Comments on: Conjunction Junction Disjunction

By: Employer Fair Share and the Mass Exodus? |

Employer Fair Share and the Mass Exodus? | — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 03:29:25 +0000

[...] We heard a very curious argument at a State House hearing last week. The bill was H. 2351, sponsored by Representative Randy Hunt (R-Sandwich). This bill would increase the threshold for the number of employees subject to the Employer Fair Share requirement to 50 workers. Under the compromise the led to the passage of chapter 58, firms with 11 or more workers are subject to the fair share requirements, although the test is stricter for employers with over 50 workers (the conjunction junction regulation). [...]

By: Pat

Pat — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:10:22 +0000

Commissioner Lischko, the ERISA preemption issue is an important principle for employers, the amount of the assessments or potential liability is not as important as the concept of ensuring government does not legislate what employers offer.

Crafting revenue regulations and using the insurance laws to dictate employer benefits and costs is not what the ERISA drafters had in mind.

By: Amy Lischko

Amy Lischko — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:56:39 +0000

Just to clarify. The original estimate (for the old regulation) was about 21M if I recall correctly. The state only ended up collecting 7.5 million as you note above. But, was that an error in the estimation or due to some emloyers not reporting and the state not collecting? The new estimate is 30 million, that seems to me to be only 9 million above what was originally projected. Hardly worth a potential ERISA lawsuit from the large firms.

By: PJ

PJ — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:43:15 +0000

When might firms with 50 or fewer employees have access to “fair and reasonable” premiums?