Obamacare Call Center Will Not Offer Healthcare Benefits to Employees
The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Wildear
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Obamacare Call Center Will Not Offer Healthcare Benefits to Employees

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Wetumpka, AL

    Default Obamacare Call Center Will Not Offer Healthcare Benefits to Employees



    By Eliana Johnson
    July 26, 2013 6:27 PM

    In order to ensure Americans understand how to access the benefits available to them when many provisions of the Affordable Care Act go online October 1, the Obama administration announced last month that it is setting up a call center that will be accessible to Americans 24 hours a day.

    One branch of that call center will be located in California’s Contra Costa County, where, reportedly, 7,000 people applied for the 204 jobs. According to the Contra Costa Times, however, “about half the jobs are part-time, with no health benefits — a stinging disappointment to workers and local politicians who believed the positions would be full-time.” The county supervisor, Karen Mitchoff, called the hiring process “a comedy of errors” and said she “never dreamed [the jobs] would be part-time.”

    - more -

    WRC HR Lennoxlove's Run with Wolves JH, WCX ("Cheyenne") ... still so fondly remembered
    HRCh Struan's Devil's in De Tails SH, WCX ("Lucy") ... as is her daughter
    SR CH Struan's Flight of Fancy JH ("Muse")
    Struan's Master of the Hunt JH, WC ("Charlie")
    Struan's Just Plain Perfect ("Jane")
    CH Struan's Driving Us Crazy ("Daisy") ... the baby in charge
    Dixie ... the "spare parts" dog

  2. Remove Advertisements

  3. #2
    Senior Member coachmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009


    Typical of the left! Bash businesses for hiring part-time!

  4. #3
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007


    I can remember discussing the issue of whether Obamacare would cause employers to not offer health insurance. As I recall both Buzz and Yardley have expressed that since health care benefits (among others) were a way to attract the best workers and/or keep those workers, it would make no sense for employers to cease offering those benefits. That position really does make sense.

    The unanticipated consequence: since the "required" minimum coverage, and the coverage for pre-existing conditions, and the subsidies needed for those who still could not afford coverage, increased employer costs, the employers have chosen to use the part-time worker exclusion to cut down their costs. The net result being that higher-skilled employees are full-time and get their coverage (at higher cost). The lower-skilled employees are made part-time and get no coverage.

    The industries that use much low-skilled labor (like fast-food restaurants or big box retailers), figure they can easily replace the low-skilled labor, so offering benefits to those workers has no incentive for the employer to provide those benefits. The savings from not providing that coverage allows the employer to absorb the additional costs of providing coverage for the employees they believe are harder to replace.

    It would appear that the ones who suffer the most from an ill-crafted solution, turn out to be those at the bottom of the food chain. The question will be that if these individuals qualify for full subsidy of their health insurance through exchanges, will this be another huge entitlement program on the order of Medicaid? Even in those states which have chosen not to expand their Medicaid programs (by not setting up exchanges), the funding for these individuals will come from Federal funds. Since the Fed govt is basically broke, and borrowing a large percentage of the money it is spending, what will that do to the deficit?

    We know that cost projections are now being made that O-care will cost 2X the original estimate of $1 trillion. Due to the convoluted application for subsidies, it is feared that many of these low-skilled workers will not even enroll for the subsidized coverage. If they already pay no taxes (actually may get a rebate), they will not feel much of a pinch in paying the tax for not having coverage. Without coverage, they will still be using the emergency rooms and leaving unpaid medical bills when they need care.

    It really does appear that it would have been more realistic to solve the most serious problems one-by-one. It seems that the pre-existing condition problem might better have been solved by a "high-risk pool" of some sort. That seems to be one of the issues that people DO want from O-care. It even seems to be one of the issues to which Joe Public would be willing to contribute to.

    It would be so easy to test-drive a check box on tax returns to contribute to such a fund for a high-risk pool ... before committing our entire medical care system to a law that nobody understands fully.
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts