Why the ACA Isn't As Unpopular As Some Would Like

In February, I purchased a high-deductible, individual policy for myself and my two dependent children, since the family coverage provided by my husband’s company would literally cost us his entire paycheck. Our high-deductible plan cost $447.73 monthly, and I was glad to get it.

Last week, I used the insurance for the first time. Thomas, my youngest son, was due (okay a tiny bit overdue) for his annual physical, and I was concerned that he’d failed a recent hearing exam at school. Another concern is that he’s been blinking more frequently, as though his eyes are dry or irritated.

The entire office visit took approximately 90 minutes, which wasn’t terrible but wasn’t great either, seeing as most of our time was spent with the medical assistant, a medical student, and Thomas and I staring at each other waiting for the doctor. We’ve been coming to this hospital for more than 20 years, since my oldest son was an infant, so we know these folks and consider ourselves satisfied customers.

The doctor examined my son, and afterwards I told the doctor my concerns. Thankfully, my son’s hearing test was fine, but since the inside of his ear looked a little “dull,” the doctor prescribed an antibiotic and for his eyes, eye drops.

So, I go to the Target pharmacy near the hospital and drop off the prescriptions. When I go to pick them up, I remember that my HD plan will require me to pay for the prescriptions in full, and I wonder what the medicines are going to cost. I’m not terribly worried, because the last time I had to purchase an antibiotic for someone’s ear troubles it was all of $10, and how much could eye drops cost?

My bill was $154.20.

The way this is supposed to work, plan holders pay a discounted rate (the rate negotiated by the insurance provider and the prescription provider) so that even if I’m paying out of pocket, I’m paying less than would someone with no insurance at all. And indeed, my receipt lists the “retail” value of these prescriptions as $227.98.

Yup.

Cue to the part where I ask the clerk, “Excuse me? Could you repeat that? Could I see those receipts?”

But, because the medicines were for my son, and because I had no idea whether Target’s price was above market, at market, or below market, and because I had funds in a health savings account (HSA) I paid what I was told to pay.

(When Thomas heard the price he said, “What?! How big is the bottle?” It’s 2.5 mL, that’s how big.)

As for the antibiotic, it turns out not to be the pink, thick liquid I’m used to, but a powder that needs to be mixed with water to activate. (Seriously?? $25.75 and I have to mix this myself?)

Here’s my point, and I’m making it because I truly believe that those who oppose Obamacare just don’t understand.

Something in our healthcare system has to change, and ordinary working people know this very well.

And in my rational mind, I know that the ACA is, at the moment, creating as many problems as it is resolving.

But in my emotional mind, I’m simply tired of all the out-of-control costs associated with healthcare. (And don’t think I’m not aware for a second that my situation could be a lot worse. A lot worse.)

Ridiculously high premiums, doctors with too many patients, ineffective means to comparison shop goods and services, and expensive prescriptions that may or may not be effective (did I mix it correctly? Let’s hope so) are just the tip of the iceberg.

Something has to give. Someone has to do something.

So while the ACA is far from perfect, at least it’s a start. And we need a start.

Oh, You Republicans: Stop Talking Already!

Yesterday Sean Hannity had members of his studio audience discuss the government shutdown. Participants hailed from both sides of the debate, meaning some members support Obamacare and some don’t. I was relieved, because I’d gotten very weary of the endless parade of House Republicans justifying their mulish foolishness with cries that they’re “standing up for the American people.”

And I’ll tell you what else I’m weary of, in a minute. But first, here’s a disclaimer.

• I’m taking a “wait and see” attitude toward Obamacare. While I don’t view healthcare as a right, I do believe a civil society will find ways to provide basic healthcare for its most vulnerable members.
• My family does not qualify for the exchanges.
• I’m not a huge fan of President Obama.

Having said all that, I’m thoroughly tired of all the right-wing sound bites. Such as:

“The President lied when he said ‘If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.’”
Let’s fight fair, okay? Whatever the President meant, I think it’s more than safe to say that his statement was NOT a guarantee that employers would forever and a day maintain their current offerings. If an employer decides he’d rather send his employees to the exchanges than continue offering health insurance, that’s his choice. If the employer wants to offer an Aetna plan today and an Amerihealth plan tomorrow, that’s also his choice. You can’t blame the ACA for that. No matter how strongly you may believe employers have been provoked into making whatever changes, they’re still exercising choice. And isn’t employer choice what you Republicans are all about?

“Congress shouldn’t be exempt from Obamacare.”
Yeah, that sounds good. If Congress passed a law, they should be subject to the law, right? But consider this. Members of Congress and their staff will have to choose a plan from the exchange. So what’s all the fuss?

Well, unlike all other employees, Congress will be allowed to apply their employer contribution toward the cost of care.

And you know what? That makes sense, because the ACA was put in place to provide health insurance to individuals who don’t have it, primarily because their employers don’t provide it. Does that sound like Congress to you? 

On the contrary, Congress’ employer provides mighty darn good insurance. So why should members of Congress lose their benefits—and effectively incur a pay cut—for no other reason than to make them eligible for the exchanges? Congress is being sent to the exchanges to experience it and support it. Significantly reducing their compensation wasn’t the goal and shouldn't be an acceptable unintended consequence. (And no, I don’t have any relatives in Congress, and I don’t even particularly like Congress right now, but fair is fair.)

“We’ve tried to negotiate. We’ve agreed to fund X, Y, and Z.”
Sure you have. You’ve agreed to fund everything you never had issue with in the first place. Come on. The rest of us aren’t that dumb.

“We didn’t cause the government to shut down.”
Yes you did.
 

You passed the law. Now you’re trying to “unpass it” by eliminating the funding to implement it. This is soooo not the way to operate in good faith, and you all look like a bunch of vindictive sore losers as a result. Yeah, I’ve heard the other side of this argument—that President Obama has unilaterally changed the law over the months and so Obamacare really isn’t the law of the land, but I’m not buying that.

Last night on The O’Reilly Factor, Charles Krauthammer, who’s said repeatedly what a terrible law Obamacare is, also said that the Republicans have gone about this thing the wrong way. He told O’Reilly, “If you believe as I do, and as the GOP does, that it’s an impossible monstrosity, then why not let it go into affect, and the country would utterly reject it.”
 

Yes, why not? Oh I get it. You’re all a bunch of principled conscientious objectors. Give me a break, please.

Bob Beckel, resident Democrat on The Five, said he wanted to thank the Republicans for the “great gift they’ve given us, by closing down this government.”

See, Beckel, Krauthammer, and O’Reilly all get it, even if the House Republicans don’t.

But I imagine they’ll figure it out after the next election.

House Votes to Defund Obamacare

My oh my, what a day.

A few hours ago, it was announced that the House has passed a spending bill defunding the Affordable Care Act, aka “Obamacare,” just a few days before the exchanges are scheduled to open for business on October 1.

The bill is now on its way to the Senate. Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has already made his prediction concerning how well it’ll fare there. "In case there's any shred of doubt in the minds of our House counterparts," Reid said. "I want to be absolutely crystal clear. Any bill that defunds Obamacare is dead, dead.”

The Republicans who supported this action (which would be all but one, apparently) seem to think they have a shot at shutting the whole thing down. And by “whole thing,” I mean Obamacare and um … the government.

Bill O’Reilly, taking the words straight out of the mouth of Your Black Friend™ , told his buddy Lou Dobbs that this would not play well with the American public, who would just blame the Republicans if the government shut down. O’Reilly said he agreed with Dobbs that Obamacare is not good for the country, but if Americans continued to perceive the Republican party as the “party of disarray” it isn't going to survive.

Hold on while I get a hanky, okay?

What a mess. I’m all for about fighting for your principles, but its hard to believe that there is anything going on here other than a big ole’ tug-of-war between the Democrats and the Republicans. In fact, who am I kidding? It’s impossible to believe anything else.

Among all the many things that I am not, I am not a political analyst. But, I’ll take my cues from those who are.

Come on, Republicans! This is a flippin’ waste of time and resources. There is no going back. The horse has left the stall. The ship has left the port. Obamacare is the law of the land, and it might be a wonderful thing for many Americans or it might be one stinkin’ mess, but you all need to let this one go for the moment.

Even Bill O’Reilly agrees with me for crying out loud.

Are We There Yet? Russia, That Is

Earlier this year I wrote about the 2013 Earned Sick Days Bill, which City Council here in Philadelphia passed but Mayor Nutter vetoed. Similar bills have been proposed in other states, including New Jersey and Massachusetts.

Business owners who’d rather not see these bills pass (any of them), argue that they can’t afford to pay people when they aren’t working. It’s a simple matter of economics, they say. They aren’t persuaded by appeals to fairness or basic decency, and they’re distrustful of any statistics that might indicate paid sick leave would decrease turnover, increase productivity, or increase worker morale.

Now, I was thinking about this for a couple of reasons.

One reason is all the recent coverage in the news about the need to raise the minimum wage and/or replace it with a living wage. This issue is picking up a lot of steam, and in Washington, DC, Mayor Vincent Gray has until September 16th to sign or veto the Large Retailer Accountability Act, which would require some retailers to pay workers $12.50 per hour, instead of the city's minimum wage of $8.25. (Walmart already has gone on record as likening the bill to something you'd expect from a Communist regime.)

The other reason is a story my brother told me.

He said that at church one Sunday, the pastor had remarked that the large well-known retailer across the way had declined to donate book bags to the church’s annual school supply giveaway.

This church is very serious about neighborhood involvement and donates ten percent of its income to the surrounding community every year. And so, the pastor was very much not approving of the retailer’s stinginess. His belief is, if the retailer benefits from the community, then, in turn, it ought to benefit the community.

So here’s my question. If I set up business in your community, which isn’t my community, what are my obligations to you? I’m of the opinion that there should be some obligations, even if they’re as basic as keeping my sidewalk clean and my building in good condition.

And no, I don’t think you’re obligated to run yourself out of business compensating employees in ways you can’t afford, but surely paying employees as little as you can get away with (and still be acting within the law) is nothing to aspire to either?

Because if it’s all about business owners looking out for their own interests and everybody else’s be darned, then “corporate citizenship” doesn’t have much meaning, and I don’t think we, as a society, can afford that.

What do you think?

Think Human Trafficking Doesn't Happen in the States? Think Again

And you think you’ve got problems.

Shipbuilder Signal International, which already has been sued like, a gazillion times, is being sued again.

The charge? Human trafficking.

Oh, it’s wicked, what Signal is accused of having done.

The lawsuits allege that Signal, working in cahoots with a group of recruiters, defrauded foreign workers out of millions of dollars in "recruitment fees" (in some cases as much as $25,000 per worker) and lied about its intention to help the workers apply for and obtain permanent residence in the States.

(In a previous post, I joked that I don’t like recruiters because they sell people for a living. Who knew how right I was?)

But that’s not all. Workers also claim to have been trapped in an unholy "man-camp," where they were fed—and forced to pay for—bug-infested food.  

Last May, three federal lawsuits were filed against Signal on behalf of eighty workers. A few days ago, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) announced that five more lawsuits on behalf of sixty workers had been filed, and that’s in addition to a suit being filed by the EEOC. And all of that is separate from a lawsuit filed in 2008.

According to Courthouse News Services, Signal hired hundreds of foreign workers on the cheap to help rebuild properties damaged in Hurricane Katrina. 

Well, actually, the labor was beyond cheap—it was free.

“An April 18, 2006 'Skilled Worker Recruitment Agreement' between Signal and [defendant] Global [Resources, Inc.] that set this scheme in motion expressly stated that the workers would be delivered at no cost to Signal and that all other charge, expenses and fees would be paid by the workers themselves or by Global, who in turn would be reimbursed through deduction from the plaintiffs' wages. In short, defendants paid for nothing; the future employees paid everything.”

Listen, I don’t want to get all “overly dramatic” here, but this is diabolical.

Clearly, I’m not the only one who’s outraged.

At least half a dozen law firms (some working with the Southern Poverty Law Center) have gotten into the action, as has the American Civil Liberties Union, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Louisiana Justice Institute, the Equal Justice Center, and University of Texas Law School Transnational Worker Rights Clinic.

Signal has shipyards in Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama and is a subcontractor for several major multinational companies.

According to Daniel Werner, SPLC senior supervising attorney:

“These cases highlight the urgent need for stronger foreign labor recruiter regulations and better protections for workers – some of which are included in the U.S. Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform bill.”

A SPLC video in which a foreign worker describes his experiences while with a tomato packing operation can be found here.

Wicked.

Seriously, Where Are the Jobs?

Danielle Belton of blacksnob.com wrote a piece this week called "Everyone I Know Is Unemployed," in which she discusses the sluggish job market and the fact that, yeah, most everyone she knows is unemployed, “cobbling” together a living with various freelance gigs.

What was surprising, if not downright shocking, about this admission is that Belton is a well-regarded blogger and writer with a respectable following. She’s been on television and radio and even had a stint as a writer for the TJ Holmes Show, and she’s saying she can’t get a full-time j-o-b with bennies? Dang.

Commenters on the blog thanked Belton. Many wrote about being unemployed or underemployed and then hearing about a “recovering” economy and thinking they must be crazy or complete losers.

Their stories certainly fit with my experiences. Several people in my circle are in the same boat, including me. I’ve got my clients and my prospects, but it’s not easy by a long shot.

And then I hear about the friend of a friend who just started work a few months ago and is now facing a layoff, the colleague whose entire program has gone belly up (no more federal funding—stick a fork in it, it’s over), the colleague whose organization was restructured and his position eliminated, and so on and so forth. This in addition to my "traditionally" employed friends stuck in crappy jobs they’d leave in a second if they could find anything to replace them.

And then I read about people standing in line to pay $40 for a donut, and I seriously begin to question whether we’re all living in some modern-day version of The Matrix, seeing the reality being peddled by The Powers That Be versus our actual reality, which kind of sucks, but most of us aren’t trying to hear that. We’d rather pay $40 for a donut and pretend it’s all good.

Meanwhile, there’s all this talk about the skills gap, the labor shortage, how employers can’t fill positions, blah, blah, blah, and I just want to know one thing—

Seriously, where are the jobs? 

Probe into IRS Expenditures Proves It—Nobody Gives a Hoot About Training

The IRS saga continues, with the latest news being that two IRS administrators have been suspended for accepting free food during a 2010 conference in Anaheim. Yes, that’s right. Free food.

Hmmm …

Raise your hand if you think these two are being scapegoated because of all the bad press surrounding the 4.1 million the IRS spent on this three-day conference.

No question, 4.1. million is a lot of money. But consider this—2600 employees attended. So, that 4.1. million amounts to roughly $1577 per attendant. That actually doesn’t sound so bad. I’ve attended many a conference only to return home and complete an expense report in that ballpark. Once you add in airfare, and hotel stay, and meals, and tips, and local transportation—shoot, it gets expensive.

Now, I get it. This is taxpayer money, and the government needs to be responsible with it. $64,000 on goodie bags? Who cares if that amounts to less than $25 per employee? It’s $64,000! And some of the expenses verge on the ludicrous. $133,000 for some event planners? Puleaze.

And so, everybody is talking about the costs—while nobody is talking about whether the workers needed the training. And you know why? Because it’s a nonissue that’s why. Nobody cares if the IRS workers receive training, and more to the point, nobody believes that these types of conferences facilitate learning. Instead, we’re all thinking, “If some insanely successful private company somewhere wants to spend boatloads of money on some foolishness and call it “leadership training,” God love ‘em. But doing this crap on the taxpayer’s dime? Oh HECK no! “

And I say, it’s about high time somebody blew the lid off this mother.

Been There, Done That

In my previous life, I was required to attend annual sales conferences, and I hated them. What did I learn? I learned that some of my coworkers can’t hold their liquor worth a damn. I learned that others aren’t too fussy about their wedding vows. I learned that still others are boring-as-hell public speakers and don’t seem to know their jobs real well. Oh, I did learn quite a bit about the company culture, I’ll give you that. But wait for it … I can’t think of one useful thing I learned about our products or our selling strategies. Are all conferences this useless? Probably not. Yet some doubtless are, and corporations keep booking ‘em.

According to a report released by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), the purpose of the conference was to train managers from the Small Business/Self Employed Division about some “significant changes” that were coming down the pike. The report states, “The focus of the meeting included employee safety and security training due to a substantial increase in security threats following the suicide attack on an IRS facility in Austin earlier in the year.”  

Can I Get a Witness?

I hope the conference goals were met. But more than that, I hope this controversy will cause at least one organization to rethink this wasteful corporate tradition. Workers definitely need to learn, especially in our fast-moving global economy, but it seems to me that the big annual offsite conference needs to go the way of the dinosaur—and the quicker the better.

Dolores A. Davis, Founder and President of Davis Associates Consulting Group, Inc. in Philadelphia, has facilitated numerous workshops during her more than twenty years in management and training. When asked about the future of the traditional offsite conference she said:

“Given today's economic reality, extended offsite training programs and conferences are becoming increasing challenges for corporations to approve at the same rate they previously did. Instead … corporations are [more and more] turning to technological solutions, including “blended” training, DVDs, and Skype. Coaching is another vehicle frequently used today, especially for more ‘focused’ and individual attention.”

And that sounds good to me. Even the IRS has claimed to have overturned a new leaf in recent years. Since May 2012, agency guidelines have limited conference expenses to $500,000, and conference expenses in excess of $100,000 must be reported on a public website.

Why Are We Doing This Again?

Let’s be honest. The perception of “corporate training” is only slightly better than that of the annual performance review. We all do it, yet no one really believes the benefit outweighs the effort. But continuous learning is absolutely fundamental to competency maintenance—just like feedback is important to improved performance—so we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. And I for one, am tired of hearing about how corporate training is a joke, when it’s vital and shouldn’t be a joke at all.

And so, while I’m annoyed about how that darn "dancing" IRS video is being portrayed in the media, at least it’s a good jumping off point to more and better discussions about learning—no “goodie” bags allowed.

So let’s take advantage of that, please.