Part-Time Workers Say Schedules Are Getting More Erratic

[markomalley]

But that should be good for the customer, no? Perhaps it’ll be in the form of lower installation charges or lower material costs but the customer should benefit. In the long run, however, those costs will be absorbed by everyone. (I’m speaking from the tax perspective.) But, hey, there are governments which subsidize gasoline and no one objects.

Directly it would reduce prices for the customer in the short term.

The increase in costs to the government through premium credits will be absolutely incredible…that is provided that people actually sign up for the insurance exchanges.

Check this out from the CBO last May:

i.imgur.com/GkKkW6g.png

I, personally, think those numbers are completely unrealistic. The reason why is:

They predict that fewer people will be offered insurance from their employers. I think, when it is all said and done, far more employers will end up dropping their employees. It just takes one heartless, cold, cruel employer to do it in a given industry…then the others will absolutely be required to do so in order to stay competitive. And while, unlike a lot of lefties…I don’t think that all employers are cruel and inhuman…I do think that there are some who are. And as a supervisor once told me, it might not be nice…but it is a whole lot less nice if everybody loses their jobs.

They predict that more people will sign up for the exchanges. I don’t see it. Sure, really low income people (200% of poverty and lower) will do so because of the size of the subsidies…there is only a marginal difference between what they would pay to get health insurance from an exchange (due to the subsidy) and the amount they would pay as a penalty on their income tax. I also acknowledge that people who have a family member who has chronic medical issues will do so, as they wouldn’t be able to afford the repeated medical care otherwise. But those people who make more than 300% of the federal poverty level and are relatively healthy…why would they?

Consequently, the actual price of insurance premiums offered through the exchanges would be significantly higher…because there are fewer healthy people to subsidize the expenses of the few people with medical issues. That means that the actual overall cost of the subsidies will increase, as the amount of the subsidy is keyed to the person’s income. In other words, if the price of insurance goes up, the amount of subsidy will go up because the cost to the consumer is keyed to a percentage of that consumer’s income. (Now multiply that by the millions of people who receive the subsidies and you can see the problems).

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not trying to be hard on CBO. There are way too many psychological factors that are difficult, if not impossible, to predict at this point. (In fairness, I could be wrong, too. People who don’t take insurance now may just flock to the exchange to do their patriotic duty and put some “skin in the game.”…who knows any more?)

 

[rayne89]

At my company a computer program now makes the schedule. The company feeds in data -taking in sales last year, what hours are the busiest depending on the day -a whole host of things. Sometimes you are scheduled for a 4 hour shift sometimes a 10 hour shift and every possible variety in between. Full time people (there are 5 besides managers) must have open availability. Part-timers can give specific availability but there’s no guarantee you’ll actually work those days. You may get 5 days one week and 1 the next.

 

[ProVobis]

Directly it would reduce prices for the customer in the short term.
…Consequently, the actual price of insurance premiums offered through the exchanges would be significantly higher…because there are fewer healthy people to subsidize the expenses of the few people with medical issues. That means that the actual overall cost of the subsidies will increase, as the amount of the subsidy is keyed to the person’s income. In other words, if the price of insurance goes up, the amount of subsidy will go up because the cost to the consumer is keyed to a percentage of that consumer’s income. (Now multiply that by the millions of people who receive the subsidies and you can see the problems).

But then all we’d need is for the insurance companies to drop all their own employee’s group insurance and as customers of the exchanges we’d expect lower insurance premiums as a result. Actually all we need is one such insurance company within the exchange to do this. The others can charge what they want, for all we care. They won’t get the business.

Just a theory at this point though.

 

[markomalley]

But then all we’d need is for the insurance companies to drop all their own employee’s group insurance and as customers of the exchanges we’d expect lower insurance premiums as a result. Actually all we need is one such insurance company within the exchange to do this. The others can charge what they want, for all we care. They won’t get the business.

Just a theory at this point though.

Actually you’re sort of right. On average, about 11% of the cost is admin expenses. Not sure what the percentage of that is labor costs, but, yes, the amount would go down because of reduced fringe. Might work out to be a couple of bucks on a 14,000 annual premium.