Obamacare shared responsibility payment, my employer offered health coverage two months after joining.?
You would be a good person to participate in the discussions on how to make the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111.148) and its supplemental Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (P.L.111-152), a.k.a., Obama Care or the Affordable Care Act, better. There is a lot to Obama Care that is not generally known because the lobbyists for the trillion-dollar insurance industry do NOT like the reforms which require that insurers have to spend at least 80% of every premium dollar paid ON YOU (the consumers) or else they have to REFUND the difference at the end of each year, called the "80/20% Rule." Most GOP-deregulated insurers want to go back to the greed-driven days of ALL INCOME and NO PAYOUTS that they had from Nixon days on through to the passage of the Affordable Care Act in March 2009. Your source site mentions "large employers" so we can assume your company is something other than a small business. Did the employer give a reason for having a three-month hold on coverage? Having worked in personnel at General American in my younger days, I can assume the wait might have been to weed out the quick turnover or short-term employees, because at General American the profit-sharing offered and their retirement plan did not kick in until an employee had been on the job for at least one year. Maybe it is the same for other employee benefits, too---including health care. The penalty would only kick in, one presumes, if someone tried to access health care (i.e., using an emergency room for non-emergency needs) without a plan to pay for this access---a freeloader of sorts. This type of abuse caused the costs of the stolen care to be passed on from hospital administrators to people who are insured, resulting in higher premiums. My suggestion: If you are in good standing at your job, propose in writing the possibility of a refund now that you have shown yourself to be reliable and a long-term employee. You might even be able to convince the bosses that to do so would benefit them in some way---like being able to attract benefits-seeking higher-quality workers and keep them longer.
Obamacare Rollout & Struggles (2013–14): What elements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has the Obama Administration chosen to ignore during its implementation?
Too many to count.For those actually counting ... here's a list that cites something like 38 missed deadlines out of 101 mandates. Mandated Deadlines Missed by Obamacare NB: The list is from 2011 which is to say dated - before the last Presidential election (when the election was actually centered on the ACA) and doesn't include the more recent (certainly the largest one) the Employer Mandate (delayed from 2014 to 2015). The list was sponsored by Republican Senator Tom Coburn - but it also looks like he gave up either the tracking or reporting (or both). So what? It's a huge piece of legislation that's attempting to build a road out of our healthcare wilderness. Here's a graphic representation of that wilderness:The ACA is the very first mile in our journey - and there will be bumps, glitches and missed deadlines. There are also many more miles ahead (ie: more legislation). The larger question is - do we need to do this? Yes. Is Obamacare the final and complete solution? No. But the alternative/status-quo is no longer viable, sustainable or affordable. "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." We've tried everything else (some would argue for far too long). It's time to try the ACA.
Is Obamacare good or bad?
Overall the Affordable Care Act is good. Without a public option, however, it is flawed legislation. The public option didn't survive the battle in Congress and that has done a disservice to the American public. Businesses and individuals should have the option of purchasing insurance from the government, instead of only from insurance companies. That would provide a form of cost control or at least cost comparison. It would also help government revenues. Our choices have been limited by Republican opposition (and Lieberman) and that is not a good thing. We should not let this possible choice go unaddressed in the future.