Large Companies Consider Dropping Health Coverage

[dainthomas]

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

Better to be a dead capitalist than a live socialist. All loyal Americans should be willing to sacrifice themselves for the advancement of the conservative philosophy.

 

[nonlnear]

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.

I agree completely. People are so accustomed to getting coverage through their employers that they largely believe that this is a good thing, more by default acceptance of the way things are than sue to critical reflection on what kind of system it creates. Employer provided coverage restricts choices, inflates costs, and makes every job loss into a potentially life or death crisis. I hope most employers eventually drop their coverage, and we get equal tax treatment for private purchases. It would also be nice to cap negotiated discounts for group plans, so that individual plans and the uninsured who actually pay their bills wouldn't have to subsidize them, but I'm not holding my breath. That's the kind of meaningful cost reform that neither party is ever going to push for...

 

[GuitarDaddy]

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.

What you don't seem to realize is that the vast majority of LARGE companies already spend waaay more than $8k per employee providing insurance to their employees that meets or exceeds that required by the healthcare bill, and do they do it because they are forced too? No they do it to remain competative and retain the best talent.

The fact that there now will be a penalty of $8k imposed to those who don't offer a qualifying plan doesn't change the decision making in the slightest way for 98% of large corps.

And the OP's assertion that large companies that have consistently provided coverage before it was mandated will suddenly now drop that coverage and pay the penalty to save money is just plain silly, or more accurately a dishonest partisan fairytale designed to promote fear, which is nothing new for the OP or the GOP for that matter

 

[fantolay]

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

Totally. Because the employees are so confident that they can leave and get another job in today's economy.

Good work ace.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Totally. Because the employees are so confident that they can leave and get another job in today's economy.

Good work ace.

All you guys seem to have the same dumbass argument. If the economy is so bad and the companies aren't worried about keeping their employees then why didn't they drop coverage long before now as it's been penalty free to do so?

And contrary to your misguided beleifs not everybody is shaking in fear of losing their jobs.

Try getting a real job duece.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

I agree completely. People are so accustomed to getting coverage through their employers that they largely believe that this is a good thing, more by default acceptance of the way things are than sue to critical reflection on what kind of system it creates. Employer provided coverage restricts choices, inflates costs, and makes every job loss into a potentially life or death crisis. I hope most employers eventually drop their coverage, and we get equal tax treatment for private purchases. It would also be nice to cap negotiated discounts for group plans, so that individual plans and the uninsured who actually pay their bills wouldn't have to subsidize them, but I'm not holding my breath. That's the kind of meaningful cost reform that neither party is ever going to push for...

whose fuckin retarded idea was it in the first place to have employers foot the bill for HC?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

All you guys seem to have the same dumbass argument. If the economy is so bad and the companies aren't worried about keeping their employees then why didn't they drop coverage long before now as it's been penalty free to do so?

And contrary to your misguided beleifs not everybody is shaking in fear of losing their jobs.

Try getting a real job duece.

because there's a greater incentive to do so now, as explained above.
companies aren't all evil corps that you Dems make them out to be, but when the govt forces their hand, they will react.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

because there's a greater incentive to do so now, as explained above.
companies aren't all evil corps that you Dems make them out to be, but when the govt forces their hand, they will react.

Simply BULLSHIT!

Before = no penalty for dropping coverage
Now = penalty for dropping coverage

What twisted logic are you using that equates this as an incentive for companies to drop coverage?

Please explain if you can ?

And I don't understand your comment about Dems, in this case it's the R's that claim the evil corps will drop coverage, doublespeak or are you just confused?

 

[nonlnear]

whose fuckin retarded idea was it in the first place to have employers foot the bill for HC?

In case this isn't a rhetorical question, it was a byproduct of FDR's wage controls. People got used to it, Congress shaped tax incentives to further entrench it, and now it's expected because it's the norm - dysfunctionality be damned!

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Simply BULLSHIT!

Before = no penalty for dropping coverage
Now = penalty for dropping coverage

What twisted logic are you using that equates this as an incentive for companies to drop coverage?

Please explain if you can ?

And I don't understand your comment about Dems, in this case it's the R's that claim the evil corps will drop coverage, doublespeak or are you just confused?

before = health care somewhat affordable (relatively speaking), good perk to attract/retain employees, on top of tax incentives proivded by govt

after = health care costs skyrocket, projected costs for company to provide healthcare far greater than the penalty, unaffordable perk, absorb penalty as cost of doing business

sure there's no penalty to drop coverage previously/currently but there was no incentive to do so either.
now add on the projected increase in costs to provide HI which outweigh the fines, remove the tax breaks, and you now have an incentive to drop it.

not too hard to understand.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

In case this isn't a rhetorical question, it was a byproduct of FDR's wage controls. People got used to it, Congress shaped tax incentives to further entrench it, and now it's expected because it's the norm - dysfunctionality be damned!

was FDR an independent or a republican?

 

[nonlnear]

was FDR an independent or a republican?

You're joking, right?

 

[alkemyst]

All you guys seem to have the same dumbass argument. If the economy is so bad and the companies aren't worried about keeping their employees then why didn't they drop coverage long before now as it's been penalty free to do so?

And contrary to your misguided beleifs not everybody is shaking in fear of losing their jobs.

Try getting a real job duece.

You don't want mutiny ever.

What do you do for a living if I can ask?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

before = health care somewhat affordable (relatively speaking), good perk to attract/retain employees, on top of tax incentives proivded by govt

after = health care costs skyrocket, projected costs for company to provide healthcare far greater than the penalty, unaffordable perk, absorb penalty as cost of doing business

sure there's no penalty to drop coverage previously/currently but there was no incentive to do so either.
now add on the projected increase in costs to provide HI which outweigh the fines, remove the tax breaks, and you now have an incentive to drop it.

not too hard to understand.

The bolded is purely unproven conjecture espoused by GOP obama haters, and flys in the face of economics. Pure economics would say with a larger percentage of the population insured through a mandate the cost per person should an in all likelyhood will go down.

And your correct its not hard to understand that you righties will attempt to cook the books and defy logic to build a case against that with which you don't agree.

But your argument is laughable, its like saying if a penalty of $20 per month were imposed on everyone who doesn't subsribe to cable TV, that long term subscribers would ditch their cable TV because it would be cheaper to pay the $20 per month than pay $50 per month.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Before = no penalty for dropping coverage
Now = penalty for dropping coverage

No, I don't think that's correct; you've left out something that may well turn out to be important.

I think it should be like this:

Before = no penalty for dropping coverage, no government mandate on minimum coverage.

Now = new government mandate for minimum coverage, small penalty for dropping coverage.

I think to simply isolate one change alone (e.g., penalty) and use it to forcast corporate behavior is wrong, it's too simplistic. I also think that large Fortune 500 type companies must be separated from the millions of smaller corporation when predicitng behavioral changes resulting form the new HC bill.

I'm not saying is it a certainty that large companies will drop coverage or adjust their HC policy, but likewise it is not a certainty that they won't. I don't think even they know yet. And, IIRC, many sections of the new HC bill were left up to some new 'secretary' position. If so, we don't even know what we're dealing yet.

Fern

 

[GuitarDaddy]

You don't want mutiny ever.

What do you do for a living if I can ask?

CPA/Controller for a multi-national equipment manufacturer. And I assure you we are NOT considering dropping our employees health coverage.
Because of our older employee base we have quite high HI premiums, and we as a company kick in $13k per employee for coverage regardless of the plan they choose.

And because of the rough economy the last 2yrs and reduced or eliminated raises we are already losing talented employees to competitors and are looking at increasing pay and bennies to retain them.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

The bolded is purely unproven conjecture espoused by GOP obama haters, and flys in the face of economics. Pure economics would say with a larger percentage of the population insured through a mandate the cost per person should an in all likelyhood will go down.

And your correct its not hard to understand that you righties will attempt to cook the books and defy logic to build a case against that with which you don't agree.

But your argument is laughable, its like saying if a penalty of $20 per month were imposed on everyone who doesn't subsribe to cable TV, that long term subscribers would ditch their cable TV because it would be cheaper to pay the $20 per month than pay $50 per month.

no, the numbers came from the companies themselves who care about their bottom line, not any politician. read the OP article.

no, your analogy is laughable because it is so flawed. i'll let you figure that one out.

edit: bwahaha, and you're supposedly a CPA? and you came up with that analogy? roflcopter lollerskates.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

No, I don't think that's correct; you've left out something that may well turn out to be important.

I think it should be like this:

Before = no penalty for dropping coverage, no government mandate on minimum coverage.

Now = new government mandate for minimum coverage, small penalty for dropping coverage.

I think to simply isolate one change alone (e.g., penalty) and use it to forcast corporate behavior is wrong, it's too simplistic. I also think that large Fortune 500 type companies must be separated from the millions of smaller corporation when predicitng behavioral changes resulting form the new HC bill.

I'm not saying is it a certainty that large companies will drop coverage or adjust their HC policy, but likewise it is not a certainty that they won't. I don't think even they know yet. And, IIRC, many sections of the new HC bill were left up to some new 'secretary' position. If so, we don't even know what we're dealing yet.

Fern

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]

no, the numbers came from the companies themselves who care about their bottom line, not any politician. read the OP article.

no, your analogy is laughable because it is so flawed. i'll let you figure that one out.

edit: bwahaha, and you're supposedly a CPA? and you came up with that analogy? roflcopter lollerskates.

Ha, Ha good one!

Make all the personal attacks you want, because thats all you got, your logic sux. You don't bother explaining why my analogy is bad and resort to LOLCAT speak, you pwns the internet

And when you explain why companies would abandon something of value (employees HI) and pay an $8k penalty to do so then you have an argument, but you can't because they won't. And claiming that they will based on pure conjecture of "Oh noes the bogeymans HC bill will cause costs to skyrocket" therfore we are going to pre-emptively shoot ourselves in the foot and cancel our employees bennies makes you look silly.

And it's no secret that the companies in the article are firmly entrenched with the GOP and the article is pure partisan hackery and I doubt very seriously that the companies are no more likely than other large corps to actually drop coverage.

 

[nobodyknows]

Nope. I'm saying that if it happens that working people who have had insurance find it gone due to changes in regulation, then what I suggested will happen.

Of course if Obama gets illegals covered then there will be a larger Dem base, so maybe screwing up health care royally helps them.

My understanding is that illeglals are already "covered" just by going to the emergency room. Again, if your employer takes insurance away go on a sitdown strike. What do you have to lose?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Ha, Ha good one!

Make all the personal attacks you want, because thats all you got, your logic sux. You don't bother explaining why my analogy is bad and resort to LOLCAT speak, you pwns the internet

And when you explain why companies would abandon something of value (employees HI) and pay an $8k penalty to do so then you have an argument, but you can't because they won't. And claiming that they will based on pure conjecture of "Oh noes the bogeymans HC bill will cause costs to skyrocket" therfore we are going to pre-emptively shoot ourselves in the foot and cancel our employees bennies makes you look silly.

And it's no secret that the companies in the article are firmly entrenched with the GOP and the article is pure partisan hackery and I doubt very seriously that the companies are no more likely than other large corps to actually drop coverage.

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.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

You're joking, right?

libertarian?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

snip

 

[Sclamoz]

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.

Why would they pay money in the first place to provide these perks when they didn't have to and then turn around and drop it to pay a fine when it becomes mandated?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Why would they pay money in the first place to provide these perks when they didn't have to and then turn around and drop it to pay a fine when it becomes mandated?

really?
out of the goodness of their hearts.