I agree with that last part. It should be unlinked. And you should pay a living wage without relying on so many government subsidies like medicaid covering your employees.
Come on down and tell my staff how I should cut their pay from $17 to $15, cut their profit sharing and matched 401k, so that I can offer them worse insurance than they currently get.
When I said it should be unlinked I meant that there should be a government subsidized alternative. So I am sure how you can agree and disagree. I don't own the company I am a Director. Would you prefer that I reduce wages from $17 per hour to $15 in order to provide shit insurance and kick ppl off
the exchange? I can do that, but who does that help? And my staff isn't just putting widget A into widget B. They are working with people who have Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
I did include post-expansion Medicaid. This applies to our part time staff and back-up staff and those on the bubble. And as I said to start with, this isn't my model. It is the model under which I operate, as directed by CMS, DHHS, LMEs, and MCOs.
xamples: Of course if we offered non-ACA coverage, even the staff who would prefer to stay on the exchange lose that option. Now they are in a situation of, shitty insurance with lower pay over yonder, or higher pay with ACA eligibility here.
xamples: And we pay premium rates. In a state where our staff usually make an average of $13 per hour, we pay $17 per hour. Plus we pay the ACA penalty annually for them to use the exchange, which again, if we offered in house they would lose that option.
Comments