Large Companies Consider Dropping Health Coverage

[Sclamoz]

really?
out of the goodness of their hearts.

Interesting. So why did these companies and their smart educated number crunchers never realize that it cost more to provide these perks then it would to not provide them before health care reform?

 

[daishi5]

Interesting. So why did these companies and their smart educated number crunchers never realize that it cost more to provide these perks then it would to not provide them before health care reform?

IIRC, they used to be able to claim part of it as a tax deduction, now part of that deduction is eliminated.

 

[blackangst1]

glad you're able to laugh at your own folly.

i'll try to work with your flawed analogy and use numbers you can understand, ok? i'll go slow for ya.


it costs a cable company $50 per sub (employee) for cable TV, a perk they provide each employee.

the actions of the govt will now force everyone to get cable TV, and more channels than before!
(lets not kid ourselves, providing more health care to more people is going to increase healthcare costs. providing coverage to kids for an additional 4 years is going to cost more money)
for cable companies themselves, if they do not comply, they will be charged a $20 fine per employee.

the cable company has these smart people that went to school and studied numbers and did some math and figured it would end up costing them $100 now per sub.
that's double, so it's going to be $50 extra per sub.

the execs themselves passed 1st grade math and figured out that $50 > $20
$50 is the extra cost
$20 is the fine

they said to themselves, F that, we'll pay the fine since it's cheaper.

boom, no more free cable perk for their employees.

and i haven't even included the tax incentives that the cable companies used to get by providing premium channels for subs.

not saying this will or will not happen, but the logic is VERY simple.

QED.
can i get a wha wha??

actually, it was really hard to work with your example because your analogy was backwards- companies are dropping subs, subs aren't dropping services (i thought this was pretty obvious).
and you conveniently left out the added costs of the new HI bill (i thought this was even more obvious).

what company do you work for again? i question their hiring practices.

lulz

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Interesting. So why did these companies and their smart educated number crunchers never realize that it cost more to provide these perks then it would to not provide them before health care reform?

that was sarcasm. read the rest of the thread to find your answer.

 

[Pulsar]

Wow, I respect your opinion Fern but thats some serious circular doublespeak there You go all the way around the barn to sort of defend the opinion of the OP which is indefensible.

I agree that using this "one change to forecast corporate behavior" is wrong, and is exactly what the OP is doing. And I also agree that no one can be 100% sure of the outcome, but with the facts that are know projecting costs to skyrocket and large companies to drop coverage is counter intuitive and has no basis

Guitardaddy, 4 or 5 people have already answered your question. Read back if you'd like clear answers as to why small and large companies are reconsidering healthcare. At the same time, please note that your company doesn't represent every other company out there. This article didn't fabricate the idea that those major companies are looking at dropping benefits. I suggest you do some research into WHY they are doing so rather than continuing your cycle of denial (no offense intended, but saying no it's not over and over doesn't change that it IS happening).

It's happening. You need to understand why.

 

[alkemyst]

I don't think he gets it. He is thinking too much what he is managing and not what's common.

We recently received an email stating that our benefits may go up in light of this latest change in our government.

We pay about 25-30% of the total healthcare cost. Our company is mostly 30-40 somethings.

Our benefits were pretty damn good...it's changing. Our new pharmacy plan is stripped down a bit.

My brother used to get 100% health care for himself and family. They dropped the family part now. He has to pay about 30% for them.

Companies are gearing up.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

i'm awaiting his rebuttal.

 

[JSt0rm]

do we know that the new minimum health insurance is more then what these companies already provide? or are we assuming it is.

 

[werepossum]

i'm awaiting his rebuttal.

There can be no rebuttal to that.

From the companies' standpoint, they offered excellent health care to employees as an incentive to attract better employees at lower costs. For many of these companies, the federal government even offered an incentive for them to keep providing health care to retirees AND let the companies deduct even the government payment (neither of which I agree with, by the way.) Now many of these companies will face higher costs either through Cadillac plan surtaxes, or through having to add benefits to comply with the new government-mandated minimums. The analogy is simple: I am willing to subsidize an employee's school costs at a local college for $100+ a semester hour, but I am NOT willing to subsidize an employee's school costs at Harvard for $1,000+ a semester hour. Every benefit has a cost at which the company will no longer provide it, which is why they track these costs. While I don't think these companies will drop health insurance at the moment, they will continue to track these costs and progressives will continue to increase their costs with new "rights" that must be added to the minimum plans. Eventually both the companies and the progressives know that private companies will be forced to drop health insurance benefits. This is a requirement for progressives to get federal government single payer health care, and in turn the huge government subsidies (and the huge taxes required to pay for them) will assist in the progressives' dream of a society composed of a very small, very wealthy elite, a big mandarin class, and a huge and very flat under class that is very equal, completely under government control, and consumes "sustainably" (i.e. very little.)

 

[alkemyst]

do we know that the new minimum health insurance is more then what these companies already provide? or are we assuming it is.

Those that self-insure get thrown into having to pay out for coverage now rather than hold that money in-house.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

guitardaddy, can you please respond?
we weren't done with our debate yet.

 

[JSt0rm]

do we know that the new minimum health insurance is more then what these companies already provide? or are we assuming it is.

Those that self-insure get thrown into having to pay out for coverage now rather than hold that money in-house.

ok. Maybe I'm confused are you saying like intel just pays all the med bills when they pop up instead of having an insurance provider because they get to cut the insurance profit out of the game? And now they will be forced to give the money to an insurance provider?

 

[alkemyst]

Like my company does. We negotiate with a carrier like Aetna or Blue Cross to 'brand' us. We can then use their networks and their administrative backbone. We set the rules though on our policy such as co-pays, what is covered and what is not and the like.

My policy is also backed by a health fund (1/2 which i fund and 1/2 the company does) that is equal to my deductible, most of the time I don't pay anything.

My company has been fortunate that we are operating on a major surplus. Most of our workers (6000+ prior to the economy going south and about 3000 or so now) stay healthy. The philosophy is on 'wellness' and encouraging people to get physicals and dental cleanings routinely, exercise, quit smoking programs with cost of meds/treatment 100% covered, etc.

We have already had discussions to vote against this as we will lose a lot of these benefits and have it cost both the member and the company much more money.

It's going to suck paying more for less so some fucktard that makes too much for welfare and would rather buy HDTV's for every room of his home rather than health insurance for his family is covered.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

guitardaddy, can you please respond?
we weren't done with our debate yet.

I made my point, not much else to say, get back to me when companies actually start droping coverage. Until then a bunch of GOP chicken littles claiming the sky is falling got boring after a few minutes and I lost interest. Just like the large companies in the article I will "consider" continuing this debate at a later time

 

[alkemyst]

I made my point, not much else to say, get back to me when companies actually start droping coverage. Until then a bunch of GOP chicken littles claiming the sky is falling got boring after a few minutes and I lost interest. Just like the large companies in the article I will "consider" continuing this debate at a later time

they will never cut social security, right?

Income tax is only temporary, right?

Patriot Act is best for us as a nation, right?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

I made my point, not much else to say, get back to me when companies actually start droping coverage. Until then a bunch of GOP chicken littles claiming the sky is falling got boring after a few minutes and I lost interest. Just like the large companies in the article I will "consider" continuing this debate at a later time

what about my rebuttal to your severely flawed analogy?

do you see the error in your ways, my young padawan?