Recent Developments;
August began with the House Energy
and Commerce Committee striking a
deal with the fiscal conservatives
Democrats and approved e a 1,000-
page bill that:
• Eases employer mandates
• Reduces plan costs below $1 trillion
• Trims down public option; ability to
negotiate payments with providers
• The August recess began with townhalls
where a cross-section of
constituents expressed concern,
anger, and, at times, protest over health
proposals being discussed
• The White House responded with its
series of town-hall meetings to correct
misconceptions over reform
• Initial messaging by the White House
seemed to be downplaying the public
option in a possible bid to renew bipartisan
efforts for reform
• However, the possibility of reform
without a public option drew strong
opposition from liberal constituents
as well as Progressive Democrats
Concerns:
• Town-halls during the recess are having
a significant impact on the debate,
centralizing it over few key points
• Price Tag: $1 trillion price tag has
emerged as a major concern for a
significant cross-section of town-hall
attendees
• Public Option: Billed by critics as
govt.-takeover of healthcare, it remains
a core concern; insurance co-ops are
being touted as an alternative
• Death Panels: House reform bill drew
ire over so-called “death panels”, a
tangential reference to “living wills” and
other “end-of-life” care aspects
• Medicare Savings/Donut hole:
Seniors raised concerns over proposal
to draw savings from Medicare for
setting-up a new public option
• Supporters of reform, on the other hand,
do not see any proposal without a
public option as meaningful reform
• Several supportive legislators have
publicly stated their complete
opposition to any such bill, leaving
little room for any compromise
What Next?
The debate in town hall meetings
during the first weeks has given
opponents confidence in their stand
• On the other hand, supporters of
reform are increasingly apprehensive
of any bi-partisanship, thus favoring a
“go-it-alone” strategy
• President Obama is under pressure
from the Democratic legislators to
clarify his expectations from the
reform bills, something he has not
done assertively, so as to not hamper
any scope of bi-partisanship
• Until the Congress reconvenes,
Obama is likely to push to generate
public opinion in favor of reform
• However, White House may also
cement the divide within Democrats
between the conservative Blue Dogs,
moderate Democrats, and the
Progressive groups and prepare for a
“go-it-alone” legislation
• Overall, the jury is still out over the
fate of achieving comprehensive
health reform legislation in the next
session of Congress, even by the end
of 2009
Friday, September 04, 2009
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
I-9 Handbook
The I-9 Handbook for Employers is a useful reference, especially in light of the newly-revised Form I-9. Every business needs to know the required process for verifying an employee's employment eligibility. The handbook explains:
• Why employers must verify employment eligibility of new employees,
• The process of completing the employment eligibility verification form,
• Unlawful discrimination and penalties for prohibited practices,
• ...as well as important supplemental information.
In the HR Support Center website under the Essentials tab section, simply search for this helpful reference document in the Guides area (as well as the new Form I-9 in the HR Forms area).
• Why employers must verify employment eligibility of new employees,
• The process of completing the employment eligibility verification form,
• Unlawful discrimination and penalties for prohibited practices,
• ...as well as important supplemental information.
In the HR Support Center website under the Essentials tab section, simply search for this helpful reference document in the Guides area (as well as the new Form I-9 in the HR Forms area).
New Form I-9 Available.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has updated the Form I-9 (revision date of 8/7/09). While the previous form dated 2/2/09 remains acceptable, the recommendation is for all employers to start using the newly updated Form I-9.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Companies Step Up Benefits Communication to Combat Unions
As discussions around the Employee Free Choice Act heat up in Congress, employers are stepping up their communications to employees about the benefits they offer as a way of combating unionization efforts.
Many employees do not understand their benefits and employers sometimes do not communicate benefits from health,pension and mandated state and federal programs. Comunicating these beneftis to employees so they truly know what the employer is paying for can greatly help employees appreciate whiat employers are providing for on behalf of the employee.\
We can assist employers in doing just that.
Many employees do not understand their benefits and employers sometimes do not communicate benefits from health,pension and mandated state and federal programs. Comunicating these beneftis to employees so they truly know what the employer is paying for can greatly help employees appreciate whiat employers are providing for on behalf of the employee.\
We can assist employers in doing just that.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Truth in Health Care Reform Act, What you should know?
FACTS ABOUT: H.B. 3200 - America’s Health Choices Act
ACTUAL TEXT OF LAW:
Section 102: Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined
Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met.
Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.
WHAT THIS MEANS:
Once the government-run program has started…
1. the employer sponsored program can not accept any new enrollees unless they are a dependent of someone already enrolled.
2. the employer sponsored insurance program can not make any changes to their program. Making changes to the employer program would eliminate the grandfather exemption!
Eventually all private, employer-sponsored programs would be eliminated.
These are the facts.
ACTUAL TEXT OF LAW:
Section 102: Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined
Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met.
Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.
WHAT THIS MEANS:
Once the government-run program has started…
1. the employer sponsored program can not accept any new enrollees unless they are a dependent of someone already enrolled.
2. the employer sponsored insurance program can not make any changes to their program. Making changes to the employer program would eliminate the grandfather exemption!
Eventually all private, employer-sponsored programs would be eliminated.
These are the facts.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
True Cost of Health Care and the Health Care Debate
The true cost of health care is often not well known by most people and its often difficult to see. 9 out of 10 people under 65 are covered by and employer plan. The cost is often split between the employer's share and the employee's share of the cost. While this is different for each company and has been changing in the last several years it can be 75/25% ER/EE split and cover just the employee cost or the family costs.
As an employee you tend to equate cost as your share of the premium where the employer will look at the total costs. This is often how many look at health care costs. The true cost of health care is made up mainly of claim costs plus the companies administrative cost. Insurance do such a good job of administration that it is less expensive for government plans to use the private sector such as medicare and medicaid. Even congresses very rich plan is in the private sector with a choice of plans and companies to choose from
Since claims can make up from 82 to 92% of the plan costs this is the area which needs to be looked at since even a small change can mean big dividends in lowering costs. An interesting fact is medicare which we have been told will be unable to continue sometime in the next several years because of rising cost. Now medicare was the first plan to set limits on its payements using DRG's and yet continues to expierence rising costs since the number of retiree's keeps growing and the age of retirees continue to rise, meaning more claims cost since aging means more medical issues as a natural process of aging.
PPO's and HMO's which also negotiate for contracts at better rates than the normal charges by providers continue show increased claim costs and therefore increased costs for benefits.
So whats the answer to these perplexing questions of costs and congresses lack of ability to address the real problems?
I believe real change means taking a long hard look at the issues, bringing together all parties to look at how they can contribute to a solution, and most of all some hard decissions that will not please everyone.
I would hope anything congress decides to do they include themselves in the solution which will mean they will protect us by protecting themselves.
As an employee you tend to equate cost as your share of the premium where the employer will look at the total costs. This is often how many look at health care costs. The true cost of health care is made up mainly of claim costs plus the companies administrative cost. Insurance do such a good job of administration that it is less expensive for government plans to use the private sector such as medicare and medicaid. Even congresses very rich plan is in the private sector with a choice of plans and companies to choose from
Since claims can make up from 82 to 92% of the plan costs this is the area which needs to be looked at since even a small change can mean big dividends in lowering costs. An interesting fact is medicare which we have been told will be unable to continue sometime in the next several years because of rising cost. Now medicare was the first plan to set limits on its payements using DRG's and yet continues to expierence rising costs since the number of retiree's keeps growing and the age of retirees continue to rise, meaning more claims cost since aging means more medical issues as a natural process of aging.
PPO's and HMO's which also negotiate for contracts at better rates than the normal charges by providers continue show increased claim costs and therefore increased costs for benefits.
So whats the answer to these perplexing questions of costs and congresses lack of ability to address the real problems?
I believe real change means taking a long hard look at the issues, bringing together all parties to look at how they can contribute to a solution, and most of all some hard decissions that will not please everyone.
I would hope anything congress decides to do they include themselves in the solution which will mean they will protect us by protecting themselves.
Is there a Health Care Backlash Brewing?
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Waiting in line at the pharmacy to pick up prescriptions, Lawrence Cafero Jr. can't help but feel a bit guilty.
Cafero is a state representative in Connecticut and taxpayers subsidize his generous health insurance plan, which requires only a $10 copay for any brand-name prescription drug.
"I'm standing behind either an elderly person or a working-family person and they're taking out wads, like dropping 20, 40, 60 bucks. And I've got $10 — $5 for a generic," said Cafero, R-Norwalk. "I'm embarrassed."
Pressure is mounting in states hit worst by the recession to take back some of lawmakers' generous health benefits that are funded by taxpayers.
A review by The Associated Press showed lawmakers in 12 states get health insurance for free, while those in 28 states share the costs with taxpayers, often getting a better deal than private sector workers.
In California, where finances are so bad the state has issued IOUs, the citizen commission that sets benefits for elective officials voted in June to reduce funds for lawmaker health insurance. The change takes effect in December.
"There are employees on furlough and people being laid off," commission member Ruth Lopez Novodor said. "It just didn't seem right to keep the compensation at the same levels."
In Michigan, supporters are renewing efforts to end lucrative retiree health benefits for lawmakers or at least force lawmakers to work longer before they qualify for them. Similar proposals failed in 2007.
"What's good for us should be good for them," said Ray Holman, a child abuse investigator for the Michigan Department of Human Services, who has seen his health insurance costs rise steadily. He will lose six days of pay this year as state leaders try to close a deficit.
"When you see the lawmakers who have the generous benefits and appear to be working part-time, it's just not good leadership," Holman said.
Meanwhile, many Rhode Island lawmakers accustomed to free health insurance at taxpayer expense have bowed to public pressure and started voluntarily contributing toward its cost.
Last year Rhode Island cut state-funded health care for immigrant children and 1,000 adults, forced the poor to take cheaper generic drugs and raised health insurance costs for state workers.
Yet Sen. Charles Levesque, D-Portsmouth, believes his free health care reasonable considering lawmakers make $14,018 in salary. Although they meet only about six months a year, Levesque, an attorney, considers his elected post a full-time job.
"I am the senator from Portsmouth when I walk out in my bathrobe to get my newspaper in the morning, when I go to the local pharmacy to buy whatever prescription medication I need to keep me going," he said.
Federal lawmakers, who are debating an overhaul to the nation's health care system, also get subsidized insurance. Members of Congress are covered by the federal employees health plan and get VIP medical access at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington and the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. For about $500 a year, federal lawmakers can also have unlimited visits with a physician assigned to the Capitol for routine care.
At Tuesday's town hall meeting in New Hampshire, President Barack Obama was asked why he hadn't talked more about the differences between the benefits offered to federal lawmakers and the system for everyone else. Obama responded that his proposal would give the public options similar to those given to federal employees.
Some state lawmakers also receive generous benefits:
_ Michigan lawmakers get retiree health care after six years of service and can tap into their benefits at age 55. That perk is the envy of workers in a state with 15.2 percent unemployment rate.
_ Members of the Massachusetts Legislature pay about $200 to $230 per month for family health coverage, about 18 percent less than what the average U.S. consumer pays, according to a national survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust.
_ Connecticut lawmakers get retiree health insurance after working a decade for the state. Some lawmakers get retiree health care for free, while others pay 3 percent of their salaries. Brand-name drugs require a $10 co-payment.
In comparison, about 63 percent of employers offered health coverage last year, according to Kaiser's annual survey of roughly 1,900 firms. Health insurance for the average single employee ran around $4,700 annually, and workers paid 16 percent of the tab. Premiums for family plans averaged around $12,680, and workers were responsible for 27 percent of the cost.
The disparities could influence how lawmakers think, said Peter Sepp, a vice president for policy and communications at the National Taxpayers Union.
"It can skew their perspective on how much it might cost a family or small business to provide such insurance," he said. "It can also in some instances lead them to believe that the affordability of their coverage is something that the entire nation can be made to afford."
Not all lawmakers have it so easy. Legislators in New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming cannot get state health insurance, while their counterparts in Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Alabama and Vermont must pay the full price themselves if they want state coverage.
Vermont Rep. Carolyn Partridge, D-Windham, went without health insurance after being elected to office. As a farmer, she cannot afford to pay for the state health plan. Partridge and her husband now qualify for Medicaid.
They paid out-of-pocket for an annual physical and have avoided treatment for anything except emergencies. Partridge said hospitals are willing to work out payment plans for the uninsured.
"The bottom line is, you get taken care of," she said. "The worst bottom line is they take your house, if you own one."
In Rhode Island, House lawmakers passed a bill last year requiring lawmakers to pay 10 percent of their premiums, but it died in the Senate. A similar bill sponsored by Rep. Amy Rice, D-Portsmouth, never made it to the floor this year.
Cafero is a state representative in Connecticut and taxpayers subsidize his generous health insurance plan, which requires only a $10 copay for any brand-name prescription drug.
"I'm standing behind either an elderly person or a working-family person and they're taking out wads, like dropping 20, 40, 60 bucks. And I've got $10 — $5 for a generic," said Cafero, R-Norwalk. "I'm embarrassed."
Pressure is mounting in states hit worst by the recession to take back some of lawmakers' generous health benefits that are funded by taxpayers.
A review by The Associated Press showed lawmakers in 12 states get health insurance for free, while those in 28 states share the costs with taxpayers, often getting a better deal than private sector workers.
In California, where finances are so bad the state has issued IOUs, the citizen commission that sets benefits for elective officials voted in June to reduce funds for lawmaker health insurance. The change takes effect in December.
"There are employees on furlough and people being laid off," commission member Ruth Lopez Novodor said. "It just didn't seem right to keep the compensation at the same levels."
In Michigan, supporters are renewing efforts to end lucrative retiree health benefits for lawmakers or at least force lawmakers to work longer before they qualify for them. Similar proposals failed in 2007.
"What's good for us should be good for them," said Ray Holman, a child abuse investigator for the Michigan Department of Human Services, who has seen his health insurance costs rise steadily. He will lose six days of pay this year as state leaders try to close a deficit.
"When you see the lawmakers who have the generous benefits and appear to be working part-time, it's just not good leadership," Holman said.
Meanwhile, many Rhode Island lawmakers accustomed to free health insurance at taxpayer expense have bowed to public pressure and started voluntarily contributing toward its cost.
Last year Rhode Island cut state-funded health care for immigrant children and 1,000 adults, forced the poor to take cheaper generic drugs and raised health insurance costs for state workers.
Yet Sen. Charles Levesque, D-Portsmouth, believes his free health care reasonable considering lawmakers make $14,018 in salary. Although they meet only about six months a year, Levesque, an attorney, considers his elected post a full-time job.
"I am the senator from Portsmouth when I walk out in my bathrobe to get my newspaper in the morning, when I go to the local pharmacy to buy whatever prescription medication I need to keep me going," he said.
Federal lawmakers, who are debating an overhaul to the nation's health care system, also get subsidized insurance. Members of Congress are covered by the federal employees health plan and get VIP medical access at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington and the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. For about $500 a year, federal lawmakers can also have unlimited visits with a physician assigned to the Capitol for routine care.
At Tuesday's town hall meeting in New Hampshire, President Barack Obama was asked why he hadn't talked more about the differences between the benefits offered to federal lawmakers and the system for everyone else. Obama responded that his proposal would give the public options similar to those given to federal employees.
Some state lawmakers also receive generous benefits:
_ Michigan lawmakers get retiree health care after six years of service and can tap into their benefits at age 55. That perk is the envy of workers in a state with 15.2 percent unemployment rate.
_ Members of the Massachusetts Legislature pay about $200 to $230 per month for family health coverage, about 18 percent less than what the average U.S. consumer pays, according to a national survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust.
_ Connecticut lawmakers get retiree health insurance after working a decade for the state. Some lawmakers get retiree health care for free, while others pay 3 percent of their salaries. Brand-name drugs require a $10 co-payment.
In comparison, about 63 percent of employers offered health coverage last year, according to Kaiser's annual survey of roughly 1,900 firms. Health insurance for the average single employee ran around $4,700 annually, and workers paid 16 percent of the tab. Premiums for family plans averaged around $12,680, and workers were responsible for 27 percent of the cost.
The disparities could influence how lawmakers think, said Peter Sepp, a vice president for policy and communications at the National Taxpayers Union.
"It can skew their perspective on how much it might cost a family or small business to provide such insurance," he said. "It can also in some instances lead them to believe that the affordability of their coverage is something that the entire nation can be made to afford."
Not all lawmakers have it so easy. Legislators in New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming cannot get state health insurance, while their counterparts in Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Alabama and Vermont must pay the full price themselves if they want state coverage.
Vermont Rep. Carolyn Partridge, D-Windham, went without health insurance after being elected to office. As a farmer, she cannot afford to pay for the state health plan. Partridge and her husband now qualify for Medicaid.
They paid out-of-pocket for an annual physical and have avoided treatment for anything except emergencies. Partridge said hospitals are willing to work out payment plans for the uninsured.
"The bottom line is, you get taken care of," she said. "The worst bottom line is they take your house, if you own one."
In Rhode Island, House lawmakers passed a bill last year requiring lawmakers to pay 10 percent of their premiums, but it died in the Senate. A similar bill sponsored by Rep. Amy Rice, D-Portsmouth, never made it to the floor this year.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Congress and Health Care
Congress and senators went home and hold town hall meetings on Health Care it quickly became apparent that there was a strong movement aginest a public program and maybe even a legislative solution.
While we look like we are a long way from seeing a formal bill there are many things being run through the legislature. One of the most salient points I believe is that there is no participation by the legislature in any plan they propose and even some that specifically excludes them. If Mr. Obama, the legislature and government employees won't participate, then a question arises as to why. Simply put they want to force us to have less while maintaining there rich benefits. I feel a solution which could work puts everyone in the same boat.
While we look like we are a long way from seeing a formal bill there are many things being run through the legislature. One of the most salient points I believe is that there is no participation by the legislature in any plan they propose and even some that specifically excludes them. If Mr. Obama, the legislature and government employees won't participate, then a question arises as to why. Simply put they want to force us to have less while maintaining there rich benefits. I feel a solution which could work puts everyone in the same boat.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
What Does Consistent Participation in 401(k) Plans Generate?
This Issue Brief presents recently available longitudinal data from the EBRI/ICI 401(k) database on consistent participation in a 401(k) plan, through year-end 2007.
Looking at consistent participants in the EBRI/ICI 401(k) database over the eight-year period from 1999 to 2007, the average 401(k) account balance increased at an annual growth rate of 9.5 percent over the period, to $137,430 at year-end 2007.
The median 401(k) account balance (half above, half below) increased at an annual growth rate of 15.2 percent over the period, to $76,946 at year-end 2007. Data for 2008 are currently being analyzed and are expected to be published later this year.
Looking at consistent participants in the EBRI/ICI 401(k) database over the eight-year period from 1999 to 2007, the average 401(k) account balance increased at an annual growth rate of 9.5 percent over the period, to $137,430 at year-end 2007.
The median 401(k) account balance (half above, half below) increased at an annual growth rate of 15.2 percent over the period, to $76,946 at year-end 2007. Data for 2008 are currently being analyzed and are expected to be published later this year.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Tool of the Month: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Guide
Many employment laws have been enacted during and for the first half of 2009 with many more anticipated for the rest of the year and beyond. For a refresher, you now can review a variety of helpful information in the HR Support Center, including the key aspects of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. With a simple one-page document, you can easily reference:
• The Ledbetter Case,
• The Ledbetter Act, and
• The Recommended Actions.
In the HR Support Center website under the Essentials tab section, simply search for the “Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Guide.”
Lay Off Using Layoffs to Manage Poor Performing Employees
With many employers seeing the business need to layoff employees during the past several months, it may be tempting for a manager to use it as a way to avoid confronting problem employees. When conducting a formal layoff, however, employers would need to follow certain guidelines and be aware of specific state and federal laws. In general, employers are often better off taking the more appropriately accountable route of employment termination for cause using progressive discipline.
In turn, keep the following three points in mind:
1. Eliminate the Position. A layoff involves eliminating positions and not people. Determine your business-essential positions, and your supporting documentation should demonstrate that a position to be eliminated is due to decreased work demands and / or financial reasons. If you want to get rid of a poor performing employee, then getting rid of that job position would likely be not in your best interest since the work still needs to be done.
2. Select the Worker. For the eliminated position in question, identify all employees with similar job titles and roles. After review the type of the work that still needs to be done, figure out which of the employees are the lesser qualified. After assessing the employees’ overall work experience, knowledge, skills, and abilities, pick the least qualified individual. If that individual happens to be the poor performing employee you initially had in mind, then you now would have a more solid basis to end the employment relationship with a layoff.
3. Don’t Fill the Position. If an employer has a legitimate business reason to eliminate a job position, then there should be no need to bring back that position in the near future. Otherwise, the alleged layoff may be viewed as a veiled termination for cause which can cast questions on the company's true intentions and general integrity if ever challenged. The suggested rule of thumb is to not reopen the position for about a year.
In the bigger picture, if you are in Management, part of your direct responsibility is to effectively manage employee confrontations. Addressing employee performance problems through corrective action holds employees accountable for their behaviors and their outcomes. You can leverage various strategies to motivate employees to positively change their performance levels as well as to establish proof of your company’s good faith efforts to help all employees improve.
In turn, keep the following three points in mind:
1. Eliminate the Position. A layoff involves eliminating positions and not people. Determine your business-essential positions, and your supporting documentation should demonstrate that a position to be eliminated is due to decreased work demands and / or financial reasons. If you want to get rid of a poor performing employee, then getting rid of that job position would likely be not in your best interest since the work still needs to be done.
2. Select the Worker. For the eliminated position in question, identify all employees with similar job titles and roles. After review the type of the work that still needs to be done, figure out which of the employees are the lesser qualified. After assessing the employees’ overall work experience, knowledge, skills, and abilities, pick the least qualified individual. If that individual happens to be the poor performing employee you initially had in mind, then you now would have a more solid basis to end the employment relationship with a layoff.
3. Don’t Fill the Position. If an employer has a legitimate business reason to eliminate a job position, then there should be no need to bring back that position in the near future. Otherwise, the alleged layoff may be viewed as a veiled termination for cause which can cast questions on the company's true intentions and general integrity if ever challenged. The suggested rule of thumb is to not reopen the position for about a year.
In the bigger picture, if you are in Management, part of your direct responsibility is to effectively manage employee confrontations. Addressing employee performance problems through corrective action holds employees accountable for their behaviors and their outcomes. You can leverage various strategies to motivate employees to positively change their performance levels as well as to establish proof of your company’s good faith efforts to help all employees improve.
HR Advisor July 2009 The Monthly Newsletter from your AMS HR Support Center
Federal Minimum Wage Rate Increase.
Effective July 24, 2009, the federal minimum wage rate will increase from $6.55 per hour to $7.25 per hour.
E-Verify Federal Contractor Rule Delay.
For the fourth time, the effective date requiring certain federal contractors and subcontractors to use the federal government's E-Verify program has been delayed to become effective on September 8, 2009.
Age Bias Decision Favoring Employers.
On June 18, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court placed a greater burden on workers to prove their claims of being targets of workplace discrimination due to age.
Effective July 24, 2009, the federal minimum wage rate will increase from $6.55 per hour to $7.25 per hour.
E-Verify Federal Contractor Rule Delay.
For the fourth time, the effective date requiring certain federal contractors and subcontractors to use the federal government's E-Verify program has been delayed to become effective on September 8, 2009.
Age Bias Decision Favoring Employers.
On June 18, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court placed a greater burden on workers to prove their claims of being targets of workplace discrimination due to age.
What is being said about health care changes!
I was a little surprised to read a recent poll stating that the majority of Americans are receptive to the idea of increased government influence over health care if it means a reduction in cost and better coverage.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that 63 percent of respondents would favor an increase in federal influence over health care plans if it translated into lower costs and more coverage, while 36 percent opposed the idea.
Also, a little more than 60 percent of Americans said they believe the government should guarantee health care for all Americans, versus 36 percent who opposed the idea.
Another question involved the concept of raising taxes in order to improve health care for every American, with 47 percent favoring the idea and an equal number opposing it, even if it meant not providing health care for all Americans.
It will not come as a shock when I tell you that opinions were starkly split down party lines, with the majority of Democrats supporting increased government influence and just one-quarter of Republicans favoring the idea.
Of course, these are tough and often very personal beliefs and decisions. Many in the industry oppose government control and there is no shortage of arguments on both sides. Just one first-hand experience either way can erase years of arguments and counter-arguments. This promises to remain an enormous topic in our country for years and probably decades to come.
The questions continue and whether you are for or against its important to be informed.
Questions:
1) Can the government financially support a health care system?
2) Will increased taxes bring about a more beneficial health care plan without excess burden on individual tax payers?
3) Considering Medicare as a system which is almost ready to go bankrupt and which as increased costs to seniors, can the government do better with health care in general?
4) Can a national health care system come about because there is a call to change, without the time to bring about meaningful change with a well thought out plan?
5) Can Insurance companies, Health Care Providers, and all the players in the field of providing benefits and care truly come together putting aside their self interest to create meaningful change?
Would appreciate hearing your comments:
The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that 63 percent of respondents would favor an increase in federal influence over health care plans if it translated into lower costs and more coverage, while 36 percent opposed the idea.
Also, a little more than 60 percent of Americans said they believe the government should guarantee health care for all Americans, versus 36 percent who opposed the idea.
Another question involved the concept of raising taxes in order to improve health care for every American, with 47 percent favoring the idea and an equal number opposing it, even if it meant not providing health care for all Americans.
It will not come as a shock when I tell you that opinions were starkly split down party lines, with the majority of Democrats supporting increased government influence and just one-quarter of Republicans favoring the idea.
Of course, these are tough and often very personal beliefs and decisions. Many in the industry oppose government control and there is no shortage of arguments on both sides. Just one first-hand experience either way can erase years of arguments and counter-arguments. This promises to remain an enormous topic in our country for years and probably decades to come.
The questions continue and whether you are for or against its important to be informed.
Questions:
1) Can the government financially support a health care system?
2) Will increased taxes bring about a more beneficial health care plan without excess burden on individual tax payers?
3) Considering Medicare as a system which is almost ready to go bankrupt and which as increased costs to seniors, can the government do better with health care in general?
4) Can a national health care system come about because there is a call to change, without the time to bring about meaningful change with a well thought out plan?
5) Can Insurance companies, Health Care Providers, and all the players in the field of providing benefits and care truly come together putting aside their self interest to create meaningful change?
Would appreciate hearing your comments:
Aetna wants to help you get lower group health rates with new RAF program!
Click for quotes:
| RAF Program update | ||||||||
As of Wednesday, July 1, Aetna will only accept the original renewal received by a group to determine eligibility for our RAF promotion. Revised renewals will not be accepted. Aetna will continue requiring submission of prior year and current renewals (original only). We've expanded our RAF promo through 12/31/09 and AB1672 eligible groups moving from a large group contract are now eligible for our RAF program. To qualify, groups must provide a large group renewal of less than 20% increase within 90 days of their requested effective date. Click here RATES! | ||||||||
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Travel Insurance for those on the go or vacationing!
Go Here for Travel BargainsMedical Insurance for people traveling outside their Home Country,Perfect for trips between 15 days and 3 years. Immediate coverage is available once you are satisfied with the quotation. Print your ID Card immediately!
The plan is underwritten by Virginia Surety Company, Inc., a U.S. insurance company rated A+ "Superior" by AM Best.
Protect your tickets, your luggage and your health worldwide,Why round trip? So you'll be prepared. Who knows what could happen during a trip abroad – or before you even depart. Benefits include: Trip Cancellation; Interruption/Delay; Medical Transportation; Lost or Stolen Baggage; Missed Connection; Assistance Services.
Permanent health insurance coverage for non-U.S. residents, while in the U.S.A.,Providing comprehensive health insurance for persons residing outside of the United States, RESIDE Prime provides benefits to non-U.S. residents.
Control Blood Pressure with Music? Experts Say Yes
Music may be food for the soul, but Italian researchers say it also is good therapy for controlling blood pressure in heart and stroke patients.
Learn More by clicking on the link in the title: Control Blood Pressure with Music?
Learn More by clicking on the link in the title: Control Blood Pressure with Music?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)