It is my belief that these type of reports will continue as companies/organizations start weighing the impact of PPACA in 2014. I suppose the silver-lining in it all, is it will be unsustainable forcing real cost /payment reforms. Until that time, costs will continue to rise, jobs/pay reduced and quality of care flat-lined.

The more I learn about the impacts of this law, I can no longer believe that it is the result of incompetence. There are far too many elements that cause rates to actually rise while there are easy motivators for employers to cut jobs and hours, and the fact that the penalty is less than the cost of the premium leads to no other conclusion that this was intended.

Is this for students or staff?

Beer & cheese for you when you're in the area. I need a ROFLandPoundingTheFloor smiley because, of course, evil business owners can handle such a sea-change.
:D

They're comin' home to roost.

Students... Proof of private insurance or payment for previously "free" on-campus care is now required.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

"We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it"
 

:D Isn't this fun!! I wonder what else will be found...

http://www.lifehealthpro.com/2013/01...alth-insurance

How is this any different than car insurance charging increased rates to someone with a DUI, or increased home insurance premiums for those living in flood zones?

If you make choices that put you at higher risk of needing expensive assistance, should you not put more into the pot?

IMHO, this is another example of choices have consequences, and is independent of whether or not one should be required to purchase heath insurance.

I don't disagree with the point you're making at all. I shared the article for a couple of reasons:

One. Individuals have to enroll in a healthcare program or will be charged a penalty. You don't have to drive or buy a home in a flood zone if you cannot afford to pay the insurance.

Two. To highlight a piece of the legislation that I am fairly confident few were aware of. According to CDC's 2010 data, 20% of the adult population smokes. Would those who wanted the legislation feel differently, if they were aware of these type of the changes?

Three. PP"Affordable"CA, appears a bit disingeniune.

It's not, Doc.

It's also probably similar to what they'll come up with for "assault"-type weapons, high cap mags and ammo, once they find out the People won't sit still for a 2A ban. An exorbitant tax could partially achieve Holder's objective to make the dangerous gun owners "cower" in the corner with the smokers.

Whatever. Long as it's something that can be repealed by a Conservative-owned Congress in 2014...

Forgive me, Dusty - I don't see the parallel between someone choosing (I'm all about choice and free will) to join a health care insurance pool that is likely to cost more to a collective investment being forced paying more in, and someone choosing to protect him/herself being taxed for standing up for personal accountability and thus decreasing his/her likelihood of being a victim.

The former has an exponentially higher likelihood of costing more to the pooled funds while the other (provided of sound heart and mind and maintaining proficiency) is a benefit to society.

Can't argue with that.

I don't know about that, Dusty. I think you are a bit like me in that regard, and my mama told me that I'd "argue with a signpost!":D

No, I'm not. :D

Pool them separately based on HRA(Health Risk Assessment) results. To draw a parallel, I believe many auto insurers do this, i.e. their high risk drivers are in one pool, and their low risk in another. Geico for example has Geico Indemnity, which is their high risk drivers, and Geico Insurance which is their lower risk. IIRC, once I hit 25, Geico switched me from Geico Indemnity to Geico Insurance.


My .02