so we'll all be paying higher prices. If this results in more job losses, then the economy tanks out even more.

I'm not trying to sound like a pessimist because I'm not. But I am a realist, and though I myself will adapt and be fine, there will be plenty of pain when more jobs are lost, incomes are cut, and expenses increase. And if our own costs of doing business increase, we either raise our prices (if we can), or work harder for less.

[vangogh]

I seek to discuss this from a business perspective and leave politics aside.

Good luck with that. You yourself couldn't last another paragraph. In fact your next 3 paragraphs are pretty much all political.

As far as me as a business owner this really doesn't affect me. I have no employees and no employer pays for my health care. I'm in the same situation I was in before and will continue to be in the same situation after.

On a larger scale we all need to see how things shake out and we won't know whether the bill will ultimately be beneficial or not for at least a few years. It's still several years before most of it kicks in after all. There are so many factors that will come into this that no one really knows what will happen. Many people making predictions at the moment are doing so based on their political beliefs and little more.

By the way the article you linked to doesn't say anything about jobs being lost, incomes being cut, or expenses increasing. It actually says the opposite for the last 2 will happen within the companies that drop health care coverage and it says nothing at all about the first.

[Steve B]

I noticed that too VG - he didn't even get through the very next sentence without a political opinion "... essentially proves the critics of the Health Care Reform were right".

It doesn't seem to affect me - I have only a few part-time employees and I have to buy my health insurance from a private plan. It was a nightmare trying to get any coverage at all because they kept rejecting us for pre-existing conditions. We finally found someone to cover us at a somewhat reasonable rate three years ago - then the premiums went up 25% two years in a row (and we had no major claims). Hopefully, we might get a few more choices the next time we decide to shop around for coverage. We'll see ... but, I'm not holding my breath.

[vangogh]

Yep, those were the exact words.

It's a hard topic not to let political views enter into the picture.

Like I said above this really won't affect my business, since I have no employees and I'm on my own for insurance. If anything it will probably give me another option.

I think if we're looking at this on a macro level it's way too soon to really know how it's going to play out. The article Steve linked to is interesting and it is funny (or maybe ironic) how the information became public. The article points out how some rather large companies are doing cost analysis on whether to continue health care for employees. For some it will be less expensive to pay the penalties. Now that doesn't mean those companies will then abandon health care for their employees. I think there are other factors at play.

For the companies that do the article mentions how those companies will likely have to increase wages to stay competitive in a competitive labor market. At the moment we're not in a competitive labor market, but there's reason to believe we will be in 2014 when the entirety of the bill kicks in. The increased wages could very well be more than the cost of health insurance for those that would lose it through their employment.

Some of the people who lose coverage might end up switching coverage to their spouse's company. Even assuming all the companies mentioned in the article do drop coverage there are still far more companies not mentioned.

Just way too early to see how this will play out.

[cbscreative]

OK, I'll admit discussions about taxes and politics are probably impossible to keep totally separate since politics determines taxes, but I'm looking more for a discussion about how this impacts business.

As for the article not mentioning increased expenses, true, but that to me will be an inevitable result when things don't work out the way we were promised. I was projecting beyond the scope of the article. If they are supposed to get so much funding from increasing taxes on something such as the Cadillac policies, where will the money come from when those sources dry up because of the taxes? They will need to seek revenue from somewhere, and that means more taxes.

If those taxes are placed on businesses like they often are, that means price increases because businesses need to pass on increased costs to the consumer. If they tax the citizens directly, that doesn't go over very well. It's easier to hide the taxes by going after business.

One thing the article specifically talked about was how these companies plan to drop coverage and pay the fine because it's cheaper. Again, the analytical part of me sees price increases without them having to mention it. You can't have all these people suddenly transferred to the public option without increasing the expenses to someone. In this case, that someone will be the taxpayers. Since we are the taxpayers (directly or indirectly), I call that a price increase.

The only mystery is where the price hikes will happen, not if.

At the heart of this whole thing is that the gov't is taking control. At the risk of sounding political, please name an example where gov't control has resulted in increased efficiency. So while this may reduce costs in some areas, it will increase it in others because the gov't cannot take on those expenses without collecting the money from somewhere (at least not for long).

So if the net effect is an increased need for taxes, there's a good chance you will be paying for it. The trick is to convince you that someone else is paying for it or that it won't affect you.

I don't consider myself an authority in economics, but I do understand business. I find the statement about looking at this only from political views to be both inaccurate and stereotypical. I see this from a business perspective. I can look at historical patterns and know what to expect. Just like we succeed in business by analyzing the market, I believe you can predict the outcome of political decisions and the effect it will have on the economy.

I know this is a long post already, but I do want to quickly address the job loss issue. We're business people. I shouldn't have to explain to anyone here that if you have per employee fines that companies will seek to streamline their workforce. To expect anything other than job losses is unrealistic.

[Steve B]

I wish I knew exactly how everything was going to turn out like you do. I have too much trouble comprehending all the complexities involved and I guess I'm not all that smart. Of course, anyone that knows exactly how the economy will be affected will be able to get rich playing the stock market - so the inevitable increases in prices and taxes won't really have a meaningful affect on them.

I don't seem to be able to make money in the stock market - so I'll probably just work harder trying to keep up for a while, delude myself thinking that things will get better - then eventually go bankrupt and live on the streets. I may decide to get off the grid and generate my own power, grow my own food, and walk everywhere I need to go. I already have a garden and some chickens, so I've got a good start.

[Harold Mansfield]

My personal opinion about the whole deal is that our problems with the cost of health care come from one source. Fraud.

Insurance, Medicare, Workers Compensation, and frivolous Slip and Fall lawsuits have driven the cost of doing business in the heath care industry to epic proportions...and is literally stealing 100's of billions, actually trillions annually right out of the pockets of the American tax payer.

If we don't get a handle on it, all the legislation in the world will not help us...it's going to eventually break the economy to the point where it cannot be repaired.

At this point higher premiums are the least of our worries. If we can get a handle on the fraud..at least a percentage of it, the money saved or recovered every year would pay for the whole damn thing for everyone, and have enough to fund the space program. It's that much.

All of the back and forth about who or how it will be paid for have nothing to do with the real problem. Why does crap cost so much and why is money pouring out of our fund? It's fraud. No one who is against Health care reform is talking about how to stop it, they are looking for ways to compensate for it or just leave things the way they are.

Of the countries where "socialized medicine" works, they have one thing going for them that enables it to work...people don't sue because of hot coffee and 90% of the lawyers don't specialize in Slip and Fall and spend all day, EVERYDAY, in court suing insurance companies or the Federal Government.

2 years back, I had some legal problems and needed an attorney. Have you ever shopped for a lawyer in this country? You have to make around 30 calls just to find someone who will do anything besides personal injury, medicare, and workers comp.

It's so bad that I would venture to say that we all know at least one person that has committed some kind of insurance fraud or had a frivolous lawsuit in court.

It is out of control and if we don't get a handle on it, they are going to drain the system until there is nothing left for anyone.

Do you know that Heroine addiction can be classified as a disability ? We are actually paying people from the disability fund because they are drug addicts !
Growing up, I knew people in the neighborhood (nuff said) and they used to tell me that their busiest time of the month was the 1st and 15th because that's when the Gov. checks came.

We have all seen first hand how some will keep pumping the well of an industry or system until it breaks. It just happened to us. This is no different and we have been watching it unfold for years and just accepting it.

So to me, if you want to reform medicare and health insurance...stop people from stealing from it.

[greenoak]

im all for it and hopeful.... we will get some money back to pay the big coverage we now provide...we cover 5 workers now...
. and i sincerely hope my 2 part time workers will be able to get covered as well.... ....
plus isnt it the right thing to do? we all need health coverage...
on the other side..everything is so expensive....probably for the reasons eborg mentioned...
ive just seen.a well insured friend who died and almost got a 100,000$ operation during the very last stages of cancer.... we probably cant afford that for everybody...

[Spider]

Anyone can take any little aspect of a very complicated segment of the economy and extrapolate that little aspect into a doomsday scenario. All that requires is imagination and a few distorted facts. I'd rather look at the facts that exist and look at it from a broader point of view.

Fact 1. America is the only metropolitan country that has a solely private insurance sickness care industry. (NB. The only healthcare here is generally outside insurance coverage, and few people seem to care about their health - they only care about their sickness and injury.) The other metropolitan countries have government-sponsored healthcare (which includes care of health as well as care of sickness and injury.)

Fact 2. America's sickness care costs a lot more per person population than the health and sickness care of the other metropolitan countries.

Therefore, the facts do not support the general argument that government healthcare will cost more than the current private healthcare we "enjoy"(?) If other countries like Canada, Britain, France, Germany, can organize a government healthcare system that is cheaper, then I suspect that America has the brains to do the same.

Oh! Freedom! Freedom of choice!

Fact 3. In Britain and Canada (probably France and Germany, too - not sure about that), private insurance is available, so one has a choice of private or government healthcare. The two can exist side by side.

If there, why not in the USA?


Fact 3. Healthcare must be paid for, whether a government system or a private system. I do not see why transferring from a private payment system to a government payment system - from private insurance premiums to taxes - must amount to an increase in cost overall. Why does it matter how the money is collected/paid? The cost of the service is unaffected by the collection/payment process.


All in all, I think more heat than light is generated by the energy expended on these arguments.


To see this in a business context-- I do not see this affecting business overmuch. The system of making deduction from employee payrolls is well etablished - FICA, etc. Health insurance premiums could become part of FICA payments or just another column on the same form with the same process. Companies would not having to make a separate calcuation and payment to a third party insurer. IOW, it would simplify payroll processes.

But that will not be - the "Public Option" has been rejected in Congress and the bill contains no public option. We are stuck with the same old crappy system we have always had. Therefore, the bill, as it stands, will have no effect on business, at all.

[Blessed]

First - I agree with Harold - the reason healthcare costs in this country are so high is because we have permitted so much fraud over the years.

I think Frederick has a valid point here - whether the costs come out in insurance premiums or in taxes the costs shouldn't change all that much.

Personally - I thought it would be best for our country to stay away from government-ran healthcare, that is because personally, I'm in favor of much smaller government - one that stays out of social issues. However, our government has been getting more and more involved with social issues for decades now - welfare, medicare, social security, etc... and now the government is very much involved in healthcare.

As business people and citizens of this country we have to learn to adapt. I think the biggest changes we're going to see in the business world is simply the learning curve of everyone figuring out what is going to work best for them and how to adapt to the new laws. We all hate change, it's human nature - but change has happened. Now we just wait and see how things evolve as the newly passed law gets put into practice.

Now - if the government ran health care system can figure out how to eliminate the fraud (or at least some of it) that will be a good thing. All my old-enough-to-understand life, I've known or known of people who cheat the other government ran social services though so I'm not holding out much hope on that one.

[Harold Mansfield]

Fact 3. Healthcare must be paid for, whether a government system or a private system. I do not see why transferring from a private payment system to a government payment system - from private insurance premiums to taxes - must amount to an increase in cost overall. Why does it matter how the money is collected/paid? The cost of the service is unaffected by the collection/payment process.


My only issue with this, ( and I have great confidence in my Gov and this administration) is the Government is already running 5 Heath Care related or compensation organizations that are bleeding like a stuck pig.

Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Health Affairs, Workers Comp and Disability.
All of them are badly mismanaged and loosing tons of money out of the back door.

The Government is seen to be an easy target when it comes to over billing, theft and fraud. How would this be any different if they haven't cleaned up what they are already running?

[cbscreative]

My only issue with this, ( and I have great confidence in my Gov and this administration) is the Government is already running 5 Heath Care related or compensation organizations that are bleeding like a stuck pig.

Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Health Affairs, Workers Comp and Disability.
All of them are badly mismanaged and loosing tons of money out of the back door.

The Government is seen to be an easy target when it comes to over billing, theft and fraud. How would this be any different if they haven't cleaned up what they are already running?

Harold, you nailed it pretty well, I think. The track record of gov't run programs is not good. To expect that to all of a sudden improve isn't something I expect to see happen. I also appreciate your points about fraud. From what I know of this new law, it does little or nothing to deal with the fraud issue.

SteveB, nice sarcasm. Yes, I'm a self proclaimed authoruty on this subject and I know exactly everything that's going to happen. Thank you for helping to make that clear.

What I do find intriguing is the attitude that most of us will not be persoanlly affected by this. You don't have to know a whole lot about this to see it is very far reaching, very different, and it would be impossible to not be personally affected by it. That doesn't mean doomesday, but it does mean change. And I see cost increases that reach way beyond just the health care because this will be expensive.

I don't doubt that our leaders will seek to create the illusion of lower health care costs, and it may very well seem that way if your out of pocket costs are lower. But if it costs the gov't more to provide it, that money has to come from somewhere. So other seemingly unrelated costs wil rise. It's a shell game, but it has proven to work with voters as long as no one shines a light on it.

Frederick raised an excellent point where this new law does have merit. That's the health care vs. sickness management aspect of the system. I agree this is a step in the right direction. I may disagree with most aspects of the gov't run system, but I'm not saying it's 100% bad.

Interesting discussion so far. I know this is a hot topic that's challenging to keep away from an overtly political slant, but we've been able to do that many times here. I figure since this will affect us all whether we realize it yet or not, it's a useful business discussion.

[Harold Mansfield]

Harold, you nailed it pretty well, I think. The track record of gov't run programs is not good. To expect that to all of a sudden improve isn't something I expect to see happen. I also appreciate your points about fraud. From what I know of this new law, it does little or nothing to deal with the fraud issue.

.
What I do find intriguing is the attitude that most of us will not be persoanlly affected by this. You don't have to know a whole lot about this to see it is very far reaching, very different, and it would be impossible to not be personally affected by it. That doesn't mean doomesday, but it does mean change. And I see cost increases that reach way beyond just the health care because this will be expensive.


Not to beat the horse more, but costs don't have to rise because we have enough money coming in to pay for this. It's just that it's being stolen, outright.

So we are really not looking for a way to pay for it, we are looking for a way to subsidize the fraud and waste that we already know is going to come with it.

It's like putting duct tape on a water leak and trying to come up with a way to pay for more duct tape, instead of turning off the water and fixing the damn pipe.

[Spider]

Frankly, I don't see where the government is getting involved in the healthcare system (medicare, medicaid, etc. aside - which they are already involved with.) Thus, I don't see what everyone seems to be afraid of.

As I understand it, a "public option" is not going to be provided. The government is not setting up a competing healthcare system, nor a competing insurance program, and the government is not collecting any money for providing healthcare. It's all to remain as it was, with the exception of improved standards - like, insurance companies not being able to cherry-pick only healthy people to insure, no refusal for pre-existing conditions, no cancelling of policies after a major claim, and so forth.

This is just changing the rules for how the insurance companies operate. It's no different to laws requiring automobile companies to provide brakes on their vehicles, and for electrical equipment manufactureres to meet certain safety standards, etc.

Unless I am mistaken, the government is not going to be taxing anyone for anything related to healthcare and is not going to be providing any healthcare service. All I have been able to discern is that the government will fine people for not having health insurance - which will force people to buy health insurance and that, in my book, is a gift for the insurance companies.

So, how will this affect the ordinary person and small businesses?

[Spider]

...the Government is already running 5 Heath Care related or compensation organizations that are bleeding like a stuck pig.
Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Health Affairs, Workers Comp and Disability.
All of them are badly mismanaged and loosing tons of money out of the back door... I think this is a matter of perception - at least the financial aspect. (I have no idea how effective or ineffective the actual services are.)

So, the income to Medicare, medicaid, etc. is X and the cost is Y. There is a shortfall, you say, because the costs exceed the income = a bleeding loss.

But the costs are paid, aren't they? The shortfall is paid out of the general kitty of other taxes collected.

Allow that nothing is done to change the costs. Increase the income to balance the account = no loss. But to do that, you would have to increase the taxes that pay for the services.

Now, there would be no shortfall to be paid from the general kitty of all other taxes collected. The exact amount of the increase in Medicare, etc. taxes could be reduced taxes in the general kitty, which no longer have this shortfall burden to pay for. It's taking money out of one pocket and putting into the other.

IOW, it makes no difference to the overall budget and no difference to the tax-paying public.

[Harold Mansfield]

I think this is a matter of perception - at least the financial aspect. (I have no idea how effective or ineffective the actual services are.)

So, the income to Medicare, medicaid, etc. is X and the cost is Y. There is a shortfall, you say, because the costs exceed the income = a bleeding loss.

But the costs are paid, aren't they? The shortfall is paid out of the general kitty of other taxes collected.

Allow that nothing is done to change the costs. Increase the income to balance the account = no loss. But to do that, you would have to increase the taxes that pay for the services.

Now, there would be no shortfall to be paid from the general kitty of all other taxes collected. The exact amount of the increase in Medicare, etc. taxes could be reduced taxes in the general kitty, which no longer have this shortfall burden to pay for. It's taking money out of one pocket and putting into the other.

IOW, it makes no difference to the overall budget and no difference to the tax-paying public.

It does make a difference if we are paying twice as much for products and services, or paying for patients and procedures that don't exist.
Why do we keep wanting to dump more money to cover the cost when the problem with escalating cost is theft and fraud ?

Of course it will continue to be covered..the Government's check is always good, but at what cost to the rest of us ?

We all know that Medicaid will rent a wheel chair for $400 a month, when the chair costs $400 to buy outright.

So how many more budget cuts and concessions do we keep making in Municipal Services, Education, Law Enforcement and many other things that we all benefit from as a country, to continue to fill the pockets of a few who have found a way to rape the system?

It makes an absolute difference to the tax paying public because our tax dollars aren't going to benefit society and the country as a whole, they are going to pay for someones yacht and BMW.

Insurance premiums aren't high because of the cost of goods and services, they are high because insurance companies are constantly fighting frivolous lawsuits from fender benders, and staged slip and falls.

Every time a hanger falls off of the rack at Walmart, there is someone within 20 feet of it talking about suing.

How low could you keep costs if you were in court 365 days a year paying out money to people who weren't sick or injured, but had a good attorney in court to prove that they were, simply because they attended a few appointments with the Lawyer provided doctor who will say exactly what needs to be said to prove the case?

Yes, the cost will continue to be covered, but the money isn't going to sick people, it's going to con men and shysters.

As a tax paying American, I take extreme exception to that and it pisses me off to hear that a Government subsidy has been cut, yet the Clinic across town is billing Medicare (my tax dollar) for patients who were never in the clinic.,,or that Doctors are over writing pain killer prescriptions to patients with a headache, so they can sell them on the street.

It's too rampant, and it's too much.

[Spider]

I agree with you, Harold, as to reducing fraud.

However, to imply that Medicaid, etc. "are badly mismanaged and loosing tons of money out of the back door..." and that the solution is better management (that's what I deduced when you speak of badly managed) is to undermine your own argument.

If the private insurance system is a well-managed system and the US government cannot manage it any better, then how can the other metropolitan countries' governments do it?

I'll support you in your argument against fraud. I do not think that is a valid argument against government involvement. Let's just tackle the fraud, wherever it is found. I'm sure the private insurance companies are equally affected by the sort of fraud you have described, as well as the government. As indeed are private citizens paying privately subjected to fraud by hospitals and others. It's a rotten system to the core and needs a total overhaul. Which we have not got in the new laws.

[Harold Mansfield]

That was really my main point, that no one is going to be able to do anything differently until we get a handle on the theft.

[Patrysha]

What I do find intriguing is the attitude that most of us will not be persoanlly affected by this.

Well it would be a really, really long shot for it to affect me. Unless you cranky 'mericans try and pull this privatization stuff up here...

[cbscreative]

OK, Patrysha, I'll exempt you (and anyone else not in the US) from my statement :)

[Spider]

...What I do find intriguing is the attitude that most of us will not be persoanlly affected by this. You don't have to know a whole lot about this to see it is very far reaching, very different, and it would be impossible to not be personally affected by it...What I find intriguing is the attitude of many that it will have a considerable effect on them - some seeming to think that the whole healthcare/sickness care system will be turned on it's head. So far, all I have been able to ascertain is that this is health insurance reform, not reform of healthcare, at all.

The bill, signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010 seems to comprise of two acts - The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. According to opencongress.org , it would expand health care coverage to 31 million currently uninsured Americans through a combination of cost controls, subsidies and mandates. Well, I guess those 31 million citizens will be affected, and the insurance companies will be affected - mostly benficially, I think - but I cannot see how any of those already insured will be affected.

Would someone care to indicate how they think they, or others, will be affected?

[Steve B]

Blessed - I'm not sure how this change can be viewed as a Gov't. Run system. The part that would have been Gov't. Run (the Public Option) was rejected and is not included in anything that was signed into law. This is merely the same system with several more regulations imposed on it (most of which are hard to argue with in my opinion - i.e. like not being allowed to reject someone for a pre-existing condition).

There will be zero impact on my business from what I understand.

[vangogh]

I was digging around to see what if any penalties small businesses would face if they don't have health insurance for their employees. Thought I'd post what I found.

Penalties will only be for businesses with 50 or more employees if at least one employee requires the public subsidy to help pay for their own insurance. 96% of all businesses with at least 50 employees currently offer health insurance so only a small percentage will be affected.

If you have under 50 employees you won't be obligated to buy insurance for them. 95% of the small business in the U.S. have less than 50 employees so again not many are really affected.

Of course this thread started because some very large companies are looking into whether or not it will make economic sense for them to pay the penalty instead of paying for insurance. Given that they don't have to offer insurance now and there other factors in why a company would offer insurance I suspect most would choose to keep offering insurance even if they save by paying the penalty. I would also imagine that if companies do start dropping insurance the penalties will be increase so it does make more economic sense to pay for insurance. Naturally this just my opinion.

Up until 2013 a very small business will receive a tax credit to help pay up to 35% of insurance for employees. I don't think you can count yourself as an employee though in order to take advantage of that credit.

In 2014 exchanges will be set up to help small businesses buy insurance. The insurance will be standardized for easier comparison between plans and offer at least a minimum level of coverage as set out by the bill. If you don't have employees you'll be able to go through an individual exchange. If you buy insurance for employees off the exchange you'll be able to get a tax credit to help pay 50% of the costs for 2014 and 2015.

Currently small businesses pay more than larger companies for insurance per person. The exchanges are expected to equalize costs for both.

I found all the above searching for something like health care penalties for small business or similar and going through the top 5 or so results if anyone is interesting in finding out more.

Seems like for most of us there will be little to no direct impact. I think most of us fall in the under 50 employees category.

The indirect impact isn't something any of us can know at the moment, because it's indirect and so many factors will come into play. Steve started this thread with an article showing how some very large companies are doing cost analysis on paying insurance vs. paying a penalty. If enough large companies do decide the penalty is the better option then we could see an indirect impact. However at the moment it's still opinion on whether or not that may happen and what that impact will be. If a few companies drop insurance for the penalties their employees would obviously be affected, but I'm not sure if that would end up falling to the rest of us.

Things will likely change with the bill and on a small scale those changes will be good for some and not so good for others. How it affects the majority of us indirectly will likely be about the net good and bad and again that's something we're unlikely to know for years. I'd suggest it could be several or even many years after the bill takes full effect before we'd really know its impact.

[billbenson]

Does this apply to part time employees as well?

[vangogh]

Part time employees, though not seasonal employees are included in the employee count. Here's what I found about how it's determined.


A business with 50 or more full-time employees (excluding seasonal workers, but including part-time employees whose hours have been aggregated into full-time equivalents) must generally pay a penalty if at least one full-time employee requires a public subsidy for insurance.

It looks like another way they determine the company owes a penalty is:


When the business does offer coverage but an employee turns it down because it is unaffordable (defined by the law as costing more than 9.5 percent of the employee’s household income)

I also found this


Under the law, for the purposes of the penalty a full-time employee is anyone who works on average over 30 hours a week.

By the way the information in my post above comes from a number of different sources, but I grabbed everything in this post from this article, How the Health Care Law Affects Your Business (http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/how-the-health-care-law-affects-your-business/), which is in a Q&A format.

From what I've found it doesn't seem like most of us will be directly affected at all. The indirect effect is the stuff we'll debate for a few years until we can see what actually happens.

[billbenson]

Sounds like companies like WalMart who try to skirt "full time" insurance by hiring part timers may be affected. Or they just drop part timers to 25 hours.

[vangogh]

If Walmart would do that now to skirt current laws and they continue to do that after the bill goes into effect I wouldn't say it was the bill causing the effect. Some companies are going to look for loopholes wherever they can. Ideally laws wouldn't have loopholes that could be taken advantage of, but that's never likely to happen.

However in that case I put the blame on the company taking advantage of the loophole and not so much the law or bill.