Again! Obama wants second COBRA subsidy extension
February 9, 2010 by Christian SchappelPosted in: COBRA, Health care, Money, Pay and benefits, Special Report - Benefits
Hope your people are getting used to the extra paperwork and headaches associated with the COBRA subsidy — because it looks like another extension may be on its way.
The Obama administration has proposed the 65% health insurance premium subsidy be extended yet again.
The latest extension is tucked inside the administration’s proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2011. Under the proposal, employees laid off from March 1, 2010 through Dec. 31, 2010 would be eligible for the subsidy for up to 12 months.
Currently, employees laid off from Sept. 1, 2008 through Feb. 28, 2010 can receive the subsidy for up to 15 months. The latest extension would not affect those workers.
What do you think of this latest proposal? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
Tags: COBRA, COBRA subsidy, extension, federal budget, obama
February 9th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
I think it is a good idea. There should be some kind of program available for those who lost their jobs and insurance along with it.
February 10th, 2010 at 10:23 am
Your opening line of this article is unfortunately typical of this countries lack of compassion for its people. A subsidy to ensure individuals, families and children have affordable health care should not be considered a “headache” by those who need to administer it. Instead we should be grateful that employees we have had to fire can receive this benefit. We really need to change our thinking about how our workforce is perceived. Most business states “Our people are our most valuable asset” only rings true when we treat them that way.
February 10th, 2010 at 11:39 am
This is excellent news. The only thing more devastating to a family than losing its primary source of income is losing its health care coverage. These hard working Americans and their children deserve our nation’s support, especially during these rough times. I am thrilled to see the Obama administration support this extension. As a tax payer of this nation, I FULLY SUPPORT this subsidy extension.
February 11th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Since there are still documented job losses due to the lingering recession, I believe it’s a good idea to give those who are still losing their jobs during this new designated period (as of 3/1/10) a chance to continue their healthcare coverage. Unfortunately, even with the 65% subsidy option, not everyone can afford to pay 35% of the cost. If companies are truly overburdened by extra work due to this national subsidy, they should look into having a 3rd party adminstrator take it off their hands. We use one, and it’s an extremely valuable resource.
February 11th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
We are fully supportive of the subsidy too given how terrible the job market and economy is, and almost all of our eligible terminated employees have taken advantage of it. The “headache” is all this last minute decisiveness by the government, they should have just done the current extension longer and included terminations through the end of 2010 or beyond, it’s the scrambling around by employers and COBRA providers who have to deal with the handling and processing of all of it that’s frustrating. No wonder our government can’t put together a sensible and logical revised healthcare plan, it’s because they’ve had the “Cadillac plan” themselves by being a government employee, which they don’t personally pay for either.
February 11th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
I am in total agreement with the first three coments (Nicole, Dan and Gretel) It is an inconvience for us to have to do more paperwork…however, not having health care is a much greater inconvience! Ideally, if we could have gone straight to the extension through 12/31/10 and skipped the inbetween short extension (12/31/09 through 2/28/10) we could have saved some confusion (and paperwork.)
When will be know for sure if the extension is to applied?
February 11th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
I see this as great news! I don’t agree with the article that the subsidy has overburdened our organization with papework. Even if that were the case we wouldn’t be complaining. We ABSOLUTELY and WILLINGLY support the subsidy and what it is doing for those unfortunate enough to lose their jobs in this economy. I agree with TS in that the last minute decisions to extend the subsidy are unnerving for everyone (COBRA participants, organizations, etc.). It would be best to have a long-term plan in mind regarding this issue and not just a short-term, quick fix attitude.
February 11th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
It is good to see so many in approval for this, I agree it is a fantastic idea!
February 11th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
I am so happy to see everyone’s positive reaction to this — I think it’s a wonderful idea, and if a little extra paperwork means people who have just lost their jobs can keep their families insured, it’s worth it. I wonder why the negativity in the reporting of this news?
February 11th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Maybe I’m just a ‘glass-half-full’ kind of guy but I did not take “Again!” with negative context. I took it as more celebratory. This is great news for employees; news that won’t hurt the majority of employers; and good/bad news for taxpayers depending on which side of the socialism vs. capitalism debate.
I spoke with an employee yesterday who will be laid off on March 1st and I had to express the unfortunate timing because of the current expiraiton of the subsidy. I hope this goes through so that I can go back to the employee and share the good news.
February 11th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
I agree that the ability to obtain Cobra at reasonable rates is a valuable benefit for those who have become unemployed. I don’t have any problem with the work that is involved, or with the record keeping and communication.
But the way this decision keeps being made at the last minute, or even later, makes it all look as though Cobra protections are an afterthought, not a priority. If our leadership wants to make a statement, why not say this is how Cobra will be handled from now on? Why keep putting deadlines on it?
These piecemeal, day at a time decisions are hard to respond to and wind up being expensive for the employer. Money we spend on complying with ever changing laws is money we cannot spend on job development or salary increases.
February 11th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
I agree that if someone lost their job due to cutbacks or layoffs, the subsidy is a great thing. However, I don’t agree that if someone is terminated because of performance issues, etc. that they should be entitled to this benefit. In some cases, the ex-employee is actually paying LESS under the subsidy than they paid as an employee, which is unfair to the other hardworking employees!
February 11th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
I’m going to try and see this from Michael O’Neil’s pespective. “Again!” can have a good interpretation. Michael… I think it was the first sentence of the item that came across as negative. Meanwhile, I’ll keep my fingers crossed for your March 1 terminations.
February 11th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
I can be as compassionate as the next person. However, I have to agree with CO. If someone laid off, I totally agree they should qualify for this benefit. However, when someone is fired it is for poor job performance. We are rewarding bad behavior in employees who have made it impossible for us to retain them on the payroll. Their insurance premiums are now cheaper than the portion the former employees were paying while they were employed by us. There is definitely something wrong with this picture.
February 11th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
I agree with the notion that an individual that was laid off due to a reduction in workforce, should be afforded the opportunity to continue their healthcare coverage, with some help, at their own expense. I personally have only one individual on the subsidy that this was the case. The rest of the individuals that are covered under the subsidy are those who have been “fired” for work performance problems.
I don’t think the three above commentary have thought about these particular individuals that are also able to take advantage of the subsidy.
Another point of contention for the above listed comments is that the “headache” is that the administration should have extended longer than two months, with the last revision. I think we all knew that this is where this was headed. When you work for a large corporation in an industry with high turnover, this is an incredible headache to continue to send out not only the original notices, but the notices “as amended,” as well as the continually updated notices, as amended.
Nicole, I do not support the notion that those who have lied, cheated and stolen to be afforded the same opportunities as those who have been honest and hardworking, but have lost their jobs due to unfortunate circumstances.
The second part of said “headache” is that the third revision (new proposal) of this subsidy does not sound like it will have the same eligibility guidelines as the previous revision. Now we would like to afford only 12 months of subsidy eligibility, as opposed to the individuals who were allowed the 15 (but originally 9) months of subsidy. That is an administrational nightmare.
I do not think that the above individuals are administrating their own COBRA. Nor do I think they are noting the ramifications that employers and taxpayers alike face for each update to this bill.
This is another grand example of capricious legislation thrown together without much thought or prior planning.
February 11th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Do those of you that agree with the subsidy understand it? I agree with the subsidy for laid off workers or those that had their hours cut. But, every day I see this subsidy going to staff that have been terminated because of poor performance.
In other words, I can stop showing up for work, lose my job and get the government to pay for 65% of my health care!
Do you still agree with the way Obama wrote the program?
February 11th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
I am not for handouts, but for an individual that has lost his/her job and insurance benefits this is Great news! We need to extend the Unemployment Benefits the same!
This could be the difference in losing everything they have worked for. Many people are on the edge of financial disaster and losing income could push many over the edge, without assistance.
I am against the handouts that have no end. Everyone should be given a timeline to get a job, learn a trade and back on their feet. I do not agree with providing food, clothing, housing and welfare checks indefinately.
Ever time someone loses their income it affects many others…the businesses you do business with, the grocery, gas, restaurants, department stores, individuals you hire to clean your house, cut your lawn or even cut your hair are all affected by the lack of payments.
February 11th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
While I think it’s a good thing that people that have been laid off due to the economic situation (not performance issues) are offered Cobra Coverage, I don’t agree that the employer should have to be the one to file forms and collect money from everyone. I think the Health Insurance Company should bill the employee directly and get the other 65% directly from the government. Afterall it is the governments program. If the company has a hard time collecting even the 35% from the employee it has to be the bad guy again and threaten to cancel coverage. The other way there’s no middleman.
February 11th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
I agree that this is a great program, however, the last minute decisions/approvals, the fact that each time they extend it the rules are different and then the fact that the government cannot even provide companies with accurate forms and notifications in a timely manner are a total hassle. Administering the program for each “section” of the subsidy becomes difficult, especially when your department has been “downsized” to the absolute leanest it can be.
I have had to create spreadsheets just to track who is on what program and when we can take the subsidy on payroll. Not to mention that you have to be able to provide all of the paperwork and copies of every payment to the government if they ask.
I also agree that if you are terminated for cause that you should not be eligible for the subsidy. An employee that was underperforming or did something bad enough to be terminated should not benefit and be paying less than a current employee does for the same benefits.
We are a small company and the cost of having a 3rd party administrator is prohibitive.
Just wish the government would make a bold decision to just have this program for 1-2 years and stop doing these piecemeal extensions and already have the forms and notifications needed for the program at the time of establishing it.
February 11th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
I want to echo the sentiment of Dan F. The article reads as if this is a bad thing. If so, I’d like to see the author’s reaction to the difference in COBRA cost if he/she were to be displaced. I think it’s an excellent move and as someone that administers COBRA in-house, it’s really not that big of difference as far as paperwork is concerned.
There is one bit of change that I would like to see. I would like to see parameters set on the reasons for termination (beyone involuntary) regarding eligibility, because we have undeserving employees reaping these benefits as well.
February 11th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
ok — coincidentally, just before reading this article, I did my most recent paperwork to give to my payroll clerk for COBRA sibsidies. And for those of you who think those of us who do this are being whiny, I will assume you’ve never done it. It has caused a tremendous amount of extra work — not just dealing with the subsidy paperwork but dealing with the COBRA enrollment changes caused by the federal government not making these decisions on a timely basis. And our COBRA administrator has had to spend a great deal of time and money on software changes to comply with the law.
But the extension makes sense; the federal government’s inability to do this in a logical and efficient way makes no sense. Why wasn’t the ORIGINAL subsidy, or the SUBSEQUENT extension, done through the end of 2010 in the first place?
I’m not criticizing those who’ve lost jobs and health care — I’m criticizing our government, ALL of them, because they always seem to do these things in the most inefficient way possible.
Just can’t wait for the next Act! Maybe if the executive and legislative branches, and the regulatory agencies were required to implement these things BEFORE they rolled them out as done deals, things would make a lot more sense!!!!! (Right — like THAT’S gonna happen!)
February 11th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
I don’t mind helping those in need. But I have 2 issues. 1) my employer doesn’t even pay 65% for active employees, so people who don’t work have less expensive insurance than I do. And 2) “involuntary term” needs to be defined. Why should an employee fired for cause receive this benefit. “Involuntary term” does not always mean “layoff”.
February 11th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
I approve of this proposal due to the ongoing economic concerns and lack of job creation. It is not too much paperwork and no real headache to handle the subsidy. We were easily able to update our HRIS/payroll system to update the notices, breakout the cobra participant payments and subsidy amounts and automatically include in our quarterly tax reports. I am pleased there is this assistance for those that were laid off, still out work and unable to get employer health insurance.
February 11th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
The concept of assistance with COBRA coverage for those who have lost their job through no fault of their own is undoubtedly worthy. The word “AGAIN” more aptly fits the fact that our government officials did not carefully think through the ramifications of the program. Right now the act provides individauls fired for cause like taking drugs on the job, failing to show up on time, etc the same benefit as those that are RIFfed. And, then there are the employees whose work hours are reduced from full-time to part-time hours due to economic reasons and no longer qualify for benefits. They get to pay their own COBRA without assistance. Good planning Washington!
February 11th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
The article’s headline and lead-in are quite clearly a stab at the President and a reflection of society’s lack of compassion. Heaven forbid that we should do something to help those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own! I was VERY encouraged by the positive responses. If it makes extra work for us, at least we still have jobs so we can pay for health insurance! My son was laid off due to his company’s closing nearly a year ago. Since the company went out of business, there wasn’t even COBRA available. He’s working now but still does not have access to health insurance because it’s a (long-term) temporary position. I’m happy for those who have it.
February 11th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
When will our lawmakers learn to think before they act? The intention of the COBRA subsidy act is a good one, although it should apply only to those who were laid off or downsized, not all involuntary terms. I agree with the others that the headache that COBRA rules (& Hipaa & FMLA & FLSA & ERISA and all the other alphabet soup!) bring about is caused by the rule changes, the backdating of regulations and the number of times they change the law itself. Change the law once, keep the rules the same (9 months, 15, months, 12 months???) and get it done and published before months have gone by since the effective date.
As usual, the government just spouts off these rules and the employers have to deal with the administration headaches and the cost to implement them.
February 11th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Not liking the extra paperwork but when I see the relief on the faces of our laid off workers faces (ones who haven’t been able to find work), it is worth it. I’m glad of the extension.
February 11th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
This benefit is not only for those that have lost their jobs. If there is another “life altering” experience (ie. divorce), and employee may lose benefits from their spouse and also may COBRA if their employer does not offer it. Everyone in this country should be entitled to affordable health care. COBRA is not necessarily affordable (with the subsidy it is within reach), and not everyone can continue coverage.
Extra paperwork to administer????? Isn’t that job security?????
February 11th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
I pray that those of you opposed never need the subsidy.
February 11th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
The extension is needed. Regardless of why someone has been laid off or let go, there are very very few jobs right now for them to apply for; they have very little hope of getting insurance through a new source.
Even though the subsidy makes their insurance cheaper than it is for our employees (or than it was for them when they worked here), I haven’t had anyone be able to afford to elect it. But at least we can offer it.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
This is a fantastic idea!! Just wondering how I can get a subsidy for my mortgage, auto payment, utilities and food. Would it be possible to get my employer to help out on that too?
This is bad precedence. We are trying to hire people to work at our company so our business can grow and we are having the hardest time finding people who simply want to work! Why should we reward those people with a COBRA subsidy?
Are we a democracy or a quasi-socialist state?
February 11th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Patricia: I don’t think anyone here is opposed to the susidy in general. I think many of us wish Obama (or whoever) would have thought it through before they created it and changed it and changed it again.
K2: I agree with you – even though the subsidy reduces the cost below what active EEs pay, most of our layoffs can’t afford it anyway. Unemployment doesn’t even cover food, housing and utilities, much less “luxuries” like health insurance. Which leads to another problem – the only ones who actually take COBRA are those who really need it. Which means ultimately your company has higher claims cost due to adverse selection. (Which of course leads to higher premiums and more adverse selection and higher premiums and more adverse selection……………)
February 11th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
The extension of the COBRA subsidy is an excellent idea. The “extra” work involved administering the subsidy is extremely minimal. If anyone feels this is a huge burden then I want your job because this is one of the easiest tasks that my position entails.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
I feel badly for the poor slob, like my friend, who was laid off on August 31, 2008. HE got NUTHIN! What an arbitrary time frame,
February 11th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
I am happy to say I agree with those pleased that there is some help for the great masses of people who have lost their jobs and have no sense of an end of the joblessness we are currently facing. While you are an “opinion” paper, it seems to me complaining about the extra paperwork we in benefits endure seems out of place when reporting hard news and is an assumption.
For those covering under subsidy those ‘fired for work performance problems’ – that is not an involuntary termination and it is my belief you do not need to allow this to happen. You can bar them from taking part.
It is interesting blaming Obama for wasting this money, when it isn’t he who started this trouble and the pursuant crash and growing unemployment. Mr. Bush stepped out the door just in time to avert being pasted with his failed policies.
I am proud of my country on this one.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
I can understand the delays to extend and make changes. The Obama administration has hoped that by now health care reform would be enacted that would replace such need for subsidy and/or that there would be improvement in economy and more jobs returned. That is not the case, so good that they realize the need and extensions are proposed and hopefully provided. Reality needs to set in now, that such reform and improvement will not happen for year or years to come, so they should just put in for at least 12 more months extension.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
I think it’s great! They should make it permanent and stop fooling around with it. It’s good to be able to have some sort of assistance when you are collecting unemployment and making way less than likely 1/2 of your salary when you were employed. I have a Third Party Administrator for my COBRA so it’s no extra trouble for me, all I have to do is keep up with the Quarterly Tax Credit my company gets which isn’t too bad a deal. We don’t have that many COBRA participants because even with the subsidy, their share of the premium is still relatively expensive, plus we don offer a traditional health plan, we eliminated that as of 12/31/2009 because it was costing the company loads of money. Now, we only offer an HSA High Deductible plan which is pretty much like paying for all your doc visits until you meet your annual deductible which is $1,500 or $3,000, that alone is a deterrent for many people unless they really need it or were close to hitting the deductible when their employment was terminated.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Oh Patricia, get over yourself. Most of us who “oppose” this subsidy have clearly stated that we oppose those who have been terminated because they are habitually late, chronically inefficient, or intoxicated while on the job get cheaper health coverage than those of us who put in 50+ hours a week, are never late, and only drink after hours. (a little humor)
For those employee’s who were laid off for lack of work or reduction in hours, I support it. But, I agree the “involuntarily terminated” terminology needs to be defined better!
February 11th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
I like the idea of helping those laid off but not those fired. I have told my Cobra administrator to not give the subsidy to anyone that “we”, the company, deem not applicable for Cobra based on the reason fired. If they want to appeal they can and if we lose then we pay. If you have enough documentation of theft or anything serious you do not have to give them Cobra that is subsidised.
I do however have a problem with people who get an extensons on unemployment, especially when I live in a state that the unemployment coffers are empty, that don’t want to work because they can get the same amount to stay home. I wish there was a way for them to be identified so that they would not be eligible for the subsidy.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Keith, Reward! Do you think when they were laid off, they felt rewarded?! Many are struggling to keep their homes and have reliable transportation to look for work.
At least with the subsidy, they can see that they and their children can get good health care, and if they have preexisting conditions, don’t need to worry about that when they do get to go back to work. Where are you looking for candidates? We just posted an opening on the local job service board and within one week have about 75 applicants. 18 very good candidates selected so far for interviews. I wish we could had more jobs to fill.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
I don’t see that it’s that much paperwork than we already had to do and document under the NORMAL COBRA continuation process. But then we have not had ONE EMPLOYEE take advantage of their COBRA continuation even with the OBAMA subsidy.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Stacy, if COBRA were to become permanent, it would have to be under national healthcare. No employer could afford to have permanent COBRA participants on its healthcare participant roster, especially since many of those participants would most likely have serious health conditions which would drive the medical premiums sky-high for everyone in the plan or group.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Actually I have a hard time with the word “entitled”. Entitlement programs is what has contributed to the economy in this country. I run a large medical practice and we do our own COBRA administration. One example, we had an employee we had to terminate for work performance after several counseling sessions. She is now “entitled” to the subsidy program. However, the rules also state we cannot claim the subsidy from the government unless the premium has been paid in full. She has owed balances of 3.56, 7.40 and now 2.80. Because it is not paid in full, we cannot turn in the amount of her premium to the IRS. We have sent numerous letters and have had to cancel her insurance twice for non-payment, only to turn around the next month when she finally paid, and reinstate her insurance. It would be nice if the government gave thought and consideration to the wording of their new rulings before they are published and become fact. The fact is…. they have cheaper insurance than the employees currently working for us, they have no paperwork to fill out and we, the employer, are saddled with the full responsibility of the paperwork and in our case, still cannot claim the subsidy. While you are deciding what you think is fair, tell me what is fair in this case.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Yes, yes, yes!!! Let’s spend more money we don’t have! I love that idea! Can’t wait for it to be permanent because once you try and take it away, the people will start wailing! I love the United Nanny States of America!
February 11th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Sombeody will be paying for these subsidies for generations to come as the deficit continues to spiral out of control. From a sociological perspective, the health care subusidies for people actually laid off for economic reasons are needed; but from a financial perspective, they are disastrous. Rome is burning and the goverment keeps giving out matches.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Rome stated burning before this administration took over. This one is just left with the fall out
February 11th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
It’s called Social Justice
February 11th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
This is the first extension. Given the state of the economy, how many more will there be? Sooner or later it will become a permanent entitlement.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Our company has been lucky. Were back to full speed. Were more busy than ever.
I have been (trying) to hire a large number people for different position for a little over four months now I have had head hunters, temp agencys and my direct posting and the number I receive is very few.
I think (some) not all people are not in any hurry to go back to work I think they are milking it for all they can.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Just a note: People fired for a serious infraction like stealing, for example, are not even eligible for COBRA, let alone the subsidy. I don’t like the idea of people who were let go for poor performance getting the subsidy – hopefully some of them will learn something. However, I do agree with the subsidy – it’s devastating enough to lose one’s income without also losing health insurance. We had a reduction in force of 20% of our staff last August. Most of the 16 people were on the insurance, and even then not everyone elected COBRA. As to the cost of outside administrators being prohibitive, we had only one person on COBRA when we started using the present administrator (and before the subsidy went into effect) but I must say for $76 a month plus a few very small ($2 – $4) fees, it is worth its weight in gold. And yes, the government could be more efficient. On a different note, recall when the Feds changed the INS to the ICE and they pretty promptly changed the front page of the I-9 to reflect that name change – but it took 4 – 5 years to change the back side of that page listing approved forms of ID. We had to cut and paste and make our own ID page.
February 11th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Have we all forgotten that “subsidie” come from the taxes that every individual pays. If a former employee is on COBRA it is federal tax dollars, it they are on State Continuation the insurors are subsidizing & then getting rebates from the Fed Govt. Of course people should have health protection but this is not the way to accomplish it, it’s a hidden cost to all others paying taxes. There are better ways to do this but this Administration will not consider them. As another comment stated it soon becomes “entitlement” and it is not sustainable that every individual who loses their job, for whatever reason, has subsidized health care when workers do not.
February 11th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
I was RIF’d in Oct of 2008 from a VP of HR position at age 62; between the economy and my age (age discriminsation is alive and well), I have been unable to find anywhere near a suitable replacement position at any level in HR. However, the COBRA extension and subsidy have been truly helpful. Unfortunately, our subsidy ends in June and the COBRA coverage itself ends in Sept, when I will be 64. Frankly, those of us who were RIF’d earlier need to be included as well.
I find in unimaginable that an HR site thinks “what a hassle” to help out those very employees a company had depended on to be sucessful in better times.
February 11th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
One area that hasn’t been touched on is the provision that if you are ELIGIBLE for any other coverage, you cannot get the subsidy. I am aware of someone who lost her job, on which she paid her coverage and was denied the subsidy because she could have coverage under her husband’s plan by paying the full cost, which was more than her full COBRA would have been. She could not afford that. I’m pretty sure that violates the spirit, if not the letter of the law. Also, we have never denied any “involuntary” terms, no matter what the reason, because we’re in California and it’s not worth fighting over it. Please understand that the people who work in government who write this stuff are unfamiliar with termination for cause.
But all of you who say it would be nice if they didn’t keep changing the rules without notice are right on. It’s tough to keep up. We do our own COBRA.
February 11th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Thank you SWard!!! I agree with everything you wrote. I also agree with you Carl.
Nori, involuntary termination is different than gross misconduct. You can deny COBRA and the subsidy for gross misconduct but if someone isn’t performing up to par or is caught sleeping on the job or has too many absences or tardies. Plus, find me a legal definition of gross misconduct. Denying someone COBRA for that reason is a risk. If someone hasn’t been terminated for physical harm towards others, I don’t even try to deny someone for gross misconduct. The legal expenses defending it are not worth it.
If the government is going to do it, then be consistant. Don’t have one group for 9 months that can extend to 15, another who just gets 15 months and a 3rd group that gets 12 months. I have also had to do my own tracking spreadsheets for every participant to calculate the amounts for the payroll tax deductions. It would also be nice for them to get the proper forms out in a timely fashion instead of threatening businesses with penalties but not providing the proper materials or information until the 12th hour.
Most of the people who are enrolled on our subsidy COBRA were terminated for cause (but not gross misconduct) or poor performance. Most are using the plan as much as possible to get as much in as possible. We are self insured. I see the claim dollars we spend. This subsidy to help all those laid off workers is going to cost our existing workers increase in premiums so they may not afford insurance. We have absorbed a huge amount of increases over the last several years but our lowest cost family plan option is still $1500 per month. Getting the payroll tax deduction is nice but it doesn’t cover the $50,000+ claims we see.
It isn’t that I am not compassionate. The problem is someone has to pay for any shortfalls and businesses can’t absorb it all. So it will get pushed on to our employees making $10-$16 per hour which is the bulk of our employee base. It will also get passed along to the people who purchase our services. Is it fair to the honest and hardworking maintenance person making $10 per hour who is asking to drop his insurance because he cannot afford the monthly contributions even at 17% of the premium cost?
Even with the 8% of payroll penalties to the employer proposed as part of healthcare reform, our company would save millions by dropping all health insurance. If people don’t believe employers will do so, the more costs, penalties, administration requirements heaped upon businesses, the more we will see employers dropping coverage entirely.
February 11th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Will I think you forgot at add “male” in that discrimination list — gender discrimination
February 11th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
I’m really trying to see where those of you with a harder stance are coming from and you d raise some very good points that should have been addressed already. However if this subsisdy had waited for every wrinkle to be ironed out, thousand swould be without insurance and we would still be paying for it as people with no insurance use emergency rooms as clinics more and more routinely.
Did anyone honestly think everything would be fixed and the rainbow would shine again within one short year of the new administration? I’m not buying that there have not been some decisions that from the point of few we are given from the media could not have been “fleshed out” a little more first.
When we can’t see that keeping an employee and family on insurance is a good thing, not bad..it’s time to rethink our careers in Human Resources.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
To CindyD
I applauded your comment. You think things through, and obviously are not defined by your job as so many others who and commented on this article or lay claim to this profession.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
To CindyD
I applauded your comment. You think things through, and obviously are not defined by your job as so many others who and commented on this article or lay claim to this profession. Let us not forget we are human first.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
To Patricia, wow, you do seem to have no compassion. You must hire badly to have so many terminated for cause. Hopefully you don’t work in HR. Most people benefitting from the subsidy were laid off, due to no cause of their own. At least the people who need coverage can afford to keep coverage with the subsiy, are electing it, paying something towards the cost of their healthcare, being responsible, versus going uninsured. Would you rather have them be uninsured, get into an accident or something and then have to file bankruptcy? At $1500 per month, perhaps your plans are too rich. The total cost for our richest plan for family coverage is less than $1000/month, our lowest less than $700. If you fear the plans are going to become too expensive for your $10 per hour employee, then reduce the benefits to keep them covered.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Charity is great if you have the money. If you borrow the money for charity then you are just spending someone elses money (that of future generations) to make yourself feel good today.
Discussions of Social Justice are disengenious if you are stealing from one defensless group of people and giving to another.
If you want to help out a person in need, reach into your own pocket and do so. Don’t make yourself feel high and mighty by reaching into someone elses pocket to give charity to another person. It doesn’t count if you don’t pay for it yourself.
The Federal government has no money to spend on charity – it borrows every penny spent on things like ARRA subsidies.
February 11th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
This benefit is a good thing for those folks who are losing their jobs through no fault of their own, but I do wish they had included some language to differentiate these involuntary terms from those due to poor performance or misconduct. Why should an employee be “rewarded” because they chose to do something that was considered misconduct and thereby causing them to be terminated?!! And then the employer has to pick up the difference and do the additional paperwork? Not to mention if you’re self funded the company and the existing employees will have to take the increase in premiums… because we all know that the reason most folks take COBRA is because they have a serious health conditions that needs ongoing medical treatment.
February 11th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Social Justice much like any other justice often has to be imposed because otherwise greed and selfish self-centeredness will prevail. It’s a lesson many of us must learn and adopt as a way of life. Some of us need examples of what Social Justice is in order to then practice, for how can a man who is blind from birth know what the color green is.
If you are saying the voting public is defensless against what you have characterize as government stealing you are more than just confused.
February 11th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
What’s more is a good thing our government isn’t run with your way of thinking. The federal government is charitable and I’m glad they are so are the Haitians.
February 12th, 2010 at 7:30 am
Diane:
By the time they would figure out alternatives, thousands of people would be uninsured. I’m sure your idea would include tax breaks or something which don’t work for people living hand to mouth. Those who are comfortable have no clue that sometimes there just isn’t extra money for a $1000.00 health insurance bill. I believe this was a quick fix that needed to be done. Not something that could wait and be argued for months.
February 12th, 2010 at 7:32 am
Will:
Sorry to hear that you can’t find a position. A lot of our laid off workers can’t either. It’s unfortunately, the real world and some posters don’t seem to get that. Good luck in your job search and I hope they keep the subsidy coming for your sake.
February 12th, 2010 at 7:34 am
to Jeannette:
Yes, I do our Cobra at my company and although there are some days that it takes up my time to deal with the subsidy, I glAdly do it. After all, I AM employed and am very fortunate I am not on the other side. I see the fear in our laid off workers faces when they bring me their portion of their COBRA. It’s very sad and eye opening. You REALLY have to put yourself in their shoes because some day you may be IN their shoes.
February 12th, 2010 at 7:48 am
Social justice???? Please define those two words. Social justice has nothing to do with the administration trying to give the farm and the animals away. We have NO money. Money that is being spent is borrowed from other countries, namely China, who practically owns us now. What a thought and isn’t that a comforting feeling. Big government was never meant to solve all of the problems of the people. The more people depend on the government to take care of them, the more they become totally dependent and “entitled” and then it becomes a way of life. That is what happened to the welfare system in this country and will happen with other programs. COBRA was a great thing when it was instituted. The company was not spending their money but was simply administering a plan so someone could have insurance until they found something else. We have never charged an administrative fee to a former employee who needed to subscribe to COBRA. However, I see where all of these programs are headed and we are headed toward a socialist state and Big Brother.
Please don’t think I don’t empathy for those who have lost their jobs through attrition; I just don’t want to have my tax dollars trying to support the entire nation for every reason imaginable. We have patients who have good jobs and make a good salary but because their insurance policy has no maternity benefits, they qualify for medicaid to pay for their delivery. Believe it or not, we have a lawyer right now who is on Medicaid for her pregnancy. I just simply think there are too many giveaway programs and more to come.
February 12th, 2010 at 8:39 am
I cannot believe hiding an extension for COBRA in the budget – for God’s sake. Take responsibility for your (OBAMA and congress/senate) actions and stop hidding these extensions. Also, could we have some uniformity if we are going to keep extending this program. I personally do not feel the program should exist. It was meant as a “bail out” not a solution to health care. It makes me angry to continuously inch our way towards socialize when this country was built on just the opposite.
February 12th, 2010 at 9:02 am
I agree with CLG and OHio . Where was my help two years ago. I was laid off for a two weeks. I did use the system, no stamps no nothing. I got off my butt and worked three jobs until I got back on my feet. I didnt need medical help. I pulled my self back up and I have been with a great company in HR for 1 year now. As a single mother of 3 I did what I needed to do. I need to be there role model.
February 12th, 2010 at 9:34 am
For those that call it a headache you obviously have not been in that situation. I have not fortunately ever needed cobra but if I did I would definitely appreciate the help. If you think your medical premiums with your employee are high COBRA is even more expensive so that even some cannot afford it at all which leaves them with no insurance.
Instead of calling it a headache, lets look at it as helping our fellow man. That is what the United States is supposed to be eh…..
February 12th, 2010 at 10:14 am
It is not voters who we are stealing from, it is our grandchildren who will be so burdened by the debt we leave them that the needy of their day will get less or nothing. If you spend their money to help the needy of today then you are hurting one group of defensless people in order to give charity to another.
Where is the justice in that ?
February 12th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Do any of you who are opposed to the subsidy have children whom you take a tax deduction for on your taxes, own a home and claim a tax deduction, have children in school that is also paid for by those of us who do not, etc etc etc. You see, one form of hypocrisy is when you don’t believe in something for others but you do for yourself. If you really don’t believe in government subsidies then you should exempt yourself from those you beneft from. I’m surprised of such a mean-spirited reaction and the passing of personal judgements and values on those who lose their jobs.
February 12th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Hey Danman, a tax deduction is totally different from a subsidy. Read up before you write something that makes you look totally uneducated… wow.
Also, it seems like most are in agreement with allowing those who are RIF’d to have the subsidy, just not those terminated due to performance or cause. We are mostly in agreement with the fact that we wish the third revision wasn’t just for two months, when we could see the extension coming from a mile away…
Please be fully informed before you speak.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:07 am
I think it is fine for those terminated due to poor performance or misconduct be also eligible for the subsidy. You think the government is delayed in providing the guidelines and approving extensions now? Can you imagine how delayed it would be waiting for them to define poor performance or misconduct. Employers would need more expensive legal advice , raising employer costs. If one is terminated for inability to perform the job, such has didn’t have strong enough skills to do the job, most likely they qualify for unemployment, so why not also for the subsidy. We worry so many times about how the government complicates issues. Here they made it relatively easy to qualify. Again, I think it is fine for all that lose job involuntarily, qualify for subsidy until eligible for other employer or spouse’s plan.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:11 am
We’re all HR folks. We all have compassion for our fellow human beings in need or we would have choosen a different proffession. We all feel that it could easily be us without a job right now and want to help out those who don’t.
The disagreement comes when we just don’t have the resourses to help them and some suggest that we just borrow the money and let someone else (with no vote today) pay it back when the loan becomes due.
True charity comes when you voluntarily pay out real money to others that you could have kept for yourself.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Do any of you that oppose this think about the consequences if this benefit was not provided? I know personally fellow previous employees that are doing everything they can to find work, very grateful for the subsidy and the unemployment extensions. It has helped them in the meantime to pay for their portion of the COBRA, take care of needed health treatments for them and their children, continue to make their house or rent payments, feed their families, some continue to make their car payments – though I know some had to already give their cars back to the bank. A couple are trying to start their own businesses, trying to do something, until they find regular job. In continuing to pay for their necessary living expenses, I consider health insurance and health care necessary; they are continuing to contribute to the economy, helping to bring it back. For those that have health issues or preexisting conditions, they can have peace of mind having affordable coverage.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Tiffany,
My sympathies to your co-workers and anyone having the displeasure of knowing you.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Frankly, it is not a government subsidy when I have already contributed and paid my taxes. The money I am deducting from my mortgage, my children, etc. is money I HAVE PAID into the IRS; this is not charity or coming from an unknown source, it came out of my gross salary. There is a vast difference between being able to keep some of your own money that you earned and having your tax dollars spent on myriads of programs we cannot afford and are constantly borrowing money to pay back. It was on the news last night if the government keeps borrowing, they will lose there +++ A credit rating. If that happens, it is virtually impossible to borrow money or receive credit from anyone. The whole crux of the matter is the government should lower the taxes on businesses and lower payroll taxes so that small business can be re-hiring again. The problem should not be how many people we can sustain during this time, but how many of them can be put back to work if the government would give small business a break so they can re-hire or hire new employees and be able to afford them. That is the magic word, AFFORD. This is not personal and is certainly not against people who have lost their jobs, but rather sustainability for everyone or we will all end up in the same boat and the only choice left will be Medicaid and I think that would make some government officials very happy as they would then have the right to tell us what to do and when to do it. I run a business – this is a business matter, it is not personal and cannot be judged in that manner.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:43 am
What nastiness! Truly, all you negative comment leavers, why the unsavory anger?
This is why I feel there is a fundamental rift – there are those so high on themselves they love to belittle everyone else, making swooping judgements as if they alone are hardworking Americans. I find your negativity a true detriment to society and to progress, it’s truly disgusting. Time to go check yourself.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:47 am
CDG, the problem is both – help to sustain and need to put people back to work. I agree definitely we need to do more to get people back to work. We have four openings, just hired one at our company, so that’s improvement for us. Unfortunately, we’re not able to hire the 25+ we laid off over the last two years or so. When you get laid off and your child needs surgery, it is very personal. I hope you’re not in HR, if so bad rep for the rest of us.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:48 am
I meant do addres CLG.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Sorry for the typos. The negativity here is so frustrating. I need to get back to work.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Rebecca, there is a difference between negativity and reality. Reality is there is no money for these programs. We are living on borrowed money and borrowed time. I guess there is also a difference in being in HR and actually running the company and see the bottom line numbers and know what you have to actually pay the bills and keep the company running. I am an Administrator of a medical practice and we have never turned someone away that needs medical assistance with a bill. Frankly, if you do not have insurance and are only living on Unemployment, you can qualify for Medicaid and have your medical bills paid. We are talking healthcare, not sustainable life style. There are companies hiring, maybe it is fast food restaurants and someone doesn’t want to drop to that level, but it is a paycheck.
Amazing some of the insults about negativity, when the facts are reality. I’m done.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
My problem with the subsidy is that it doesn’t cover a family whose spouse loses their job but they were not the one who had the coverage. My husband works for a small company that does not offer health insurance. What if he lost his job and our income was cut in half? There is no provision for that in the COBRA law. Where is my susbsidy? If the spirit of the law is to help those who have fallen on hard times due to job loss (through no fault of their own) how does that help my family? How would we be able to afford the premiums?
February 12th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
If the government looses it’s credit rating then we won’t be able to borrow for anything anymore. Then the reality that we can’t spend money that we don’t have will be more obvious to us all.
In the mean time, it is not productive to villify those of us who notice that the emperor has no clothes. We are not mean spirited, just messengers – don’t shoot the messenger.
February 12th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Hey CLG and Tiffany (UGH!)
CLG, You decided to have children and buy a house so why should you pay less tax when your family is actually using services that my family is not, but I pay more tax-Isn’t that a subsidy to you?? Am I not subsidizing your childrens education and your house payment-hmmmm.
Tiffany, A government handout is a government handout, call it what you may but you are a benefactor of tax relief so stop your whining when someone else is receiving a similar benefit. I hope you are NOT in an HR role-you’d give the field a bad name.
February 12th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
I just got to say one more thing. It is this kind of assistance the government should be focused on versus doing any more to bail out banks and poorly managed auto companies. I guess the naysayers here care more for wall street than main street.
February 12th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
We didn’t have the money to bail out the banks and auto companies either. The money spent on bail outs was borrowed and will be paid back by future taxes on future citizens when the bonds become due.
Bankers and Insurance company employees and Auto company employees are no better and no worse than any other citizen. I think that here should be no bail outs and no subsidies and no government handouts for any citizen if the only way to get the money is by borrowing it.
How many of us borrow money that we can never repay based on our current income and then donate it all to charity? If individuals don’t /can’t do that then our government, which is nothing more than the collective power of all of we individual citizens, shouldn’t either.
February 12th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
If everyone that does not lke the subsidy why don’t you switch the employees to part-time. As of right now they would not be eligible for the subsidy when there is a reduction of hours. Then once you offer regular COBRA and they do not take it (or even if they do accept COBRA) then you have a lay-off the subsidy is not available. This one always bothered me that employers could to this and get away with it!!!
February 15th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Mary Lou – according to our COBRA TPA, if the reduction in hours is done in anticipation of termination, then the employees would be eligible for the subsidy.
February 15th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
a crt is nothing more than a vacuum tube.
February 15th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
I hear there is another extension to this extension coming down the pipeline.
Also, my company treats all Involuntary Terminations as ARRA because it’s not worth the possible Man Hours and money spent on litigation proving your case. Most of our employees DO NOT opt for COBRA because even with the subsidy, if you are on unemployment, it’s still fairly unaffordable. They have to really, really need it to be able to pay that kind of money every month until they get another job.
Case Scenario for everyone to look at:
We eliminated our two traditional Co-pay health plans and only have HSA High Deductible plan. This was done for the good of the company and for the employees because the Co-pay plans had a HUGE increase for 2010. If you are a COBRA participant, you’d have to either meet a $1,500 (Individual) or $3,000 (Individual+) annual Deductible, then the plan pays 100%. In addition to that, you still have to come up with your share of the Health Premium under the COBRA Subsidy. In this case (in my personal opinion) depending on when you got terminated during the year and how close you may have been to meeting your deductible, the COBRA Subsidy still may not help you. However, the HSA High Deductible plan saves my company so much money, they deposit 60% of our annual deductible for ALL employees ($1,800 Indiv+) ($900 Indiv). If you were lucky enough to be employed past March, you’d only have $1,200 out of pocket to come up with for Indiv + or $600 out of pocket to come up with for Indiv. You’d still have to come up with your share of the monthly premium.
I don’t think some of the folks in this thread are unsympathetic, I think they are frustrated with our current administration who said CHANGE was going to come but we aren’t seeing anything. The government would do better to just either make the ARRA Subsidy a permanent thing and stop all the dancing around it and giving extensions or just give it an expiration date and stick to it! We all know it is going to eventually be permanent but this always makes us feel like they have a hidden agenda.
February 15th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
KELLY: Good point! The way things were going last year, even though I didn’t think I’d be affected by the Economy, it did make me stop and think what would I do if me or my husban lost our jobs and benefits because you never know. We both work for fairly large but financially stable companies but as shaky as the economy was last year, here at 1PM, gone at 3PM. Some of us always assume that every employer offers a health plan when a good majority of small business can’t afford to offer it and if they do, the employees can’t afford to pay the premiums or pay premiums to self insure outside the company. I have heard horror stories about folks trying to self insure and a few people just dropped the insurance and paid the doc and pharmacy bills because it was cheaper as long as nothing catastrophic happened.
February 15th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Sorry if i offended you in some way “S”.
February 15th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Hey Danman, read what you are writing. A tax deduction is not a government handout. It is not borrowed money. It is money that you earned and owned, money that you pay to the government for services (think police, roads). Taxes are what the government TAKES out of your paycheck for pay for these luxuries. This subsidy is (theoredically) money the government already has that it is giving out, for free. Not money that an individual has earned. (And the government is supposed to budget their “handouts” around the incoming taxes, which ediventally doesn’t matter to the current – or any recent – administration.)
See below:
subsidy–noun, plural -dies. 1. a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
2. a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
3. a grant or contribution of money.
4. money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.
tax–noun 1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
I am not a benefactor of any kind of tax relief, not that it is any of your business. It’s too bad that you keep speaking before you think, I hope it doesn’t represent your business sense, regardless of what you do. It would reflect poorly upon your employer.
I am sorry and saddened to think that there are so many confused citizens in this country, like you, Danman, that speak (and vote) before they think. It has led us to where we are today, thanks.
February 15th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
PS. crt: many individuals that study enconomics would agree with you, for more than one reason…
February 16th, 2010 at 7:28 am
Tiffany:
I sort of agree with Danman. If you have children, you ARE receiving special allowances. I know, I have children also. If Danman doesn’t have children, he doesn’t get these allowances. So I can see where he is coming from.
I’m sure I didn’t vote the same as you did. I DID think before I voted and STILL think I made the right choice. Peoeple who didn’t think before they voted nine years ago is how we got to where we are not. This didn’t happen in the last year. THINK before YOU speak.
February 17th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Rebecca, I am the benefits director. I don’t hire but I do take care of our employees and make sure they have a reasonable level of coverage to protect them from bankruptcy. I see the cost of the insurance claims since we pay them directly. Most of our employees are in small town USA doing grass cutting and general grounds maintenance. Some do not read or have a phone or permanent address. They are a very transient group and will switch jobs for $0.25 per hour more in pay. A majority of our employees are over the age of 50 with people who choose to work for us well into their 80s. Most choose to live in the same community where they work and many who leave frequently come back and work for us in the future if they left on good terms.
Insurance cost is based on claims experience and our claims are high based on the employee demographic and utilization. Our lowest cost coverage gives them 100% preventive, 90% catastrophic and 70% coverage for outpatient & more discretionary services. There is a $25 or $35 copay for doctor visits and a $500 individual deductible. We have this plan because we are compassionate and don’t want our employees who are hospitilized with something catastrophic or diagnosed with cancer to be both insured AND bankrupt. We bid out our coverage every year and the company absorbs almost the entire premium increase when we have one. We have limited options for insurance carriers because most do not have PPO networks in the majority of areas we operate in.
If some type of healthcare reform passes, there will be minimum levels of coverage required on employer plans, no pre-existing condition limitiations, no lifetime coverage caps, caps on employee maximum dollars spend of pocket and 100% coverage for many preventive tests. All are good things but all come with a cost.
Those restrictions do not give a plan administrator a lot of room to reduce benefits as you suggest to reduce plan costs. Besides, how is someone paying for insurance who has a $1000 deductible, $5000 max out of pocket and 70 or 80% co-insurance going to afford to pay for a hospital stay? Someone earning $20k to $30k per year may still have to declare bankruptcy if we reduce our benefits as you suggest. How is that compassionate?
I personally think the subsidy is a wonderful thing for people and I think doing away with many of the plan restrictions like pre-existing limitations and requiring preventive coverage as proposed in healthcare reform is the right thing to do. I am simply stating there is a price tag associated with the subsidy and reform and someone has to pay it. I directly see the costs of the plan and I have seen the increase in our costs due to the COBRA subsidy. Our payroll tax offsets don’t cover the increase in costs. Simple cut and dry math. It is a statement of fact for our business and I promise employers will see increases in costs due to higher utilization because more people are on the subsidy. Again…fact, not judgment.
Someone is paying for those increases in costs and employers cannot do so without limits. So companies have to decide if they will choose to not offer coverage or pass the costs along to their employees and customers.
The system is broken on every level. It is sad that our largest competitor does not give their employees any health insurance for the first 6 months of their employment AND they have a high deductible health plan AND they charge as much or more as we do for the employee co-premium payroll deductions. How many people earning $20,000 to $40,000 per year can pay $100 to $400 per month for health insurance AND wait six months for coverage AND meet a $2000+ deductible in order to use their benefits. That to me is not compassionate.
HR professionals should see more of the costs to the business. In my experience, many HR professionals do not know how much the company pays for benefits or the increases in cost over time. The bills need to be paid and if a company spends more money in one area, other areas of the business get less. For good or bad, when I see legislation passed, my first thought is who is paying for it and who is it going to hurt. It is easy to see who gets benefits but if expenses get so high a company goes bankrupt and shuts its doors, all those employees are unemployed and have no option for COBRA even without a subsidy. I am seeing several companies in my neighborhood close their doors. Who is helping those people?
February 17th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Patricia:
I agree with you. Too many HR professionals have only a rudimentary knowlege of and limited daily exposure to the accounting and economics. We are all tasked with implementing and ensuring compliance with a multitude of rules and regulations and have little time to understand the complex nuances of the entire business. Even CEOs have trouble doing that. As someone once said, “When you are up to your a** in alligators, it’s difficult to remember your original objective was to drain the swamp”.
February 17th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
I actually am the one that pays the billing for our company Health, Life, Dental, Disability benefits, I also get to see at the end of the year what our claims exposure was and they break out the high dollar claims (without telling us who it was for). We are experience rated by group so we have good years and bad year. Every year when we do our Open Enrollment presentations, we remind employees what their benefits are worth and that they are included in compensation. We take an example of an average salary, add an average of all of the Insurance premiums my company pays 100% for (Life, Short Term Disability, Long Term Disability, AD&D), then we add the company’s annual percentage total is for Health Insurance for a single person (and that’s being generous) and voila!!!! Our employees are enlightened. A few don’t really appreciate it but most are amazed at how much the company does really spend on their behalf. We have a high deductible insurance plan but we give our employees 60% of their annual deductible because the Health Insurance premiums are so low we can afford to do it. However, I would NOT want to be on COBRA with this plan even with the subsidy because it’s practically unaffordable trying to meet a deductible AND having to pay a monthly premium. At least the option to have COBRA is still on the table, with all this screaming and shouting about it, one day, COBRA may be in congress on the chopping block. Never say never!
Tom: I totally dig your alligators analogy…ain’t it the truth!
February 17th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
I actually am the one that pays the billing for our company Health, Life, Dental, Disability benefits, I also get to see at the end of the year what our claims exposure was and they break out the high dollar claims (without telling us who it was for). Every year when we do our Open Enrollment presentations, we remind employees what their benefits are worth and that they are included in compensation. We take an example of an average salary, add an average of all of the Insurance premiums my company pays 100% for (Life, Short Term Disability, Long Term Disability, AD&D), then we add the company’s annual percentage total is for Health Insurance for a single person (and that’s being generous) and voila!!!! Our employees are enlightened. A few don’t really appreciate it but most are amazed at how much the company does really spend on their behalf.
Tom: I totally dig your alligators analogy…ain’t it the truth!
February 17th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
I actually am the one that pays the billing for our company Health, Life, Dental, Disability benefits, I also get to see at the end of the year what our claims exposure was and they break out the high dollar claims (without telling us who it was for). Every year when we do our Open Enrollment presentations, we remind employees what their benefits are worth and that they are included in compensation. We take an example of an average salary, add an average of all of the Insurance premiums my company pays 100% for (Life, Short Term Disability, Long Term Disability, AD&D), then we add the company’s annual percentage total is for Health Insurance for a single person (and that’s being generous) and voila!!!! Our employees are enlightened.
Tom: I totally dig your alligators analogy…ain’t it the truth!
February 17th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
I actually am the one that pays the billing for our company Health, Life, Dental, Disability benefits, I also get to see at the end of the year what our claims exposure was and they break out the high dollar claims (without telling us who it was for).
Tom: I totally dig your alligator anaolgy, ain’t that the truth!
February 17th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Patricia: Good explanation of how health care costs actually affect a company. I, too, see the actual claims and admin costs our company pays as we are self-funded. I also have the same gut reaction whenever I hear of new regulations or “benefits” touted by the government. That reaction? “Who is going to pay for that?” The government always acts like employers have a responsibility to provide and the to pay for every mandated benefit that comes down the pipe. When in reality, the high costs of all the benefits and associated taxes are driving more and more companies into bankruptcy or at least into nonprofitability. Ultimately, if a company can’t make a profit, what is the point? An employer is obligated to provide a safe work environment and a decent wage. Anything beyond that is a “fringe benefit”. (not an entitlement!) I think more and more companies will eventually drop benefits altogether if we keep forcing them to pay for everything.
I agree with most here that the COBRA subsidy helps those out of work to afford to continue their insurance. But, it has been my experience that even with the subsidy, many cannot afford it because while working they make between $20k – $40k. With those wages, many have no savings and can barely pay for food and shelter on unemployment. Our employees don’t understand how good they have it UNTIL they are laid off or terminated and have to pay COBRA rates. (Yes, I am working on more communiation!) The company pays about 90% of all costs, we have extremely low deductibles, copays and co-insurance. But, because it’s always been that way, whenever we have to raise rates or shift costs, the employees think they are being shafted. That is until they need COBRA and realize how much it costs even with the subsidy.
This COBRA subsidy thing is going to cost us down the road. Yes, employers get a credit on payroll taxes, but I am sure more taxes will be on the way to make up for it. It is sad that so many who need insurance cannot afford it. But, I don’t think it is employers responsibility to provide it and they shouldn’t be expected to if it causes the bottom line to turn red. If companies can’t make money, they will cease to exist, which will put many more of us out of jobs and without health insurance.
February 17th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Why is it that the paralegal always thinks they know just as much as the attorney, or the nurse knows just as much as the doctor? They remind me of an annoying little dog that continues to jump up and down with the occasional bark to entertain their master.
So-called and self professed HR professionals believe they have become experts on all sorts of subjects. What they have become experts at is turning a four hour job into an eight hour day.
We are all part of society — individuals, business entities, governments we are all interconnected and as such it is our obligation to be our brothers keeper. As we become more closely connected and our population grows that reality becomes more inevitable and obvuious to those who can think on their own. The rest will just have to stumble along.
February 17th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Dear S:
Obviously you know more than everyone else…except you certainly don’t know how much HR professionals do know and must take care of every day for much longer than 8 hours to help keep their businesses productive and profitable. With regard to the COBRA subsidy, especially self-insured organizations must be concerned about the cost. One of our major responsibilities in a variety of areas is risk management and liability mitigation. I find your second paragraph irrelevant and an ad hominem attack. Perhaps when we “self-professed HR professionals” evolve, we will be as wise as you are.
February 17th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Perhaps our obligation is to make sure our brother has the opportunity to live independently without being “kept” by anyone?
There is no dignity in being a dependent, nor in perpetuating a cycle of dependence by constantly expanding entitlements to a larger and larger percentage of your fellow citizens.
There is great joy in a group of self sufficient people voluntarily coming together to gain the benefits of society. That way we can all be our own keepers AND benefit from human interaction.
February 17th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
to lorie
employers are not getting a credit on payroll taxes. they are getting the 65 percent of the premium they have paid for that cobra employee refunded to them by the government.
February 17th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
crt your “kept” comment speaks volumes. I find it incredible anyone could miss the piont as badly as you have. Keep stumbling.
As for jeanette, I never said I know or profess to know more than everyone. That may be your reaction to your own insecurities you think you keep so well hidden from the rest of us or at least you think you do a good job at it. What you obviously do not know is that I have been involved in the industry since the early 1980’s. I have seen the transformation of this industry and how it has become a refuge and now a bastion for people like crt and yourself. The pseudo elitists or self ordained professionals whose career rests somewhere between work and maternity leave. You may now re-join crt in the stumble parade.
February 17th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Why the personal attacks “S” ? Thay just get in the way of inteligent discussion and leave no room for us to learn from each other.
February 17th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Intelligent discussion? When? Where? Federal charity is a burden in grandchildren? It is? That’s a certainty? I guess FDR’s New Deal (characterized by many at the time and since then) as Federal charity was something you think should not have been done. How much further would have the despots of world aggression following the great depression have gone if in the 1930’s Federal charity was not put into play? How many more people would have died or been controlled by a murderous band of crazies as a result of abstaining from Federal charity. Federal charity think again about your position. If you need more examples there are more.
I hope this helps with your quest to learn something from the discussion.
February 18th, 2010 at 8:23 am
Kelly: I believe you are wrong. The government does not “refund” the 65% to employers directly. Employers are supposed to keep track of what they have paid and take a credit for it on their quarterly 941 forms. This again puts the burden on employers to track, pay for and then try to get their money back (in the form of a credit) for a program that the government institutes. If the government wants to subsidize COBRA, why don’t they just pay the premiums directly to the carriers? Why is the onus on employers to administer such a program?
From the IRS website:
“Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, will also be sent to about 2 million employers in mid-March. The form is used to claim the new COBRA premium assistance payments credit, beginning with the first quarter of 2009.”
February 18th, 2010 at 10:01 am
Thanks “S” for your response.
I understand the argument that the unprecedented, massive federal borrowing and spending and intervention in our economy under FDR somehow helped the country stay strong and so reduced the power of despots like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, etc.
I’m sure that you are aware of the counter view that in fact this well intentioned borrowing / spending in the US crippled our economy, turned a brief economic downturn into a 12 year depression, took our eyes off of the problems brewing in Europe, made a US military build up impossible, and thereby actually increased the confidence and power of those same despots who saw as week and unable to respond to their actions.
However, for the sake of argument, let’s say that your view is the correct one and that the unprecedented borrowing / spending / intervention in the economy by FDR created all of the good that you say it did.
Under that assumption my question is this: Are we able to give less federal help today to our fellow citizens in need than we could have if FDR had not done what he did back then? In other words, with so much of our current Federal budget now devoted to paying back interest and principal on money borrowed before we were born, did FDR spend the money of future generations in order to help the people alive in his day?
If the answer is yes, then I ask you if any generation has the right to spend money on themselves that they don’t have to spend, or should they limit their spending to what they themselves are willing to pay for even if that means less benefits to the needy of their day?
If the answer is, “Each generation should do all that it can to help the needy of their time (including forcing future generations to pay for it )”, then that seems both charitable and selfish to me.
I’m not saying charity is bad ( I contribute a significant portion of my income to private charity), just that we can’t give more in charity than we actually have to give.
What do you think?
February 18th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Don’t we pay for everyone in one form or another? If people are uninsured they seek medical attention with no means to pay at local hospitals instead of doctor office visits. Which costs more? Will they qualify for Medicaid? Do they have children and enroll them in a state funded kindercare program?
Where is all those costs going? Does the government pay, with our tax money, or do we all pay in higher premiums?
Would it be cheaper to pay physicians to see a certain number of uninsureds each month or to continue to pay Cobra rates for all the unemployed?
It has been my experience that if someone is paying Cobra prices they are going to get their moneys worth and go have that surgery they have been putting off because they could not take the time from work or maybe the spouse will have it because now there is someone home to help them recover.
Why can’t there be a Cobra plan that pays for the basic office visit or for an emergency but you can’t have the expensive elective surgeries, unless it is life threating, until you are employed and paying for your own benefits. Why does the former employer have to bear the cost that may increase their current employees rates? Give the former employee the choice of paying full price for
an all inclusive plan or a reduced price for office vists & medications only plan.
There needs to be a compromise somewhere that most people can live with. There is nothing that everyone would agrre on.
February 18th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Rosemarie: Yes, we all pay one way or another, lol. The uninsureds’ costs are paid for by the government (which really means our tax dollars) and by higher overall insurance rates for the insured. So, we actually pay twice for the uninsured.
I think there is a misconception of COBRA in general. COBRA is simply the right to continue whatever plan you had while you were working. So, there is not a basic plan or all inclusive plan to choose from when you enroll in COBRA. Although Obama did change the rules so that an enrollee can opt for a lower cost plan than the one they were enrolled in, if they so choose. But, generally, there are no specific “COBRA plans’ to speak of. As I tell our employees, COBRA means that you can continue the same insurance you currently have, but you have to pay the full cost of the premiums, rather than the company paying 90% of it. Same plan, just costs more.
We definitely need to “fix” the health insurance practices in this country. But, it needs to start with sensible reforms like limiting malpractice liability (tort reform), allowing insurance companies to sell over state lines, barring prescription companies from direct advertising, expanding tax advantages like eliminating the “use it or lose it” rule for FSAs, and the like. More government subsidies, handouts, expansion of rules and regs and taxes to pay for the whole mess is not the answer.
February 18th, 2010 at 11:48 am
to Lorie:
I had no trouble in getting credit against our payroll taxes. Happened pretty quick actually. I did not file all my 2009 subsidy credits in 2009 so I had file an amended return…ADP is actually doing all the work and Im just waiting for a check. So, in some instances, you do just get the money back. The people who are against the subsidy (or against the President) just make this sound all too hard when in reality it’s not.
February 18th, 2010 at 11:57 am
crt
Taken from your last entry:
I’m sure that you are aware of the counter view that in fact this well intentioned borrowing / spending in the US crippled our economy, turned a brief economic downturn into a 12 year depression, took our eyes off of the problems brewing in Europe, made a US military build up impossible, and thereby actually increased the confidence and power of those same despots who saw as week and unable to respond to their actions.
No, what was brewing in eurpoe had nothing to do with how much or how little the US wanted control over them. We weren’t acting as the cops of the world as we are now. Why? beacuse we weren’t a great a world power as we are now, and with that power we have accepted a certain level of responsibility and charity towards others, yes federal charity again. It was the insensitive and inhumane punishment inflicted by the victors on the losers of WWI that set the stage for the rise of the dictators. It was the victors lack of charity and humanity towards another that caused resentment and hatred to flourish.
You then go on to write:
However, for the sake of argument, let’s say that your view is the correct one and that the unprecedented borrowing / spending / intervention in the economy by FDR created all of the good that you say it did.Under that assumption my question is this: Are we able to give less federal help today to our fellow citizens in need than we could have if FDR had not done what he did back then?
read your history book again — you know the one that’s not missing any pages. The insensitive and inhumane punishment inflicted by the victors on the looser of WWI caused the cruel and horrific dictators to rise. It was the victors lack of charity and humanity that caused resentment and hatred to flourish.
Huh? What planet are you living on? Did captain Kirk pick yuou up from some far away planet and had Scotty transport you here? Are you a home owner? Did you buy it with cash or did you buy it with money borrowed? Have you ever purchase a new car? Did you buy it with cash or borrow the money? When you go to the department store have you ever used your Macy’s card or Norstom’s card to obatin what you wanted? And when you returned home, did you feel guilty that you bought yourself clothes for work rather than leave the money for your children — if you have any?
February 18th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Lorie,
I understand that Cobra is a continuation of the same benefits that you had while employed but where is it written that Cobra can not be changed. Since we are looking for reform why not change the scope of Cobra as well. Find a way to make it more cost effective for everyone?
Maybe that is the program the government offers the uninsured. Basic office visits and medication only.
Why is it that we can all see what needs to be done but can not get it done? Do we not elect and pay for our representatives? Maybe it is time to give them a deadline and say get it done or get out. If they were employed in private business they would be fired for poor job performance. And then they would need benefits. lol
February 18th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
ROSEMARIE: Excellent point! Politicians are only care about how much power and money they can get or have. It’s been a very long time since it was about the people who elect them and for some strange reason, its getting worse and worse!
Cindy: I have no trouble getting my credit for my company either. We have a third party administrator for COBRA…our Participants send their checks to them, they then send us a summary of who paid what and a check for the total amount. I record it on a spreadsheet and at the last payroll of the quarter, record the amount. Probably if you administer your own COBRA that part could get messy because people don’t always pay ontime or at the same time. One thing I love about having a TPA for COBRA?? If they are 1 minute late with the check, they get cut off so our records don’t get really messy.
February 18th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
One minute late with the check they get cut off so our records don’t get messy. Wow!
I just read Joe Stack’s (1956 – 2010) letter. Scarry real.
February 18th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Thanks “S”.
I have borrowed money to invest in a house. However I did not borrow more than I could afford to pay back with my current income, I don’t borrow more money to make the payments every time they come due, and I have life insurance that will pay off the mortgage if I die before I can pay it off.
No future generation ( I do have a child ) of mine will ever have to pay for any part of what I spent on myself or gave to others while I was alive. I do give to charity but I never borrow the money to do so, even though I would like to give more money to those worthy causes that help my fellow human beings in need.
Most people operate this way in their private lives, and my guess is that as an intellegent, responsible person you do too.
Why should our government operate differently just because right now it still has the temporary power to borrow more money than it can repay? Shouldn’t we make sure that our federal debt doesn’t get so high that no one will loan the federal government money anymore? Just because we can does not mean that we should.
If we get to that point this entire conversation will become moot because we won’t be able to pay for even the most basic government services anymore and our economy will collapse. Then we will spend all of our time just surviving, the golden goose will be dead, and neither you nor I will we be able to help anyone else. I feel a responsibility to make sure we never get to that point .
Do you think I’m being unreasonable or unrealistic?
February 18th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
S: This is a forum for everyone to express their OWN opinions without personal attacks and from what I have seen you seem to relish unleashing cyber smackdowns and I am not going there! You seem like a highly intelligent person that is passionate about issues but there is no need to insult, single out or attack people because they may not have certain knowledge that you do. And we’re moving on! Now: In a nice way, let me clear up what I really meant about my “one minute late” analogy: Our TPA sets a deadline to receive payment from COBRA participants. They don’t give much of a grace period to COBRA participants which keeps our billing and records CURRENT. Our COBRA participants are on the monthly company billing which means we pay their premiums in full and the TPA sends us the participants check to reimburse the company. In most cases, if COBRA participant gets another job and/or no longer participates, they don’t really notify the TPA. If the TPA set no deadline and waited for a check to come in or tries to get in contact with them to no avail, months can pass while we keep paying. Then, we’d have to take an enormous credit and do all this reconciling. This is why, when no check is received by the deadline, they terminate their benefits immediately. They do look at the post mark on the envelope to see when it was mailed, in some cases they do give them grace and don’t cut their benefits off.
February 18th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Can the entity that has the authority to print money ever think that it can’t print enough to pay it back?
My job is not to teach joe plummer or joesephina public. I’m done with going round and round. The local college and or university I suspect offer courses in Macro and Micro economics. That’s my suggestion at this point.
As for your last question, unreasonable or unrealistic at this point I should say not. One word describes it — argumentative.
February 18th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Too bad “S”. I was trying so hard not to be arguementative and to give you every compliment and benefit of the doubt. This despite your utter failure to address the main points I raised and insistence on deflecting attention from them by answering questions I never asked instead.
By the way, the cheap shots in every post designed to belittle your readers are just plain childish and unneccesary. I was taught that such attacks are a sign the attacker has no real response, is afraid they are loosing to their opponent’s logic and is hoping to ward off any further argument through intimidation.
Your statement “Can the entity that has the authority to print money ever think that it can’t print enough to pay it back?” is very insightful and sort of makes my main point, so perhaps we agree after all.
You appear however to be one of those people who will forever see the world as made up only of exploiters and the exploited, despite living in a country that proves otherwise every day. “I’ve made up my mind, now don’t confuse me with the facts” seems to be your motto, so I give up on the idea of sharing with and learning from you. Sad, because you do seem to be intellegent, if misguided.
February 18th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Perhaps it can be sid of you some insights that may or may not be accurate in your world or your mind. I thought I was done with you. Now it is complete.
February 18th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Good night “S”, and good luck to you.
February 18th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
“
February 19th, 2010 at 7:36 am
To CRT:
Unrealistic??? I’d say you look at things with a limited view. I’m sure you are blaming the current administration for the mess of the economy. Where have you been for the past eight years. Things need fixed and it will take time. I give to charity also but could I help my neighbor if he couldn’t afford to have a test done because he had no insurance. don’t think so. I am BLESSED to have a job with health insurance but that could end at any time and then I couldn’t afford the regular COBRA rates. I’m a single mom. I have a chronic illness so if I couldn’t have my tests and treatment, I would probably die young and leave my child alone. That’s just not right.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:38 am
To CRT:
I jsut read another of your posts accusing someone of “cheap shots”. Re-read your posts. You do this ALOT. See….limited view and self centered.
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:48 am
An excellent idea. Hopefully it’s not a decision that is made on 3/20/10 that retros back and has us doing needless double duty. Like other people who have posted I wish the government would have used a 12/31/10 end date back when it was first re-uped.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:26 am
OK we are one week away from 2/28/10. Does anyone know if this has or is going to pass. I am an HR consultant trying to do business and not knowing which direction to proceed. I have searched the internet for updates and e-mailed the DOL but their response is I will hear back within 5 working days.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:19 am
SUE: They just need to extend it until the end of this year and leave it at that but of course that would be too easy. I have been looking out for it because I didn’t know about this current extension.
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Cindy,
Again, good job. A limited view often is governed by fear — choosing not to see.
Some go even further getting lost in that process they haven’t a clew.
The world would be a better place if there were more people like you.
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Oh grow up everyone! Personal attacks, personal opinions on social policy…what gives here? Whether or not the current administration’s policy is good for the nation, healing the world, compassionate – or lacking therein, is not what this article is about. The point is that there is possibly another wave of paperwork – the kind we all grumble about being added to our HR plates, but do anyway – coming our way. Topics we should be discussing include, How are we going to handle this? Will it require a change in our timelines for achieving requisite deadlines? Do we need to restructure our HR staffing model to get this done efficiently and correctly? Is it going to present an issue with anything we’re doing now to support our departing employees? If so, how do we iron that out? HR discussion folks. I’m not here to read your social views or political commentary. Shame on all of you for missing the focus – we count on HR people to be above that – and for leveraging an opportunity to spout your political/social views. Embarassing folks. I cringed just reading this.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:37 am
Melys:
Please…youre putting way too much thought into this. You are going to take more time organizing to HANDLE the extension than you will actually doing the work. It’s not all THAT time consuming or difficult. You don’t need a strategic plan to handle everything.
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:27 am
Melys,
You try to take the high road and miss the point. Let’s focus on Melys’ workload. Cindy’s right Again!If you got your systems in place you can’t be busy. Software programs can handle “wave of paperwork” and “requisite timelines”. Melys you didn’t mention any of the prerequisite paperwork that might be involved. Reading some of these comments is just more of the 4-hour job into an 8-hour day. The fraud that’s been perpetuated in this business for decades. We can see through your transparency.
Years ago we changed our titles from Industrial Relations and Personnel to Human Resources. ASPA transforming into SHRM and all that went with it. I think I’ll talk with SHRM and ask them to consider another professional title for the society — add another official title for all the folks who only see the $ and the me centered customerservice approach to doing business, who see people as the enemy — as the inconvenience of doing business. I think a good title is Anti-personnel. Anti-personnel clerk, Anti-personnel Supervisor, Anti-personnel Manager, Director of Anti-personnel, Anti-personnel Vice President.
Keep at it, it’s people like you and the other anti-personnel types in HR that make us look that much better (especially when we get hired into your organizations).
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:37 am
Melys: If you have a Third Party Administrator for COBRA, they take care of the leg work….all you’d need to do on your end is keep track payments so you could get the tax credit for your company. Anyone that does not does not have a Third Party COBRA Administrator should seriously think about getting one! We didn’t have one until I took the HR Manager Position and that was at the top of my list to establish. Just make sure it’s reputable and has a process that works for you, preferably giving them authorization to directly reinstate coverage with your health Insurance carrier to prevent lapses in coverage.
February 24th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
I think it is great since I am being laid off on 4/30/10.
February 24th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Sorry to hear that Patti. Did you think it was great before you knew you were going to be laid off. I also think it’s a good thing by the way.
February 24th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Patti,
You may want to applay where crt works it is my understanding they are in despirate need of a Human Resource professional.
February 24th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
I was just told today that I am being laid off and my last day is March 1, 2010. Will I be able to get this Cobra subsidy? I am devastated. When will I know if this bill is passed? How do I find out? Do you think my employer made it March 1, 2010, so they don’t have to pay this 65%?
March 1st, 2010 at 10:28 am
THIS IS WONDERFUL NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:26 am
Partisan much? This website seems to be strongly right winged…unfortunate because if your complaint on the COBRA Subsidy extension is that HR has too much paperwork and oversight due to it…my answer to that is: aren’t we as Human Resources here to support our employees, present as well as those who we’ve had to layoff? So we have some extra administrative work…the unfortunate souls who have lost their jobs are saving 35% on insurance that is helping them survive in a time when (especially in CA) unemployment benefits are sporadic at best and these people are struggling to make ends meet. What part of “human” resources is that?
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Like I posted earlier I’m all for the extension as it is the right thing to do. However this limbo we are all in is annoying. I just sent a batch of COBRA notices out that have non of the ARRA information in it knowing full well I’ll be resending them out sometime in the near future when this all passes.
Plus I’ve reached out to those who were on the ARRA assistance telling them they may be paying full price for COBRA but maybe not.
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Pam:
Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen lately, HR professionals are more concerned with being “strategic partners” in their company that they’ve forgotten about one of the fundamental responsibilities of the profession. Protecting and serving both the company AND the employees.
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Last time I checked, the employer was giving me a paycheck every two weeks. So although I do agree that looking out for employee welfare is important, I know FOR SURE that I was hired to take care of the EMPLOYER’S INTERESTS, just like every other employee here. When the two are in conflict, guess which one prevails.
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:44 pm
to Laura:
I was hired to protect the interests of the company AND it’s employees. I wasn’t hired to be a “Yes” man.
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Laura, I guess you do.
You may want to add this to your business card — Qu’ils mangent de la brioche, maybe even change your name to Marie.
Don’t loose your head over it.
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:56 pm
I agree with you Laura – we work in HR to ensure both the employee’s satisfaction as well as the employer’s success, but if the main issue is the fact that we have a bit more paperwork or headache, I’m all for it. Now, if it were to cost the company exorbitant fees, I might not be so passionate about it on the employee’s side of this debate. It’s just more work for me…what else is new…we’re all used to that right?
March 3rd, 2010 at 8:40 am
I think we should all be fortunate that we aren’t the ones out there struggling to find another job, try to make ends meet, and have to worry about health insurance coverage until another opportunity comes along. I know I am grateful for the subsidy because who knows, that could be me!
March 8th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Sorry, sent the wrong email address. Also, please use initials . Thank you.