Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Letís hope employers do drop health coverage
Washington Post Opionion ^ | 6/22/2011 | Matt (Mad) Miller

Posted on 06/23/2011 1:08:52 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot

(snip) Now, I don’t pretend to know how many employers will drop coverage if some workers are offered subsidies to help them buy private coverage on their own. In Massachusetts, not many employers have dropped; (snip) But if these issues won’t be settled for a few years, one thing is certain right now: It would be a fantastic thing — not some calamity — if more people got coverage from the exchanges instead of from their employers. Yet both parties act as if it would be a disaster. (snip) What’s more, the whole GOP line about Democrats “dumping” people into “government-run” care is preposterous. For starters, the exchanges offer choices from among competing private carriers. (snip) Whatever quarrels you may have with the Affordable Care Act, these insurance exchanges are a historic achievement. (snip) The only real objection to moving beyond our archaic regime of employer-based care is the public cost. But once you think about it for 30 seconds, this, too, turns out to have an easy fix — because we’re not adding to health costs, we’re just moving them from one place to another. (snip) In an even modestly sane version of 21st-century America, as I argued in my book “The Tyranny of Dead Ideas,” we’d be talking about a “grand bargain” to shift health costs from private payrolls to public budgets as a way to boost business competitiveness and health security. And we’d figure out an economically rational way to fund this shift (modest consumption tax, anyone?) that business could endorse. As Kevin Hassett, a former McCain economic adviser, has told me, such a funding swap would be fine for the economy even though it would leave government officially “bigger.”

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: employers; government; insurance; medical; obamacare; robbers; singlepayer; socialism
These ideas sound too crazy for me.

But I am not a business owner, and I thought a single payer is the final goal. [In other words, eliminating competing private carriers.] And in the process, transfer an enormous amount of power to the bureaucratic government.

Anybody care to comment/rebut?

1 posted on 06/23/2011 1:08:56 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

The socialized medicine crowd is have an orgasm over the destruction of the private insurance market.


2 posted on 06/23/2011 1:10:10 PM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Single payer as I understand it means Government paid.

I would prefer all companies drop health insurance and let everyone buy their own policies.

Base the premiums on last years expenses, spread the risk over the entire pool.

That would open up so many new markets.

As it stands now, health insurance is a club that employers hold over peoples head.


3 posted on 06/23/2011 1:13:11 PM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

this was written by a man who has never had to line up to be seen by a govt-paid (govt owned) healthcare provider

It will be a nightmare, for many people

Some will die, some will see their family members die because govt bureaucrats with an eye on the budget (you think TSA is efficient and intelligent) will tell the doctor what he can and cannot do to treat them

The only appeal will be to your congressman, expect form letters about cost savings and efficiency


4 posted on 06/23/2011 1:14:55 PM PDT by silverleaf (All that is necessary for evil to succeed, is that good men do nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
we’d be talking about a “grand bargain” to shift health costs from private payrolls to public budgets as a way to boost business competitiveness and health security.

Doesn't sound constitutional to me. But I suppose not much is anymore.
5 posted on 06/23/2011 1:18:02 PM PDT by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
if some workers are offered subsidies to help them buy private coverage on their own.

Buying private coverage is not as easy or as cheap as a lot may think. I suspect younger workers would pocket the cash and hope they didn't need health coverage.

6 posted on 06/23/2011 1:21:47 PM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few and let another take his office. - Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
It would be a fantastic thing — not some calamity — if more people got coverage from the exchanges instead of from their employers. Yet both parties act as if it would be a disaster.

Translation: The transfer of wealth from those who earned it to those who didn't is almost complete!!! Yeah!!!

7 posted on 06/23/2011 1:23:18 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (If Sarah Palin really was unelectable, state-run media would be begging the GOP to nominate her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie
As it stands now, health insurance is a club that employers hold over peoples head.

How exactly do employers "hold that over" our heads?

Maybe it would be best if employees (and all people) had the options to pursue healthcare on our own. But smart employers have a vested interested in the well-being of their employees, especially if those employees truly are considered "assets" of the company.

I don't see how a company, protecting its interests, is "holding something over" the heads of its employees.

8 posted on 06/23/2011 1:23:40 PM PDT by Lou L (The Senate without a fillibuster is just a 100-member version of the House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie

So people that have long term illnesses will keep paying more and more each year? Do you know what the 6th or 7th year of cancer care would end up costing if it was based on the previous year?


9 posted on 06/23/2011 1:27:18 PM PDT by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lou L

To give you a big for instance, pre-existing conditions.

Say I work at XYZ and get diagnosed with something. I want to go to ABC but with this condition there WILL be problems.

Additionally, don’t for a minute think your employer doesn’t has full access to your health records.


10 posted on 06/23/2011 1:30:12 PM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

Pocket the cash? My company pays several hundred dollars per month to my health insurance, and if I opt-out they’ll give me $50. I’m guessing the health insurance is a big tax deduction for them, so I’d effectively be getting a raise if they just paid their share to me directly.


11 posted on 06/23/2011 1:30:42 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Nationalized medicine is the goal these people want and will get.


12 posted on 06/23/2011 1:31:48 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Still waiting for a relevant comment/rebuttal.

And we conservatives are supposed to be so much more rational and logical and perceptive than our liberal counterparts.

My idea is to make buying or selling health insurance a crime punishable by prison time.

In what way are the insurance companies, as they are organized today, much better than government agencies?

13 posted on 06/23/2011 1:31:57 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

It’s not based on an individual, you spread it over the whole insured population, or break it down into age groups to make it more affordable for younger people.

From the look of it the youngsters are going to take it in the butt for the next 50 or so years.


14 posted on 06/23/2011 1:33:03 PM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

I don’t like employers holding the health care strings, it’s got a socialist tinge to it....it should be an open market purchase - like car insurance.

In the recession there’s a lot of people hanging on with part time jobs or unemployed - you don’t qualify for employer subsidized insurance with that...the public ‘single payer’ programs are being screamed for more so because of it(people don’t have full time employment to subsidized insurance)....get this whole thing out into the open market.

What’s it now? Children up to 26yrs old on parents employer subsidized health insurance? If it was open market you’d pay for it straight, pick and choose your plan.


15 posted on 06/23/2011 1:33:03 PM PDT by libertarian27 (Ingsoc: Department of Life, Department of Liberty, Department of Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Dear Citizen, we regret to inform you that money is not available to fund the operation that your doctor requested in order to save your life.

Too bad, so sad, but you should have voted for me.

Buh-bye.

(signed) B. Obama, Emperor

16 posted on 06/23/2011 1:34:45 PM PDT by JPG (Hey, LSM, how are those emails workin' out for ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie
I would prefer all companies drop health insurance and let everyone buy their own policies.

I agree with this in principle. Individuals being responsible for their own health care costs would help bring the costs down. Unfortunately, in our current environment, individuals who lose coverage will eventually end up in a gov't paid system (if Obama gets his way). I don't know how things are in your state, but in mine people in group plans are the only ones guaranteed coverage. Everyone else is subject to the wims of the insurance companies. They can refuse to cover anyone who tries to get an individual plan.

As it stands now, health insurance is a club that employers hold over peoples head.

I really don't know what you're talking about here. Are you an employer? Most the employers I know feel compelled to offer insurance to their employees. Prior to this disastrous economy, if an employer didn't offer health insurance as part of a benefit package, attracting and retaining good employees was very difficult. Now that people are just happy to have a job, it's not quite so critical, but to say that employers use it as a club is incredibly naive. Referring back to my earlier statement about group plans, it sounds good in theory to say employers should drop their plans, but if they did, half their employees could not get coverage as individuals.

17 posted on 06/23/2011 1:44:17 PM PDT by Jess79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
because we’re not adding to health costs, we’re just moving them from one place to another.

The root fallacy of the entire liberal social agenda. This author thinks it doesn't affect the cost of something to move it from a competitive environment to an uncompetitive one.

18 posted on 06/23/2011 1:47:55 PM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

Also sounds like the younger workers can just go ahead and sign up when they start having outrageous medical expenses. I also think there is some economy of scale savings in employer group insurance plans, due to there is some administration done at the employer level, for enrollments and terminations, premium payments, if nothing else.


19 posted on 06/23/2011 1:51:51 PM PDT by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Details of McKinsey study expose Obamacare flimflam

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2738812/posts

Two weeks ago, the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. released a widely reported survey that said almost a third of private-sector employers reported they will drop their employee health insurance coverage when Obamacare’s government-managed insurance exchanges come online in 2014. The survey results exploded two major claims repeatedly made by Obama during and since the conclusion of the health care debate: “If you like your health plan, you can keep it” and “It will not add one penny to the deficit.”

McKinsey is having its day and answering Obama and Obamacare apologists by posting all 29 pages of the survey questions, as well as 206 pages of cross-tabulations. It turns out that some of the unreported responses in the survey are even more damaging to Obamacare than the original McKinsey report indicated. First, far from being based upon a skewed sample, as Krugman charged, the survey reached 1,329 employers from 48 states (only North Dakota and Vermont were missed) representing every industry category and all firm sizes. Second, the respondents were exactly the type of people that will be making employer health insurance benefit decisions come 2014. The top five job descriptions of respondents were: owner, head of human resources, head of procurement, chief executive officer/president, and vice president of compensation.

Contrary to White House claims, the cross-tabs show that the more these decision makers knew about Obamacare, the more likely they are to drop their employees’ health care plans. Among those most informed about how Obamacare would affect their business, 58 percent said they would either definitely or probably drop employee care. By contrast, only 16 percent of the best informed said they were planning on keeping their plans. Thirty percent were undecided.

These survey results mean Obamacare will be vastly more expensive than the Congressional Budget Office claimed. The CBO’s computer models calculated Obamacare’s costs on the assumption that only 7 percent of employers would drop their employee health plans. If the percentage is closer to the 30 percent, as the McKinsey survey results predict, Obamacare’s price tag would rise by almost $1 trillion. To put this in terms even an Obama White House staffer can understand, the McKinsey survey makes clear that Obamacare’s cost is unsustainable and the program should be repealed.


20 posted on 06/23/2011 1:53:13 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie
Say I work at XYZ and get diagnosed with something. I want to go to ABC but with this condition there WILL be problems.

As long as you don't have a break in credible coverage of more than 61 days, there are no penalties for pre-existing conditions.

21 posted on 06/23/2011 1:58:13 PM PDT by Jess79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jess79
Most the employers I know feel compelled to offer insurance to their employees

In Taxachusetts employers are forced to insure all full time employees under Romneycare - and it has to be full-blown coverage, kicking many lesser plans out of the state....this will happen with Obamacare.

Healthcare is a club held over employees heads too, forcing employees to go to screenings and self-help clinics and quit certain activities to (it is told) keep the rates stable, it doesn't but that's what is portrayed....employers act as an extra arm of the government.....for this year's example, initiating Michelle's "Let's Move" concept in the workplaces

If you could get cheap subsidized car insurance through your full time employer - with private insurance being prohibitively higher, we'd all be looking at Obamacarcare....and don't even think about not buckling up, you could be fired.

Employers are refusing to hire and are firing smokers (even if they only smoke at home) because of perceived higher health care costs to the employer...if it was car care you could get fired for speeding on your own personal time.

22 posted on 06/23/2011 1:59:45 PM PDT by libertarian27 (Ingsoc: Department of Life, Department of Liberty, Department of Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Shoulda woulda coulda becomes can will must.

It’s the should do/must do distinction.

Undesirables will die waiting on ER floors.


23 posted on 06/23/2011 2:01:00 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Socialism always sounds good on paper.


24 posted on 06/23/2011 2:09:13 PM PDT by Jonty30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

My guess is if most workers in the USA did not depend on employer provided health care that we would once again become a nation of entrepreneurs. Most simply can’t afford to take a chance leaving an existing job and a health care plan that already covers what a new plan would consider preexisting conditions to pursue an entrepreneurial dream, especially if they have family. Average dependent workers are like a dog on a leash, and our country is becoming a corporatist mindset nation, instead of one that is entrepreneurial and free thinking at heart. Health care is a big problem and reason.


25 posted on 06/23/2011 2:21:26 PM PDT by apoliticalone (Honest govt. that operates in the interest of US sovereignty and the people, not global $$$)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jess79

They feel compelled because that was the paradigm.

We need a definite shift in that.


26 posted on 06/23/2011 2:23:23 PM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

There is no requirement to have health insurance. As individuals, our goal should be to become self-insured.


27 posted on 06/23/2011 2:45:20 PM PDT by Terabitten ("Don't retreat. RELOAD!!" -Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Employer supplied health insurance is/was compensation.
It should be (should have been) taxed as compensation.

The system that is going into place addresses NONE of the problems of the one it is replacing. And I am one who thinks the old system was dysfunctional and needed reform. The reform that was needed was COMPETITION.

Now all we are doing is shifting 50 state run monopolies into one humongous Federal run monopoly.


28 posted on 06/23/2011 2:56:49 PM PDT by Lorianne (o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Employer supplied health insurance is/was compensation.
It should be (should have been) taxed as compensation.

The system that is going into place addresses NONE of the problems of the one it is replacing. And I am one who thinks the old system was dysfunctional and needed reform. The reform that was needed was COMPETITION.

Now all we are doing is shifting 50 state run monopolies into one humongous Federal run monopoly.


29 posted on 06/23/2011 2:57:08 PM PDT by Lorianne (o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Take it away from Employers,allow Insurance companies to compete across state Lines ,encourage the Use of Health Savings accounts,allow Individuals to contract with Private doctors, Hospitals,Directly. Keep the Government out of it as much as possible


30 posted on 06/23/2011 2:57:57 PM PDT by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten
There is no requirement to have health insurance.

There is in Massachusetts - we got Romneycare - yippee/sarc...if you don't have insurance you are yearly heavily fined that you must pay so you get further away from affording health insurance

As individuals, our goal should be to become self-insured.

Absolutely, the problem with the current system(IMHO) is that employer subsidized insurance keeps costs high, a private policy in MA is expensive and very limited variety - Romneycare is too intrusive and so will Obamacare when it gets really rolling.

31 posted on 06/23/2011 3:04:44 PM PDT by libertarian27 (Ingsoc: Department of Life, Department of Liberty, Department of Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

Health insurance companies are heavily regulated (currently by the individual states). The states limits the number of companies who can sell insurance in the state, what they can charge, what they must cover, co-pays .... everything basically.

So in essense, THEY ARE, government agencies.

The only difference is the selected few insurance companies can lobby state legislators to up premiums, lower coverage, etc. And they know their competition will get the same rules ... so, no real competition.

It’s a price-fixing racket. If anyone else ran a racket like this they would be prosecuted under RICO laws.

If insurance companies had REAL competition, costs of insurance (and subsequentel cost of care) would go down.
However, that options has been off the table for decades.


32 posted on 06/23/2011 3:07:10 PM PDT by Lorianne (o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ballplayer

Exactly
In other words, it will never happen.


33 posted on 06/23/2011 3:08:20 PM PDT by Lorianne (o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Let’s just dump this government instead!


34 posted on 06/23/2011 3:51:07 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

Oh come on. I have a Business. Do you think we pay business taxes. NO,No and NO. We are broke at the end of each year. We pay out all profits to the owners. Do you think I would rather have the 14,000 we pay per month for health insurance or a tax deduction. DUH!!!!!!


35 posted on 06/23/2011 5:17:17 PM PDT by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie

True. But the reality of our current situation is what it is, and the government is a big part of the problem. Providing tax incentives to employers to provide health insurance to their employees started it. The rules states inact to protect group insurance at the expense of private insurance don’t help.


36 posted on 06/23/2011 8:31:30 PM PDT by Jess79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie
I'm not sure I understand you.

You work for one company, but want to work for another, but the other company won't hire you because of pre-existing conditions?

I guess the details matter here, but if you have the skills that other company needs, why wouldn't they hire you? Does your pre-existing condition prevent you from doing your job? How does any of this mean your employer is holding your health "over your head?"

37 posted on 06/24/2011 5:32:43 AM PDT by Lou L (The Senate without a fillibuster is just a 100-member version of the House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lou L

A company, especially self insured may look at a candidate with an expensive health condition prior to hiring.

I for one can’t say I’d blame them.


38 posted on 06/24/2011 8:20:59 AM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie
As it stands now, health insurance is a club that employers hold over peoples head.

This bears repeating. What we have now is not an open health insurance market, it is a farce, and because of that, we are going to be foist something even worse.

39 posted on 03/14/2012 2:09:32 PM PDT by Paradox (I want Obama defeated. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson