Survey: Employers consider ending health coverage

AP via WCPO ^ | 8/24/2011 | TOM MURPHY

[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.

[Myrddin]

BTW, my spouse and kids ALWAYS cost extra on my plan. We have always had an employee only, employee + spouse and employee + spouse + kids plans. My wife wants me to bump the Flex Spend account from $50/paycheck ($1200/annual) to $100/paycheck to cover the larger deductibles and poorer prescription benefits.

[longtermmemmory]

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.

[Lou L]

The cost for the company will be cheaper than having employer funded health care.

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.

[Scotsman will be Free]

The govt wants the fines, etc. Healthcare for all is a smokescreen.

[Vigilanteman]

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.

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 >

[Prince of Space]

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

[Mike Darancette]

Heck, they can’t turn anyone away for pre-existing conditions, so why buy ahead of time?

There will be enrollment periods like Medicare.

[Myrddin]

My employer is a bit larger. 45,000 employees. $15 billion in annual gross revenues. I don't use the coverage much, so it is hard to say how "good" it is. I'm turning 55 on Friday. Thus far, no health problems that require any ongoing care.

[maine-iac7]

"The govt wants the fines, etc. Healthcare for all is a smokescreen.

" "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!

[businessprofessor]

Having "catastrophic" coverage as "primary" is a non-starter.

Why is a major medical plan along with an HSA a non starter? My family is covered by a similar plan. My monthly premium ($50) is low. After $3,000 of expenses, the plan covers 85% of the next $3,000. At $6,000 in expenses, I no longer have any required payments. The list of preferred providers is very large. The other plan required a monthly premium of $300 with a very poor choice of doctors.

[Myrddin]

It's a non-starter because Aetna won't pay a dime until the "primary" insurance pays. The "catastrophic" plan won't pay a dime until I cough up the huge minimum expenses. I'm already coughing up $600/monthly for the Aetna coverage. I won't give them an excuse to blow me off because my wife has the "catastrophic" plan as primary. Better to dump it.

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.

[redgolum]

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.