Large Companies Consider Dropping Health Coverage

[JSt0rm]

Quit making sense the righties don't like that. Nevermind that it is now much less advantageous for them to drop coverage and they will now be penalized for doing it.

In the delusional mind of the right wingers companies should be so upset because we've passed marxist healthcare that they should take a steaming dump on their valued employees and pay a penalty to do so, just to protest the communist take over passed by our kenyan traitor in chief.

Republicans aren't even fun anymore, their arguments are getting so tired it's like when your dog tires of playing with a dead rat.

they are fucking retarded. Where the fuck are the fiscal conservatives? I can respect them atleast.

 

[theeedude]

Not too worry, Republicans have a solution for these workers, they can just barter chickens for health care

 

[blackangst1]

Originally Posted by JSt0rm01
so what is stopping these companies from doing this now?

Originally Posted by JSt0rm01
anyone?

Originally Posted by JSt0rm01
nobody eh?

fear doom fear indeed

hahaha facking losers. You all want to argue doom fear doom but you wont answer this simple fsking question.

This is now a troll thread!

 

[JSt0rm]

Not too worry, Republicans have a solution for these workers, they can just barter chickens for health care

Pfizer could buy foster farms and rotate the chickens back into the economy

 

[JSt0rm]

This is now a troll thread!

because you don't like the simple question I asked I'm a troll?

 

[blackangst1]

because you don't like the simple question I asked I'm a troll?

No no you misunderstand. Everyone else is I'd like an explaination also

 

[JSt0rm]

No no you misunderstand. Everyone else is I'd like an explaination also

() no worries comrade. We will sow the fields together soon enough. Maybe we can even share our white women.

 

[JSt0rm]

still not one of you fucking retards wants to answer the simple question?

 

[blackangst1]

() no worries comrade. We will sow the fields together soon enough. Maybe we can even share our white women.

ack....you had me all warm and fuzzy...until you mentioned white women

You can have my share

 

[Pulsar]

hahaha facking losers. You all want to argue doom fear doom but you wont answer this simple fsking question.

I'll take a brief shot at answering it, though I hardly consider myself a 'facking loser', and I have to wonder if it's even worth replying after the way you comport yourself.

Right now, some companies offer benefits. Many companies offer limited benefits: they are better than what you can get on your own but don't cover everything you need.

Under the new laws, those companies will now be forced to meet a minimum for the health care plans they offer. In many cases the health care plans they now have will not meet those requirements.

This results in two potential actions for the company:

1. Increase their health offerings to meet the minimum.
2. Determine if that minimum increase is going to cost more than the penalty.

What many of those companies will probably do is drop coverage, pay the penalty, and increase everybody's salary some small % to try to make them feel better.

The end result is that people who currently have these plans will likely lose their health care through their employer, and will end up paying substantially more to insure themselves. They will be forced away from insurance that they had.

 

[JSt0rm]

I'll take a brief shot at answering it, though I hardly consider myself a 'facking loser', and I have to wonder if it's even worth replying after the way you comport yourself.

Right now, some companies offer benefits. Many companies offer limited benefits: they are better than what you can get on your own but don't cover everything you need.

Under the new laws, those companies will now be forced to meet a minimum for the health care plans they offer. In many cases the health care plans they now have will not meet those requirements.

This results in two potential actions for the company:

1. Increase their health offerings to meet the minimum.
2. Determine if that minimum increase is going to cost more than the penalty.

What many of those companies will probably do is drop coverage, pay the penalty, and increase everybody's salary some small % to try to make them feel better.

The end result is that people who currently have these plans will likely lose their health care through their employer, and will end up paying substantially more to insure themselves. They will be forced away from insurance that they had.

Do you feel that corporate America as it stands now doesn't offer what the minimum coverage will be? Do we know what the minimum coverage will be?

Thank you for answering btw.

 

[alkemyst]

Yes the sky is falling and all major companies are trying to piss off and run off employees as fast as they can It's so much more fun and less selective than just laying them off Besides this way we can run off the good ones and be left with the lousy ones with low self esteem that we love so much

You really make no sense above and it shows you aren't following what's happening in business today.

Never mentioned your first statement...but loyalty is almost valueless today if a company can replace it with a standby for much less money.

In these times one just has to get by. Things are picking up though, I am hoping in a year or two efficiency is valuable again.

 

[Pulsar]

Do you feel that corporate America as it stands now doesn't offer what the minimum coverage will be? Do we know what the minimum coverage will be?

Thank you for answering btw.

I suspect those companies, the ones with representation in Washington, already have a very good idea which way the wind is blowing and what is likely to be the minimum plan.

In the end though, I suspect it's the smaller companies (I'm not sure that I can even call them 'corporate' America) that will experience this problem. When you get into the math, you realize that the small companies are the folks who employ an absolutely huge number of Americans, but they're also the ones that can't absorb large increases in the cost of doing business.

I'm a little surprised that larger companies like CAT and AT&T have this problem. I don't work for them though, so I really don't know how their benefits are structured. I'm sure they're doing the same thing: they're considering whether or not they can make a case that offering healthcare to the new government standard will cost them significantly more than simply paying the penalty.

As people have pointed out they simply could have dumped health care in the past. This isn't about the people who get the full plans provided for them. It's for the temp workers, or the part timers, or the people who only get a small benefit plan.

The real problem, as so many people have pointed out, is that this bill it it's entirety really did nothing to address health care costs, and instead played a shell game with health insurance. I suppose that's a different argument though.

 

[IGBT]

when cap/trade hoax passes they'll downsize and lay off to break even.

 

[daishi5]

Quote: Originally Posted by JSt0rm01 so what is stopping these companies from doing this now?
Quote: Originally Posted by JSt0rm01 anyone?
Quote: Originally Posted by JSt0rm01 nobody eh? fear doom fear indeed hahaha facking losers. You all want to argue doom fear doom but you wont answer this simple fsking question. http://www.rsboards.com/runescape-fo...0/facepalm.gif

Someone already answered you before you asked. So, I am not exactly sure why you are sitting here claiming victory just because you failed to notice something. In case you failed to see it, I took the liberty of bolding and highlighting the relevant portions.

Fern:

The Law of Unintend Consequences, remember this.

I think it perfectly normal for these corporations to analyize the law and have a "what if" type discussion. It would be stupid not to do so.

But it remains to be seen if they will drop coverage.

IMO, to claim that Obamacare in no way encourages dropped coverage etc is wrong. The repeal of the tax deduction for meds etc should encourage corporations to at least curtail their plan benefits and send those people over to medicare part B (IIRC).

Will the state HI pools in some way negate the benefits of the employer-group plan thus giving employers incentive to drop their coverage and simply provide employees with a set stipend to seek their own coverage from the pools?

Will the newly imposed HI guidelines mandating minimum coverage cause an increase in HI? What will the many smaller corporations do in response to this? Will they drop the employer group plan and give additional money to employees to go shop around on their own?

Sometimes subtle psychology comes into play. Prior to this HC bill employers seemimgly had no choice but offer (some) coverage. This bill creates a clear choice not existing before - pay the (low) penalty or provide HI coverage. Will some take the (apparently) newly provide choice? I mean, the government now says they can.

I wouldn't rush to any conclusions. It's going to take a while before all the ramifications are understood and absorbed by companies. But because they are now offered an "out" and employees can seek options elsewhere, and the underlying problem of exploding health care costs have not been adressed it's not out of the realm of possiblility to think some companies may opt out. We'll just have to wait and see how it unfolds.

Fern

 

[Jadow]

Maybe this will encourage Americans to finally face the nation's health care problem and adopt real socialized medicine (which has proven to be far superior, less expensive, less wasteful, and more efficient than our current system).

tell that to Greece who now has to PRIVATIZE their health care system

 

[werepossum]

Someone already answered you before you asked. So, I am not exactly sure why you are sitting here claiming victory just because you failed to notice something. In case you failed to see it, I took the liberty of bolding and highlighting the relevant portions.

Fern:

There are two possibilities with this legislation (beyond the inescapable conclusion that it is a gigantic power grab for the feds, that is undeniable.) The first is that the people in charge, who are all firmly in favor of a "free" federal government single payer system, want to make the private system better even though they don't like it. The second is that these people want to break the private system in order to force adoption of a "free" federal government single payer system and are willing to disrupt and even destroy lives to get this. I subscribe to the second theory, but as Fern pointed out this is merely running the numbers to get a cost-benefit analysis. Only marginal or small companies will be forced to drop health care by this first bill. Subsequent bills or, more likely, controlling agency decisions will be what forces large, successful companies to drop insurance, assuming that happens. But an essential part of every successful company is knowing what each benefit actually costs and what you get for it. It's like the military having plans to invade Iran and other countries - they are not actually planning to invade those countries, merely laying groundwork to avoid being caught flat-footed in a worst case scenario. Similarly these companies are establishing what these benefits cost them to know whether it is worth it to maintain them, not necessarily in preparation of abolishing them.

 

[NeoV]

every single one of you fear-mongering hacks has neglected to even consider the reaction of the large insurance companies - even if this unlikely scenario plays out as you describe it - do you think they will just sit back and watch money walk out on them? Start over and take them into consideration, then see if you are still in panic mode

 

[ShawnD1]

tell that to Greece who now has to PRIVATIZE their health care system

America should do the same. Fucking old people account for something like 40% of the federal budget. The country would go from a massive deficit to a massive surplus over the span of 1 year.

(millions of old people would die as well but I don't live in the US so this doesn't really affect me)

 

[JSt0rm]

Someone already answered you before you asked. So, I am not exactly sure why you are sitting here claiming victory just because you failed to notice something. In case you failed to see it, I took the liberty of bolding and highlighting the relevant portions.

Fern:

actually he didnt answer that question. The answer is nothing is stopping them. Of course if they want to retain good people they need to offer good incentives like hi. So if these companies dont want a brain drain they probably wont do what all the chicken littles are talking about.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

Gee more faux outrage for shit that won't happen

Sure large companies want to save a buck but their not fucking stupid. Anyone with half a brain knows the second a company does this effectively dealing a huge paycut to employees, that said employees will bail in massive numbers.

Get back to me when a large company actually tries this. Ain't gonna happen

Right, because taxing a company a huge amount of money will never affect their decision making. It's hard to understand your point of view.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

America should do the same. Fucking old people account for something like 40% of the federal budget. The country would go from a massive deficit to a massive surplus over the span of 1 year.

(millions of old people would die as well but I don't live in the US so this doesn't really affect me)

They wouldn't die, they'd finally be able to afford health care.

In 5 years, assuming I make the same amount:
~I cannot afford health care
~I have to pay for health insurance by law
~This helps me somehow

 

[ShawnD1]

They wouldn't die, they'd finally be able to afford health care.

Death is kinda what happens when you can't afford your medication. Or your dialysis. Or your heart bypass surgery.

 

[Naeeldar]

The main reason AT&T and other large companies are looking at dropping HC comes down to the dependents change/cadilaac charges. A lot of these companies have plans that fall under the cadilaac category which means big charges for them.

Also with 300,000 employees when their employees can keep their kids on their healthcare plan until they are 26 that is also a added cost.

Finally it's not as big of a perk anymore. now the govt is goign to cover anybody who isn't offered HC through work well there's less need for these companies to offer it as a perk because they can get it else where relatively cheap - or so dems woudl have you believe but that's a seperate argument.

Anyway it's a combination of the above.

 

[daishi5]

actually he didnt answer that question. The answer is nothing is stopping them. Of course if they want to retain good people they need to offer good incentives like hi. So if these companies dont want a brain drain they probably wont do what all the chicken littles are talking about.

Two parts, A. Costs raised, so the previous lower costs are one reason they may not have done this before. B. psychology and marketing. Before this, companies would have had to look uncompetitive for employees. Now, they can blame the government for making it more expensive, and at the same time, claim that the exchanges will allow employees to achieve individual coverage.

The reason companies didn't do this before is because they would be to blame, now they have someone else to blame. Single companies won't do this alone, but if it starts anywhere, it could be a signal to others that they can safely drop their coverage. I expect we will see one of two outcomes, either only some small employers drop their coverage, or a very large number of employers drop their plans. Personally, I hope for the second outcome, employer provided healthcare is a horrible arrangement.