Obama care shutting down volunteer fire depts!

[trappincoyotes39]

Our local volunteer fire district has said it could either cost people a lot more in taxes or shut down the fire district due to the laws that require anyone who puts in more than 30 hrs a week to have health care coverage. most have other jobs so no need but a loop hole that needs to be changed before the laws take effect. Another thing this admin never thought about before signing such a comprehensive bill.

[bblwi]

It will get changed for sure. Not many weeks one puts in 30 hours in week for a volunteer fire department unless the training hours are classified as work.

Bryce

[TRay]

30+ hours are common for volunteer firefighters in the west during grass and forest fire season. Many small communities rely 100% on them.

[trappincoyotes39]

Yes Bryce training is work even volunteers.

Also in some areas like the west small town volunteer fire fighters will go to other states to fight fires to make money for their towns fire fighting to buy more and better equipment those hrs count as well.

[bblwi]

I taught and worked with farmers for over 35 years and have worked with maybe 100 plus that have or are serving as volunteer fire fighters. I will talk with the two chiefs I know and see if they received the same notification that your group has received. We have hundreds of volunteer fire fighter units in WI and we have seen no material or press on this. With all the anti ACA over the last 3-4 years why this was not used as a campaign to not pass the bill or get rid of the bill is mind boggling to me.
A lot can depend upon if they are working 30 hours a week regularly or sometimes and their average falls below 30 for a month, quarter or year.
I know there are all sorts of total hour limitations or thresholds for Simple programs etc.

Bryce

[PamIsMe]

Isn't the key word here "volunteer"? When I was a volunteer EMT there was never any question about us being covered by health insurance by the District. We often put in more than 40-50 hours a week as volunteers. If anyone happened to get hurt, we all had our own coverage thru our regular jobs or spouse's. It would never have occurred to anyone that the District would furnish any benefits. We did get a "reimbursement" which amounted to $5 if we had a run at first, then a few years later on we got $2 hr. for being on duty, but it was reported on a 1099 misc income form at the end of the year and not a W-2. We were still considered volunteers and not employees.

I find it hard to believe that Obamacare would have any affect on a volunteer operation.

Cheers,
Pam

[trappincoyotes39]

pam believe what YOU wish the FACT remains it will have an effect unless congress makes the needed change and I hear it is being talked about on capitol hill. If not an issue they or the local news wouldn't be brining it up I would suspect? Local news is ussally more middle ground or slight left leaning to begin with I would think kansas city news is a slight left news deal.

You see if the bill does not clearly state volunteer orgs are exempted, then they would haveto follow the law like other govt or private business would.

[trappnman]

if your volunteers are putting in 30-40 hour weeks, perhaps they should no longer be called volunteers- esp since they get, i'm guessing if like others, both a hourly wage, and a "per incident" fee

and at the same time, insurance mandates are for "businesses" having a certain number of employees- 50? don;t remember but its easy enough to look up- and if that "volunteer" dept has 40-50 "volunteers" working 30-40 hours a week- time to reassess the status of your "volunteer" fire dept

bototmline, i think this story is just that, a story thats only half told

[bblwi]

If we would spend our limited time and resources working on fixes and getting the ACA off the ground and functional instead of each of us trying to find the negative that may or not be we would be much further ahead. If all the local news is that left leaning then we have real issues. I just don't want to listen to Maddow, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity etal. to get the non biased news.

Bryce

[trappnman]

another thought- how can any fire district or dept, send out men WITHOUT insurance in such a dangerous job?

[PamIsMe]

December 11, 2013



There has been quite a bit of fiery talk about how ObamaCare is going to gut local volunteer fire departments across the country, placing many Americans in peril. It is true that volunteers are considered employees by the IRS for legal purposes, and if we are running on that premise alone then the companies are definitely facing dire circumstances when the administration allows the employer mandate to take effect.

However, there is something that insurance companies verify before adding new employees to an employer's insurance policy. Anyone that has changed employers in the past few decades at least can tell you that insurance companies do bother to ask if a new employee is eligible for coverage anywhere else, before adding that person to a policy. It is called "coordination of benefits", and it could be the saving grace for volunteer fire companies.

While it wouldn't release them from the legal requirement to offer insurance, it could save them from actually having to pay for it. Every fire company is associated with a municipality, and every municipality should already have some kind of employee health insurance policy in place. Volunteers at fire companies would simply have to fill out the paperwork to get insurance, but that wouldn't necessarily mean they would actually get it. The bills don't start until human beings are actually added to the policy, so this wouldn't cost anyone anything, as long as no one ends up getting insurance. Conversely, if the municipalities have very good rates on their health insurance - better than the marketplaces - then maybe they would need to figure out a way to permit volunteers without insurance to pay the full premium.

The point is that while there are undoubtedly some volunteer fire fighters out there without health insurance, many of them are already covered either individually, or through another employer. Insurance companies do not add people that have other coverage as a general rule. Yes, ObamaCare could be a major problem for some volunteer fire companies, however it probably will not affect as many as some are thinking at this point. Before getting everyone upset about this issue, it is important to verify that it really will be a widespread problem, because it involves ensuring public safety. Also, if it isn't going to be as catastrophic as reports are suggesting at this point, then this would yet another manufactured crisis that the Obama administration can use to its own benefit, by "fixing" it, even if it really isn't a real problem in the first place. There are many problems with the ObamaCare law, and the system that is being used to implement it. Every day it seems, there is something new going wrong. In this case, it may be a matter of people getting nervous about something that really won't be a major problem.

Volunteer fire companies need to find out precisely how many uninsured members they have, and then determine how those people will end up getting insurance. If after they have exhausted all other options, they still have a significant number of volunteers that would need to be insured as their "employees", then they need to worry. But, until they've verified that information, it's not a good idea to get overly upset over the IRS calling volunteers employees.

[PamIsMe]

We always had 35-40 EMT volunteers. A crew was from 4-6 people, 4 maximum on call at any time. EMT's worked 12 hour shifts on call, one night (or day) a week. Day crews from 6AM - 6PM and night crews 6PM to 6AM. Night crews rotated to a different night each week and when a night crew was on Tuesday night, they also covered that whole weekend from 6PM Friday Night until 6AM Monday morning. We had 6 crews so it worked out to every 6th weekend. So, the crew that had Tuesday for the week would technically be on call for 12 hours during the week and 60 hours on the weekend, total 72 hours.

Some of us night crew people that were free during the daytime would also pick up a couple extra 12 hour day shifts during the week. Doesn't take much to be on call more than 40 hours in a week if you are a volunteer. We had one paid staff member the EMS Manager) who was a District employee. 2 villages and 3 townships comprised the District. The volunteers would get a "reimbusement" check at the rate of $2 an hour every 3 months. We could sometimes go for months without ever have an actual call on our shifts. Or, get 3 or 4 during that time.

The District did have liability coverage to protect their assets, equipment, and accidental injury of volunteers while on duty. They also had a group life insurance policy that covered volunteers if killed in the line of duty, but not if they died from natural causes while not on duty. Except the manager, no one had any health insurance coverage through the district.

I'm sure they will get it all ironed out soon.

Cheers,
Pam

[trappincoyotes39]

Tman I can tell you by sitting on a city council were we had a 100 percent volunteer fire dept and they Put in many hours of training to satisfy the state and to keep current on those laws, that none were ever offered health care from the city nor were any of our PT ambulance people. They were paid per run and time on call. the only two on the city pay roll were the chief of police who also ran the ambulance crew and his salary was a mixture of the two and his wife was also a police dispatcher and worked ambulance as well. The rests we could not afford to cover.

Pam I could care less about the semantics but more so the law and the way it is written as of now and some I'm sure don't have coverage would have to be covered under health care, they would be covered under workers comp though for on the job injurys.

Bryce the POINT being things should and could have been worked on prior to signing such a bill, instead of going with the flow as more and more issues have popped up. It is here and is law and will not be over turned so we can do the best we can with it, it will NOT be the golden egg as promised in the beginning and will need a bunch of tweaking along the way. First thing is to make sure you have the 1.2 million people signed up so it can be paid for! We sit at 400,000 the deadline will most certainly have to be extended. school districts are not different any of the paras will have to be offered coverage and will put smaller school districts in a much tougher budget crunch as well, as not all paras have coverage and OT all will be able to afford their share of coverage any how. The idea to cover everyone at the prices offered is not panning out as first thought. I hope it can be worked on and improved much sooner than later, yet let us not forget our fed govt has to work on other issues as well, so do state Govts, the cost of attorneys will be very high over the next 5 years or so for sure!

[bblwi]

In the long run if more money is paid in as insurance premiums then there should be fewer patients using the system and not paying insurance or for their care. I personally am more in favor of a program that has everyone having some skin in the game and not allowing persons to milk the system at the expense of others. I know many don't want increased costs but if local units of government need to provide insurance then they should and the cost will need to be shared by tax payers and beneficiaries. That is not much different than it is now,it is that we just have those with insurance subsidizing those that have no coverage and choose not to pay for their care.
As a 10-year school board member in the past and the treasurer for 5 of those I don't think many districts small or large are going to complain too much about having to provide insurance to low salaried staff that are replacing full time staff in many cases that may cost 3-4 times are much. Is that a perfect system? No but then there are many ways to staff, plan budgets and deliver education and or any service for that matter.
In WI due to the recent 2011 decisions by our state the cost of staff related expenses is down about 7-10% in most districts. ( teacher staff mostly). Many look at these savings as a very good thing and to date our test scores in WI are holding well even with the reduced staff and the reduced salaries and benefits.
I had my first conversation with a business owner that is dissappointed that he has not had nearly as much business from the local school district employees. Well when you take an average of 4-7k out of a person's income they will spend less and in some cases much less. I am working in planning with two couples who are both public employees. Their incomes have gone from about 80-85 k per year per couple to about 72-76 k per year. We have revamped their lifestyles and both have downsized homes without losing any real monies and they have decreased spending about 15k per year each and are saving more money as well. Many felt that public employees were just not smart enough to figure out how to live without getting raises but I see that not to be the case and I see a movement by many to spread the word on how to live well on much less. They need to as their job security is year to year at best in many cases.

Bryce

[PamIsMe]

"the POINT being things should and could have been worked on prior to signing such a bill, instead of going with the flow as more and more issues have popped up"

I don't agree with that. The point to me is, it's start towards everyone getting health coverage. With a country as large, and population as diverse as ours, there is no possible way all types of glitches could have been forseen, one really does have to go with the flow. It'll likely have to be tweaked for several years before things get ironed out.

As for the gov't having other things to do, tell that to the Republicans who wasted so much time voting to repeal the ACHA, and the governors who refused to have their state set up their own exchanges so the Feds had to do it for them.


Cheers,
Pam

[trappincoyotes39]

Pam works both ways, tell that to the dems and Obama who has spent a majority of time and a nice chunk of tax payer money trying to get AHCA running and have basically gotten nothing else done. So depending on ones bias the coin can be flipped either way......................

I don't want to hear politics anymore and rhetoric I want results positive results on real issues including healthcare. This bill was dreamed up and passed in very short order so they could strike Whiel the iron was hot so to speak. They could have spent more time prior getting ducks in a row and people also working on other things as well, things igh results not arguments and politics.

WE need more jobs, we need more exports to offset our heavy importing, we need govt of all kinds to fund what they mandate. Or quit mandating stuff on people!

If you think with private insurence that every American will have coverage so be it, I do not see that happening and where the price points are in the AHCA people do not need to wonder why only 400,000 people are signed up. The cost savings just isn't there for many,many people. You only fix that through others covering a major portion of many others premiums where do we get that moeny? Doctors now revolting on Medicaid because of the ever growing cost difference between private insurence payment nd what Medicaid run by our govt mandates to the doctors what they will receive. This boat is not made of a bed of roses, their will be more headaches to come.

Obama has seen what being a second term president is all about and his lack luster start to term 2 has his approvals ratings as low as ever. IF Americans don't see progress on other issues in the next year to eighteen months 2016 won't be a slam dunk for anyone. I feel people will look for a drastic change and party lines are going to start withering on a vine as the track record is showing party lines = very limited results over a period of years.

[trappnman]

lets see- 1 side of the coin is that the reps have done everything in their power to derail AHC

the other side, is they complain its derailed...

seems like a two faced coin..........

[PamIsMe]

400,000 have enrolled but 1.9 million consumers have applied for and been determined eligible for the exchanges, but have not selected a plan. A lot can happen yet before March 15th.

As far as The President having a lackluster start to his second term, Congressional ratings are far far worse.
There are two more elections before the next Presidential election and we'll just have to wait and see what President Obama's ratings are by 2016.

Pam

[trappincoyotes39]

Tman you really believe they did everything in their power? I think not in fact..............

I feel they wanted to complain yet not want to do away with it. Think about the politics if they did get it over turned for just a moment?

Pam you had a pile of that number as tire kickers that is all the majority was. They found out that their company coverage was in line for the price and could be done Pre taxed so why bother........... If 70 percent needed such the enrolled numbers would be far greater. many still can't afford the so called AHCA so how is it affordable? When many can qualify for fed aid in the first place? Theirmis tax incentives for business to offer coverage as well. Some people retirement amount is also,including the cost of health care into their total salary package another thing for many to consider as well.

Congress has been really low for years for good reasons most are a joke yet people keep Re letting tHe same mantra in, that is why I see a big change a common in the years to come. beat a dog so long no matter how nice the dog will reach a breaking point. jobs, rising cost to live and other factors are pushing us to getting bit by the American people.

We are talking our commander in chief and the power he has in congress with more than half of it and yet the accomplishments outside of AHCA is very lack luster, I don't see how any rational person can say his second term has been anything other than lack luster. It isn't like many want to see failure at this point as he has a term limit, people want to see results now, not about re election and again party lines are going to dry up as both sides have not been getting the job done. I feel do away with parties and people run on their beliefs and what they want to accomplish for the good of the majority and for the good of the minority on avg when needed. yet we need a balanced budget, we need far better job creation and we need a raise in wages outside of using a mandatory min wage increase as this will all do nothing but further raise prices on goods and services for all and in effect cause tax payers more harm than good.

[trappnman]

yes, I understand you don't like the AHC, and that you get your insurance through your wife being a public employee.

you are like a hound that lost the scent- milling around in circles - lets get back on track

let me debunk one of yout theories at a time......

your original point was about volunteer fire depts, and how AHC will be shutting them down

I think thats untrue, for these reasons.

#1- my brother in law is fire chief for a town of 6000 plus surrounding area. He puts in 30 hours, few if any of the others do

#2 I'm not going to look it up, but I challenge you to do so- but there is a minimum employee count that is needed of "full time" employees- and I'm guessing its 30, 0r 50 or somesuch- a vol fire dept with a few guys getting more thna 30, isn't going to qualify

#3 if I'm wrong, and it is a big deal (but any fire dept that employees doz of people full time...cannot really be called a vol, and probably are for tax credits, funding etc) but in any case, follow the free market example of hiring more and reducing hours, so no one is "full time". its the American way after all...what could go wrong with a system like that....

summation is I think its another red herring