Skip to comments.Survey: Employers consider ending health coverage
Posted on 08/24/2011 10:39:41 AM PDT by TSgt
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - Nearly one of every 10 midsized or big employers expects to stop offering health coverage to workers once federal insurance exchanges start in 2014, according to a new survey from a large benefits consultant.
Towers Watson also found in a survey completed last month that an additional 20 percent of the companies are unsure about what they will do.
Another big benefits consultant, Mercer, found in a June survey of large and smaller employers that 8 percent are either "likely" or "very likely" to end health benefits once the exchanges start.
Employer-sponsored health insurance has long been the backbone of the nation's health insurance system. But the studies suggest that some employers, especially retailers or those offering low wages, feel they will be better off paying fines and taxes than continuing to provide benefits that eat up a growing portion of their budget every year.
(Excerpt) Read more at wcpo.com ...
if anywhere these numbers take this path, the rest will follow suit, they will in order to compete.
This was Barry’s plan from the beginning. We’ll get single payer, government health care by default.
It was the plan all along.
Many companies wanted Obamacare. Many want socialized medicine. Why? The cost for the company will be cheaper than having employer funded health care.
1. the bill as it is will be amended a great deal with regards to the exchanges.
2. 2014 is a ridiculous implementation date, and everyone knows it. It won’t happen.
3. If/when it does happen to whatever degree, yes, many small employers will stop offering health bens and send their EE’s to exchanges.
4. The exchanges will suck balls, there will be awful servicing of their claims and administration and EE’s will revolt.
5. companies will out-compete their exchange-only competitors by offering medical insurance and it will swing back.
The silver lining in all this is that over the next year or so, the average Joe’s will come to realize that the private insurers aren’t this issue at all (nor brokers, nor lawyers) but the pure and simple cost of healthcare. This bill does not address that at all. All hell will break loose and at some point, the true cost of healthCARE will be addressed and then - only then - will we get a break.
The cost TODAY will be less than buying insurance. The cost TOMORROW will likely eat up any savings.
Employers will see a dramatic increase in the “fines” and penalties imposed. Somebody has to pay for Obamacare - it isn’t going to be those who are forced to buy insurance with it’s 2000 to 4000 deductible. Who can afford that? On top of the 400 per month deductible you get stuck with a 400 dollar per month premium for a single person.
The logic just escapes me - if someone can’t afford to buy health insurance today what makes lawmakers believe that they can afford to pay a huge deductible? Many will just continue to go to the ER, run up a big bill, and walk away from it.
This obamanation has to go away!
Sarah was Right ping
As an insurance agent.
Unexpectedly, of course...
“The logic just escapes me - if someone cant afford to buy health insurance today what makes lawmakers believe that they can afford to pay a huge deductible?”
Everybody will be able to. We just have to not purchase the insurance and pay the premium. Then when we get sick, we go buy the coverage and pay the deductible. Overall, that will be a savings. Heck, they can’t turn anyone away for pre-existing conditions, so why buy ahead of time?
I don’t think an individual’s health care coverage should have anything to do with one’s employer, in the first place.
Additionally, the highly touted “group rates”, just means unfairly higher costs for healthy individuals.
this is the ugly secret of obamacare. The businesses have WANTED THIS FROM DAY ONE in order to screw the taxpayer with these bills.
ObamaCare was DESIGNED to do this.
My wife called with the news. I discovered that my own coverage ($600/month payroll deduction) with a FlexSpend account made her ineligible for the HSA offered. Further, since her birthday falls in July and mine in August, her coverage had always been "primary". Having "catastrophic" coverage as "primary" is a non-starter. The only reasonable option was for my wife to decline the employer provided coverage. That represents a huge cut in her compensation, but what is offered is completely unacceptable.
I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. My company does the annual healthcare sign up in November. I'll find out if we're screwed on my coverage too.
To be honest though, we have socialized medicine now. Only the businesses pay for it.
One of the managers at my current job said they would be willing to hirer more older workers if they didn’t have to pay health care. I know how much our current employees cost, many over 50, and I can understand why that would be.
I’d like to but my wife is so insistent on it. I really can’t afford to go to a doctor for anything anyways.
I just found out today, that my company will now charge extra for having my spouse on my health plan, because she is eligible for coverage at her company. And the only plans they’ll offer are the high-deductible ones. I can definitely see where it’s going, I expect by 2014, it will be all gone.
post civil war, angry slave owners vowed to employ their former slaves at the same expense as the cost of a slave.
This is where they made onerous contracts where they charged the former slave for everything to the point of paying them virtually nothing.
Obamacare is the company store and the crony capitalists are making the slaves (the citizens) pay for food at the company store.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. In the long run, the overall quality of healthcare will suffer under Obamacare. It will take longer to get routine treatment; usual illnesses will be prolonged; perhaps the number of employee-hours to seek and receive treatment at all will increase.
In companies where employees can be easily replaced, this may not be a big issue. In companies that hire skilled professionals, they won't be able to be competitive, knowing that employee "healthcare time" out of office could significantly increase.
The govt wants the fines, etc. Healthcare for all is a smokescreen.
But illegal aliens and uninsurable druggies will have greater access than they do now. Some have to suffer for the common good and some people are more equal than others. < / sarcasm >
Is that with Ameriben? They are based in Idaho. Hubby works for a 5000+ company that is self-insured with Aetna/Ameriben, and I hope they continue to offer coverage. It’s not perfect but it sure beats the alternative.
Mrs. Prince of Space
There will be enrollment periods like Medicare.
" "Health" care is the smokescreen. While everyones attention is misdirected to 'health care' - they are not doing due diligent research of those 3000+ pages - WHICH INCLUDES
Total rule over every aspect of our lives.
And, in case they missed something, there's an 'open-end' clause in there that allows the sec. to add anything else at any time.
read my tag line. With this dog and pony show regime - you have ALWAYS got to!
It doesn't matter what plan I have in Idaho. The list of providers is small. I don't need the extra aggravation of fighting over a stupid administrative policy.
You may be correct, and I suspect you are. But that is not what the HR guru’s are saying. They also view it as a plus, since then there would be no competition for benefits.
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.