Obamacare and VFD's

[38ff 250]

I just got this in an email.

Looks like if you have over 50 people on the rolls and do 30 hours per week, it could be costly. I assume Obama wants us to pass these costs on to taxpayers, as there is no mention of additional funding to pay for it.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, also known as "Obamacare") requires employers with 50 or more full-time employees to provide health insurance to full-time empoloyees or face a tax penalty. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has determined that for tax purposes, volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel are "employees" of the agencies that they serve. Previously, this determination was only significant with regard to how benefits that volunteers receive are reported to and taxed by the federal government. With passage of PPACA, however, volunteer fire and EMS departments could end up being required to provide health insurance to volunteer personnel who "work" for the agency they serve for 30 or more hours per week on a regular basis.

[wiscems 23]

Wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to offer to volunteers anyway...I can't off the top of my head though think of any agency in this area that has 50 volunteers that do over 30 hours a week, unless you count sitting around the station...

[38ff 250]

Thats the thing. Say you take a 12 hour "i'll be on call" shift. Do 2 of them a week... Add in a drill, a meeting, and 30 hours isnt too much of a strech for a busy VFD. It's not a bad thing to offer to members, but the district's taxpayers will have to foot the bill. Sounds like another "Unfunded Mandate" our Governor said he wanted to eliminate......

Edited September 26, 2013 by 38ff

[wiscems 23]

Cheaper than footing the bill for a full paid department plus pensions plus I'm sure paying for their healthcare entirely...

[Rex_RescuePC 9]

This could also have a negative impact on volunteer organizations as well...

[antiquefirelt 994]

This will definitely make things interesting. The employer is not the department you work for, but typically city hall (with municipal employment) thereby getting to 50 doesn't have to be within the FD or EMS agency, but under the same finance department or WC provider.

Could get sticky, some places such as my own FD do not pay our call personnel by the hour, but by a credit system. We don't track the hours they work, but if they calculate their hours like the career personnel who are paid for the same drills and incidents they'd get the same minimum hours as the Union has negotiated for recalls and off duty training. That sudden increase in costs to the taxpayers will certainly be detrimental to our budget, but also increase the costs of "volunteers/ POC" staff nationwide, reducing the "savings" they provide a given community.

Edited September 25, 2013 by antiquefirelt

[FFPCogs 863]

Letter from the IAFC in regards to this issue:

http://www.iafc.org/files/1GR/gr_commentIRS4980H.pdf

I would say that if this is going to negatively impact your FD you should get a campaign going to make sure the powers that be in DC are aware of it and why. Obviously the more that do so the larger the impact on Crapital Hill.

[gamewell45 258]

I think that many volunteers already have medical benefits through their employers at this time; either way the fire departments could apply for an exemption. Both House's of Congress got exemptions. Stands to reason that VFD's could try the same

[Bnechis 3,961]

I think that many volunteers already have medical benefits through their employers at this time; either way the fire departments could apply for an exemption. Both House's of Congress got exemptions. Stands to reason that VFD's could try the same

Good luck with that.

Remember Obamacare was brought to you by the people that said, "we will find out what is in it after we pass it".

Well guess what we just found out.

[FireMedic049 597]

This will definitely make things interesting. The employer is not the department you work for, but typically city hall (with municipal employment) thereby getting to 50 doesn't have to be within the FD or EMS agency, but under the same finance department or WC provider.

While you are correct that employees in all departments for an employer count towards that threshold, unless the fire department is an actual municipal entity (like career departments typically are), the volunteers would not count towards the municipality's employee count and vice versa. Most VFDs tend to be independent legal entities and the relationship between them and a municipality that they serve would be more accurately described as that of an independent contractor. So most VFDs likely have little to worry about since they don't have actual employees.

Could get sticky, some places such as my own FD do not pay our call personnel by the hour, but by a credit system. We don't track the hours they work, but if they calculate their hours like the career personnel who are paid for the same drills and incidents they'd get the same minimum hours as the Union has negotiated for recalls and off duty training. That sudden increase in costs to the taxpayers will certainly be detrimental to our budget, but also increase the costs of "volunteers/ POC" staff nationwide, reducing the "savings" they provide a given community.

I doubt that this is going to be much of an issue for the VFDs. My guess is that it's going to be more of a manufactured issue based on an overly broad interpretation of the language and the definition of "employee".

[SECTMB 612]

Maybe someone can enlighten me.

As soon as the individual mandate becomes effective and an individual is required to buy the insurance, won't that person, and the thousands or millions of others, in kind, be able to sue for relief under the Constitutions equal protection clause since so many other thousands of individuals have been granted waivers or special consideration.

Don't all these waivers to certain unions and groups and Congress members and their staffs and families violate the equal protection clause?

And I am still fuzzy on the President, acting on his own or through his agency heads, can arbitrarily adjust the provisions of the law with regard to the timetable of the laws implementation. When did the Executive branch receive the power to amend laws enacted by the Legislative branch?

Does the 'rule of law' no longer exist in this country any longer?

[mlcougar2001 8]

I don't like getting into political debates but, my volunteer FD's do not track hours worked and do not require me to do a certain amount of hours a week. Hanging out at the firehouse is not considering working. The only time you are considered an employee of the village is from when the alarm tone sounds until the apparatus is returned to station. So if my Department does about 1100(busy for a volunteer department) calls per year each call taking approximately less the 1 hour (for argument sake lets say 1 hour) that's 21 hours per week on average for a busy department. So even if you add in an 8 hour's for training, meetings, cleaning fire apparatus Etc. per week which is unheard of the argument is invalid.

Republican or Democrat I agree with "Obamacare" and I think if when the exchanges open on Oct. 1st and 56% of the 30 million uninsured people can get insurance for less then 100 then it will be a success. if not then I would be wrong

[Bnechis 3,961]

Hanging out at the firehouse is not considering working.

The Department of Labor & state insurance say otherwise. If you fall and get hurt while "hanging out" you are able to get workers comp because they have ruled that you are "working".

[mlcougar2001 8]

The Department of Labor & state insurance say otherwise. If you fall and get hurt while "hanging out" you are able to get workers comp because they have ruled that you are "working".

Barry I know you are covered under liability insurance lets say you fall down the stairs and/or cut your hand etc. and that would be covered under the 8 hours a week I stated during drilling, cleaning and maintaining equipment. But as far as logging hours greater then 30 hours a week to make the municipality liable to insure the volunteer I think is a farce.

I will go as far to say on an individual basis you might get someone to try and get a municipality to give them insurance because they can't or are not willing to get it themselves, and they want to try and make there case. In my opinion, if this person try's this with any village manager that has half a brain they are just going to tell them "good luck with that".

[x635 4,066]

Maybe someone could realize that some people lives depend on health insurance and thousands can't get the health care they desperately need because they can't get health insurance and can't afford it, or go into bankruptcy doing so. Everyone having single payer health insurance is the only equal, ethical and humane option. That's the only solution to this discussion.

[antiquefirelt 994]

I just got this in an email.

Looks like if you have over 50 people on the rolls and do 30 hours per week, it could be costly. I assume Obama wants us to pass these costs on to taxpayers, as there is no mention of additional funding to pay for it.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, also known as "Obamacare") requires employers with 50 or more full-time employees to provide health insurance to full-time empoloyees or face a tax penalty. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has determined that for tax purposes, volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel are "employees" of the agencies that they serve. Previously, this determination was only significant with regard to how benefits that volunteers receive are reported to and taxed by the federal government. With passage of PPACA, however, volunteer fire and EMS departments could end up being required to provide health insurance to volunteer personnel who "work" for the agency they serve for 30 or more hours per week on a regular basis.

Have you got a link to the 30 hrs? Our finance dept. sent "Obamacare" letters attached to all payroll stubs this week that state the benefit is only for those who work 37.5 hours or more?

As we discussed today at work, the program would likely never kick in for our paid call employees who'd have to see a huge increase in calls and training to make that an average, but.... Those other departments in the area running per diem services without offering benefits will certainly need to scrutinize what this might mean.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Maybe someone could realize that some people lives depend on health insurance and thousands can't get the health care they desperately need because they can't get health insurance and can't afford it, or go into bankruptcy doing so. Everyone having single payer health insurance is the only equal, ethical and humane option. That's the only solution to this discussion.

I'm conflicted on this, I do feel there is a huge need, and am certain we cannot/should not let people suffer, but I don't think you can call this "equal". much like every government program, there are people exempted from the provisions, and forcing those who work the hardest for their money (middleclass) to pay the most (percentagewise) for those who contribute less and use services more (those who don't work) seems to serve to drag more people down toward the poverty level. I know that in the past 4-6 years our meager salary increases have been outpaced by rising costs of requisite items and services (heating oil, gas, food, insurance). So while I'm not against the concept, I'm very skeptical especially when I hear that plans like the one my work offers will become even more expensive and likely we'll lose it to a lesser plan. And of course forcing us into anything that costs more or reduces benefits is not met with open arms.

[x635 4,066]

but I don't think you can call this "equal". much like every government program, there are people exempted from the provisions, and forcing those who work the hardest for their money (middleclass) to pay the most (percentagewise) for those who contribute less and use services more (those who don't work) seems to serve to drag more people down toward the poverty level.

If everyone had equal healthcare (single payer), then that would be moot. Shouldn't matter if you're rich or poor, or in between. Everybody should have the same ability to access the same healthcare regardless of financial status, and let the for-profit insurance system that drives this debate find another way to make money.

[antiquefirelt 994]

If everyone had equal healthcare (single payer), then that would be moot. Shouldn't matter if you're rich or poor, or in between. Everybody should have the same ability to access the same healthcare regardless of financial status, and let the for-profit insurance system that drives this debate find another way to make money.

I agree with the access, now tell me how everyone pays? Do we all pay the same amount or do we pay more based on income, does this cap off at a certain level or does Bill Gates buy healthcare insurance for more than he could just pay for the services? Equal healthcare means that some people will end up with less benefits and choices while others will gain some? Is it fair to reduce the benefits of those who are willing to pay more for more options? Again, I want to be part of helping those who need help, but I don't want to feel like we continually area asked to give while other seem to continually get a break and still others continually take and take and take. Show me a system that is fair, I'll sign up in a heartbeat.

[38ff 250]

Antiquefirelt,

Lots more info here.

http://www.naylornetwork.com/NFC-nwl/articles/index-v2.asp?aid=234231&issueID=25401

but this link seems to sum it all up.. http://www.iafc.org/files/1GR/gr_PPACAfactSheet.pdf

Im not getting into the "is it right/wrong" debate. All Im saying is that fire districts, if this does apply to them, will have to pay for it via either taking it out of fund reserves or raising taxes..... Just another unfunded mandate to be passed on to the taxpayer.....

Edited September 26, 2013 by 38ff

[x635 4,066]

Federal Government pays. It will equal out in other areas, such as the enormous waste of money patchwork programs out there nowadays, and the hospitals going bankrupt because of those without healthcare and abusing the system. And not everyone who is "not working" is taking advantage, and their are many middle class Americans who can't get healthcare either. With better healthcare and standards to hold doctors to, we'd have a lot more people that would be healthy enough to work, and jobs for those who need work.

You can't put a dollar sign on a human life. The hairs need to stop being split. Who cares whether you are a volunteer firefighter or volunteer at a homeless shelter. That should really be irrelevant.

And, you know you have a problem when Mexico has better healthcare!

[38ff 250]

The federal gov't will cut a check to a fire district to cover it?

I haven't seen that reimbursement listed anywhere..

[antiquefirelt 994]

Federal Government pays. It will equal out in other areas, such as the enormous waste of money patchwork programs out there nowadays, and the hospitals going bankrupt because of those without healthcare and abusing the system. And not everyone who is "not working" is taking advantage, and their are many middle class Americans who can't get healthcare either. With better healthcare and standards to hold doctors to, we'd have a lot more people that would be healthy enough to work, and jobs for those who need work.

You can't put a dollar sign on a human life. The hairs need to stop being split. Who cares whether you are a volunteer firefighter or volunteer at a homeless shelter. That should really be irrelevant.

And, you know you have a problem when Mexico has better healthcare!

I understand where your coming from and appreciate your sentiment. I agree with the concept but again, I'm not so trustful our government can do what's best for us at this time. I certainly agree that not all that are not working are taking advantage and understand that many working folk still cannot afford healthcare, but I see some inherent problems that continue to plague this program as it stumbles forward.

Sadly, the fact is we put a dollar sign on human lives everyday. We've yet to mandate sprinklers, yet we know the enormous benefits to life, the only downside, literally is the cost. We know we need more ambulances on the street but we only staff what we want to afford. Most of us can't afford the safest cars on the road so we buy subpar ones and gamble... As a nation we choose the cheaper option rather than the safest one, thousands (maybe millions?) of times a day.

We do have the need to fix our healthcare system, let's just hope it can serve the people and not continue to drive more people toward the poverty line while failing to address the real cost generators. When the 'experts' used to compare our system to others in the industrialized world, they'd note how much of every dollar went toward paperwork vs. actual care, it appears the Obamacare system is only contributing toward increasing paperwork and confusion not reducing it.

[FFPCogs 863]

Federal Government pays.

If the Feds pay that means all of us that work pay...that's where the Feds get all the money they waste, our tax dollars. Unless of course they're giong to just borrow more from China and mortgage away more of our children's futures. Either way we're screwed.

And if anyone thinks the insurance companies are going to take the hit to their bottom line, well I'm sorry that's nothing more than wishful thinking at best. Business, especially big corporate business, is in business to make a profit for the corporation and it's shareholders, not to help the needy or do the right thing...and with one of the most powerful lobby's in D.C. to protect that profit, well it's a sure thing that the profits will go nowhere but up.

[gamewell45 258]

Maybe someone could realize that some people lives depend on health insurance and thousands can't get the health care they desperately need because they can't get health insurance and can't afford it, or go into bankruptcy doing so. Everyone having single payer health insurance is the only equal, ethical and humane option. That's the only solution to this discussion.

Making sure everyone has insurance is much better then without; those without end up going to the ER with Taxpayers footing the bill most of the time. Its cheaper in the long run IMO

[BBBMF 158]

The fact that people are complaining that they may get free health care is incomprehensible to me! We have so many problems in this country, I myself wouldn't even know where to start but with millions of people without health insurance in an industrialized nation, i don't think healthcare for everyone is a bad place to start. The PPACA is a great idea; Getting rid of insurance companies and their 19% profit yearly (billions upon billions) would have been great! Maybe we should focus on multinational and transnational corporations, special interest groups, and lobbyists paying off senators to vote in their favor, keeping the status quo, and screwing everyone except the less than 1% of America! That's why the entire bill was not passed and now we're getting hammered from both directions! This country is a plutocracy!

[38ff 250]

If YOUR fire district that you pay taxes to says "we need to cover volunteers with Obamacare, and your firetaxes are going up XX% to cover it" are you OK with that? And right now no one knows what X% is. Say it is 5-15% on top of the "normal" tax hike? Im just trying to get a feel for what the public may say to that.

Edited September 27, 2013 by 38ff

[antiquefirelt 994]

The fact that people are complaining that they may get free health care is incomprehensible to me!

The fact that you think it's free might be incomprehensible to many of us! Where do you think the government gets it's money?

[gamewell45 258]

If YOUR fire district that you pay taxes to says "we need to cover volunteers with Obamacare, and your firetaxes are going up XX% to cover it" are you OK with that? And right now no one knows what X% is. Say it is 5-15% on top of the "normal" tax hike? Im just trying to get a feel for what the public may say to that.

I'd be ok with it.

[FFPCogs 863]

Ever heard the phrase "lead by example"? Well what I'd like to know is, if this coverage is supposed to be so great for all why aren't Congress and the Prez lining up to be the first in line to sign on to it instead of making themselves exempt? What the hell kind of leadership is that? Which leads to another appropriate axiom..."actions speak louder than words"...I think it's pretty loud and clear what their actions are saying in this case and it speaks volumes.

Edited September 27, 2013 by FFPCogs