Suppose an employer says "I can't afford group insurance, but if you sign up for an ACA bronze plan I'll reimburse your for the post-subsidy cost".
Would that be legal?
Or could this hypothetical employer fund health savings accounts for his employees that would cover most of the costs of a typical ACA bronze plan?
In some States it would not be legal because they have overriding laws that require employers of a particular size (no matter if that employer is all within the one State or scattered employees across all 50 States) that the employer of such and such a size must provide group health coverage.
Not that this rule doesn't get broken all the time. A "national" boutique store with 5 employees per tiny storefront might meet the company size rules with a store in every State, for example. But they're not going to shop a group plan nationally.
They're going to slide the employees more money and try to make the 50 storefronts look on paper like separate businesses.
And in most cases the employees will get a better deal that way, anyway. Where they didn't used to, was in pre-existing conditions prior to employment.
OBAMACARE, OBAMACARE, OBAMACARE, for crying out loud. There is a problem but don't discuss who caused the problem because it might affect the sensibilities of the people who voted the problem causer into office? Screw that politically correct BS. It's OBAMACARE, it was purposely designed to put the pain off until OBAMA is out of office and it's a disaster. Who do you suppose those "subsidies" are funded by?
Meh.
There's no need to call it by name, and it was (after all) passed by congress, our elected representatives.
The point is, we can discuss its effects and leave the whys and wherefores for another venue.
It's called that name specifically to hide the fact that most of the people standing on stages right now asking to be the next President, voted for the thing.
Our current President didn't write it nor vote on it. But his name is on it for a reason. Social engineering.
There is an eight term Congresscritter asking for your vote for them for President who voted on it. And others.
It helps to pay attention and not fall for dumb tricks like naming it after the guy who'll be long gone before it fails miserably, while there will still be eight term critters who created the mess on TV making sure the dolts think Presidents create and sign legislation.
Isn't DC the epicenter of the 12 most wealthy counties in the nation?
Seems like success is almost guaranteed.
And the highest per capita murder rate in the entire country, along with the highest per capita number of law enforcement professionals.
Irony. Fun.
Yeah, but why put up with the district if you can serve those customers in the counties themselves.
Ding ding ding. Smart.
To the originality asked question, our company's rates have increased roughly 50% overall in two year's time with employees footing roughly 35% of that and the company absorbing 65%.
They just did open enrollment a few months early to catch the last year they can stay in the large company pool after which due to a change in the underwriters rules on company size, we drop back into a small company pool where our claims add up to higher premiums faster. With one employee dying of a very long term and expensive cancer battle two years ago, and barring any huge claims in 2016, we'll have one year of exorbitant rates before the effect of the old loss "falls off" at the underwriters.
We've been told to expect another 25% jump in personal costs next year. That after two years of 20%+ increases already.
The move of the open enrollment date will alleviate it somewhat by starting one more year of only high rates and not "outlandish" ones.
.
