Trumpcare will allow large companies to drop healthcare coverage to employees

[yoddle]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/here-is...re-act-would-affect-employer-based-insurance/

 

[ch33zw1z]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/here-is...re-act-would-affect-employer-based-insurance/

Oh yay, thanks Con's!!

 

[Mai72]

Is this really a surprise? Large companies have hated Obamacare from the beginning. Anything that takes money out of the pockets of the shareholders is never good.

And, Trump is pro big business so I'm not surprised at all.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Nah, it's not a surprise...although if companies choose to drop it and subsequently people start missing work more often due to it, regret may surface.

 

[Yakk]

Looks like company Healthcare will become only be for high ranking members for a company's Executive team.

It'll be an obvious place for a company to start cutting costs. Except for their expensive and self-important executive teams.

 

[dphantom]

Highly doubtful. Companies offered health insurance before obamacare and will continue to do so. The mandate changed the nature of employment for many people and repealing this mandate should allow companies to hire full time workers rather than filling in with part timers to avoid having to pay for health insurance

 

[ch33zw1z]

Highly doubtful. Companies offered health insurance before obamacare and will continue to do so. The mandate changed the nature of employment for many people and repealing this mandate should allow companies to hire full time workers rather than filling in with part timers to avoid having to pay for health insurance

1. Companies offered healthcare pre-ACA - check
2. post-ACA - mandated to offer for full time (>30 hours worked per week) - the sky is falling
3. hire part timers instead - check
4. remove mandate, going to hire full timers and voluntarily offer them healthcare anyways - doubtful.

I'm not following the logic.

 

[dphantom]

1. Companies offered healthcare pre-ACA - check
2. post-ACA - mandated to offer for full time (>30 hours worked per week) - the sky is falling
3. hire part timers instead - check
4. remove mandate, going to hire full timers and voluntarily offer them healthcare anyways - doubtful.

I'm not following the logic.

All employers may not however the logic might be that smaller employers especially in service and hospitality industries may hire workers full time. This should be better for the worker finding full time employment rather than multiple part time jobs which can be very challenging to manage schedules especially for single parents.

Just some thoughts. I think overall this will be a net benefit for workers. They were not going to get healthcare anyway as companies would only hire part time. Now perhaps more will become full time workers with the attendant stability in income allowing the worker to advance to better jobs, education etc..

 

[ch33zw1z]

And then they can get healthcare from the state, right?

Or are we just accepting the FYGM mentality.

 

[fskimospy]

All employers may not however the logic might be that smaller employers especially in service and hospitality industries may hire workers full time. This should be better for the worker finding full time employment rather than multiple part time jobs which can be very challenging to manage schedules especially for single parents.

Just some thoughts. I think overall this will be a net benefit for workers. They were not going to get healthcare anyway as companies would only hire part time. Now perhaps more will become full time workers with the attendant stability in income allowing the worker to advance to better jobs, education etc..

The number of people working part time has sharply declined since the ACA was passed. If you think the ACA was forcing people into part time work in large numbers how do you explain that?

Second, if I remember right about half of employer based insurance plans had lifetime limits on coverage before the ACA. Are you saying they won't go back to that if such a requirement is removed, if so, why?

Finally, about 60% of Medicaid households have at least one full time worker. Considering the decimation of Medicaid in this bill how will this be a plus for workers?

 

[glenn1]

The number of people working part time has sharply declined since the ACA was passed. If you think the ACA was forcing people into part time work in large numbers how do you explain that?

Second, if I remember right about half of employer based insurance plans had lifetime limits on coverage before the ACA. Are you saying they won't go back to that if such a requirement is removed, if so, why?

Finally, about 60% of Medicaid households have at least one full time worker. Considering the decimation of Medicaid in this bill how will this be a plus for workers?

<shrug> The rule didn't help much for lots of people anyway, for example if you were a dual-income couple then having both employers mandated to provide the same healthcare benefits is duplicative and pointless. If you want to do something to actually be helpful instead of just expressing your outrage at Trump then both support repealing the "mandatory healthcare for full-time workers" but also adding something to require employers to pay out as salary the equivalent value of the benefits if the employee declines coverage because they already have coverage from their spouse, etc.

 

[Jaskalas]

And then they can get healthcare from the state, right?

Or are we just accepting the FYGM mentality.

The denial of healthcare coverage is the defining trait of GOP policy for this subject.
There is zero evidence that "market based" policy achieves a satisfactory degree of subsidy.
Insurance companies are simply not large enough to soak costs.

 

[theeedude]

Good, if you want health care, vote for it, don't make it your employer's problem.

 

[fskimospy]

<shrug> The rule didn't help much for lots of people anyway, for example if you were a dual-income couple then having both employers mandated to provide the same healthcare benefits is duplicative and pointless. If you want to do something to actually be helpful instead of just expressing your outrage at Trump then both support repealing the "mandatory healthcare for full-time workers" but also adding something to require employers to pay out as salary the equivalent value of the benefits if the employee declines coverage because they already have coverage from their spouse, etc.

Why was requiring both to provide the same benefits duplicative and pointless?

What you suggest would not be actually helpful, so no I won't be doing that. Also you're probably the last person who should say that people should focus less on rage and more on policy considering most of your suggestions are spite-based.

 

[glenn1]

Why was requiring both to provide the same benefits duplicative and pointless?

What you suggest would not be actually helpful, so no I won't be doing that. Also you're probably the last person who should say that people should focus less on rage and more on policy considering most of your suggestions are spite-based.

Do you carry insurance policies on your auto from two different companies simultaneously as well? Use your oh-so-superior skills of logic to determine why someone being covered by another person's employer subsidized coverage (spouse, child, etc) might make forcing your employer to provide that exact same benefit to you somewhat redundant and why you might prefer to get salary in lieu of a benefit you wouldn't use instead. Maybe you should do a quick Google search what "coordination of benefits" means.

 

[Meghan54]

You know, you don't have to give up one to have the other, right? As a matter of fact, the ACA, while requiring employers to offer ins. to employees, doesn't require employees to accept said insurance, if said employee can prove ins. via other avenues, such as a spouse's plan. Been there, doing just that right now.

I do agree employers should reimburse such an employee for not taking HI via them, but that'll never happen.

<shrug> The rule didn't help much for lots of people anyway, for example if you were a dual-income couple then having both employers mandated to provide the same healthcare benefits is duplicative and pointless. If you want to do something to actually be helpful instead of just expressing your outrage at Trump then both support repealing the "mandatory healthcare for full-time workers" but also adding something to require employers to pay out as salary the equivalent value of the benefits if the employee declines coverage because they already have coverage from their spouse, etc.

 

[glenn1]

You know, you don't have to give up one to have the other, right?

Yeah, you kinda do, they're mutually exclusive propositions. You can't pass a mandate saying "if you're a large company over 50 people you MUST provide these minimum healthcare benefits to employees" and give them cash-in-lieu flexibility; if you give them the option to opt out it's no longer a mandate. That's my entire point. In either the employer or employee role I have no ability to tailor an offer with the tradeoffs to meet my particular needs; whether it's more salary vs higher benefits, time away/work-life balance versus salary, etc.) Having the government decree that my total compensation MUST include $xx,xxx dollars of health insurance benefits I might not even be able to use is stupid, counterproductive, and likely hurts as many people as it helps.

 

[Jaskalas]

Employers should have no relation to Healthcare. The very basis of that system is broken.

 

[Thebobo]

Employers should have no relation to Healthcare. The very basis of that system is broken.

And insurance companies as well.

I smell single payer in the air.

 

[HomerJS]

And insurance companies as well.

I smell single payer in the air.

Hey, Trump already admitted single payer is better then what we have.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you carry insurance policies on your auto from two different companies simultaneously as well? Use your oh-so-superior skills of logic to determine why someone being covered by another person's employer subsidized coverage (spouse, child, etc) might make forcing your employer to provide that exact same benefit to you somewhat redundant and why you might prefer to get salary in lieu of a benefit you wouldn't use instead. Maybe you should do a quick Google search what "coordination of benefits" means.

Most employer coverage only covers other dependants if you ask for and pay for it.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Most employer coverage only covers other dependants if you ask for and pay for it.

They also ask if a spouse can be insured by their employer as well

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, you kinda do, they're mutually exclusive propositions. You can't pass a mandate saying "if you're a large company over 50 people you MUST provide these minimum healthcare benefits to employees" and give them cash-in-lieu flexibility; if you give them the option to opt out it's no longer a mandate. That's my entire point. In either the employer or employee role I have no ability to tailor an offer with the tradeoffs to meet my particular needs; whether it's more salary vs higher benefits, time away/work-life balance versus salary, etc.) Having the government decree that my total compensation MUST include $xx,xxx dollars of health insurance benefits I might not even be able to use is stupid, counterproductive, and likely hurts as many people as it helps.

That makes no sense. Speaking of using logic you should slow down and think this through. The mandate for employers can easily be that they must provide it but that employees can opt out. Since there is an individual mandate as well both sides are covered.

Gotta use that logic, brotha.

 

[fskimospy]

They also ask if a spouse can be insured by their employer as well

Yeah, I don't think Glenn has thought this through.

 

[glenn1]

Most employer coverage only covers other dependants if you ask for and pay for it.

Again, what's your point? Presuming the classic mythical American family of husband, wife, and 2.5 children what sense does it make that if both parents worked for 'large firms' that government should dictate that a substantial amount of their total compensation would be required to be made in the form of health insurance "minimum coverage" benefits? Wouldn't it make more sense to allow that family and employers to allow one parent to get an employer subsidized "family care" health insurance plan, and the other spouse to take cash-in-lieu of employer subsidized healthcare benefits? Or receive more time off for better "work-home balance" or whatever else the employee values more than redundant health insurance they can't use.

That makes no sense. Speaking of using logic you should slow down and think this through. The mandate for employers can easily be that they must provide it but that employees can opt out. Since there is an individual mandate as well both sides are covered.

So then the employee opts out and the employer pockets five figures worth of benefits they won't have to pay but is figured anyway in total compensation. That sounds like a great plan to me.