“So Is My Employer Going To Keep Providing Insurance Once Obamacare Goes Into Effect?”
By Mitch Berg
Read this excellent piece in the PiPress and figure it out for yourselves.
It does not look good.
4 Responses to ““So Is My Employer Going To Keep Providing Insurance Once Obamacare Goes Into Effect?””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 16th, 2012 at 10:08 am
Why should they? If the business is small enough, the fine is less than the employer contribution.
July 16th, 2012 at 11:08 am
O-care has made the choice VERY hard for mid-size companies paying median wages short term. The article makes clear the fact that there’s no clarity with this new law.
Long term? That’s easy: the incentives to keep plans will gradually wear away, and the next big economic shock will see a wave of companies dump their health plans to survive, and they won’t reinstate them when they recover.
Health care provisions as we know them are done for the middle class and poor. The rich and the well compensated will probably keep what they have, but the vast majority of folks will get progressively crappier and crappier plans. (yes, the word choice was intentional given who proposed this turd)
Side note: The Medicaid future looks more interesting. With Robert’s casting the vote that made coercion in that program impossible (the Feds can’t force states into the new Medicaid scam by cutting all Medicaid aid), states now face an interesting decision. Do you go for the free first hit of free Medicaid, and the carrot of a promised 10% cap in costs 5 years down the line in return for a massively bumped size of the population (from 7% of poverty to 133%)? My quick numbers on the math seem to show that states taking that first “free” toke will be paying more in 5 years given the expanded population.
July 16th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
From the small to mid-sized employer’s point of view, medical is a real PITA. You generally have to have 1 sized plan for all employees because you are not big enough to offer choices. You try to find a happy medium in plan coverage vs. plan costs, but that generally means that very few employees are over 80% pleased with the choices you made for them. You choose network, you choose deductible, you choose benefit enhancements. And in all those cases, some employees wish you had chosen differently. Plus it always effects the bottom line, and the pressure to reduce the cost may lead to less than optimal choices.
July 18th, 2012 at 7:59 am
Employers were already working to get rid of health insurance benefits. They have been shedding of defined pension plans, and healthcare was just the next step in lowering costs. Right now they do this by hiring more contract workers (no benefits given to those workers) and outsourcing to overseas. Healthcare reform gives them an out which will allow them to hire more workers here in US as each worker will be much lower cost, lower compensated. If unions are eliminated those costs go down further (lower wages as well). That’s a good thing, from the Republican perspective. It allows more people to have jobs (albeit at much lower wages and much lower standard of living), and they can go out to a free market to pay for their health insurance themselves.They can choose higher deductibles and lower benefits if they want to keep the cost down and pay more out of pocket when they get sick. This frees corporations from the health insurance oligopoly stranglehold that keeps them from doing business in a competitive global environment. That’s freedom for corporations and entrepreneurs, so ACA is actually a very good thing for business.
Republicans should love this. Business loves it. Rich people should love it. It expands access to healthcare to those who don’t work at regular jobs (through the health exchanges), those who have pre-existing conditions, and it protects them from being cut by their insurance companies when they do get sick. It’s a win for everyone.