Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Report: O-Care to save large corporations hundreds of billions
thehill.com ^ | may 1, 2014 | Ferdous Al-Faruque 

Posted on 05/02/2014 4:55:16 AM PDT by lowbridge

The Affordable Care Act could save some of America’s largest corporations hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade, according to a market analyst group.

According to a report by S&P Capital IQ released Thursday, S&P 500 companies will likely move their employees from employer-provided health insurance plans to the healthcare exchanges under the Affordable Care Act, saving employers nearly $700 billion through the year 2025. If current healthcare inflation stays constant, those savings could be greater than $800 billion, researchers found.

Corporations are expected to start out by dropping low-wage and part-time workers from their employer insurance plans since they are able to reap the benefits of government tax subsidies under ObamaCare, leading them to pick up new plans under the healthcare law. Eventually, the burden of healthcare coverage will shift from employers to employees.

“Neither lawmakers nor the White House originally anticipated the idea that the ACA could provide corporations with an enormous subsidy to earnings,” say authors of the report. “However, once a few notable companies start to depart from their traditional approach to health care benefits, it's likely that a substantial number of firms could quickly follow suit.”

As some Republicans have softened their tone on repealing the new healthcare law before the November elections, authors of the report say the political battle may shift to try fix it by making it more market-oriented, increasing coverage options and updating federal regulations.

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


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: obamacare

1 posted on 05/02/2014 4:55:16 AM PDT by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

This is utter nonsense, but exactly the reason
the backstabber RAT Willard Romney imposed RomneyCARE,
to throw workers costs ..... onto the taxpayer.


2 posted on 05/02/2014 4:58:37 AM PDT by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Yep. Welfare for the biggest businesses. And people wonder why big corporations backed ZEro.


3 posted on 05/02/2014 4:58:43 AM PDT by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

This is just another way of saying Ocare will end up costing employees hundred of billions of additional dollars.


4 posted on 05/02/2014 5:02:05 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
Neither lawmakers nor the White House originally anticipated the idea that the ACA could provide corporations with an enormous subsidy to earnings,” say authors of the report.

Really? They didn't anticipate that companies would see an opportunity to shift tremendous expenses from their backs?

5 posted on 05/02/2014 5:02:35 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Effective pay cuts coming....


6 posted on 05/02/2014 5:02:55 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS
It's not "welfare" for large businesses at all. Giving them an outlet to eliminate a cost that they were never obligated to incur in the first place isn't a bad thing.

As I said all the way back in 2010 ... The Republican Party will never repeal ObamaCare because the whole purpose of it is to get employers out of the business of providing medical insurance for their employees. Everyone in Washington is on the same page on this one, despite the political grandstanding going on.

7 posted on 05/02/2014 5:05:27 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
Report: O-Care to save cost employees of large corporations hundreds of billions
8 posted on 05/02/2014 5:06:19 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Republican amnesty supporters don't care whether their own homes are called mansions or haciendas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

“Transfer costs” would be more accurate than “save.”


9 posted on 05/02/2014 5:07:20 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
Corporations are expected to start out by dropping low-wage and part-time workers from their employer insurance plans since they are able to reap the benefits of government tax subsidies under ObamaCare, leading them to pick up new plans under the healthcare law. Eventually, the burden of healthcare coverage will shift from employers to employees.

and before long American taxpayers.....wonder who most of these low-wage/part-time workers who'll watch their costs rise voted for the past two presidential election??

 

10 posted on 05/02/2014 5:08:55 AM PDT by God luvs America (63.5 million pay no income tax and vote for DemoKrats...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

“Neither lawmakers nor the White House originally anticipated the idea that the ACA could provide corporations with an enormous subsidy to earnings,” say authors of the report.”

“Really? They didn’t anticipate that companies would see an opportunity to shift tremendous expenses from their backs? “

you said it before I had a chance to. they must think we are friggin retards.


11 posted on 05/02/2014 5:09:28 AM PDT by willywill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Refusing to actually provide medical care can “save” Billions of dollars at the expense of Millions of lives!

An insurance card is NOT “healthcare”!!!


12 posted on 05/02/2014 5:13:30 AM PDT by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Exactly.....during our company’s Open Enrollment last year it became obvious that:
1) The govermnent wants to run healthcare
and
2)Large companies are very willing to hand it over to the government because it’s expensive, time consuming and complicated to manage

Not surprising....unfortunately


13 posted on 05/02/2014 5:14:40 AM PDT by rights with responsibilities
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

The cost is being shifted to the biggest business of all, Gov Inc.


14 posted on 05/02/2014 5:15:43 AM PDT by Flick Lives ("I can't believe it's not Fascism!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rights with responsibilities
Don't blame the companies for that. I think most companies would prefer to hand it over to the workers, not the government.

It's the citizen/worker with no sense of independence and liberty who wants the government to take it over. I suspect most companies don't give a damn one way or another.

15 posted on 05/02/2014 5:18:03 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Some employees will think it’s a good deal, the employer will give them the money for their part of the insurance, and the federal government picks up the rest of the tab.

But when they get older and ready to retire, their pension won’t include insurance that picks up what Medicare don’t cover, and their premiums will skyrocket.

Retire early? Forget about that, you’ll have no insurance.

Young singles and childless couples hardest hit.

How’s the Hopey Changey thing workin’ out for ya?


16 posted on 05/02/2014 5:22:56 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

FINALLY. The real reason we have Obamacare and why the Pubbies say it is here to stay. Those Cray computers had this thing figured out during the Clinton Administration.


17 posted on 05/02/2014 5:26:50 AM PDT by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

So what? Once Jeb Bush is elected president he’s going to work with Mitch McConnell to repeal the entire thing! /s


18 posted on 05/02/2014 5:43:29 AM PDT by Junk Silver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

>>It’s not “welfare” for large businesses at all. Giving them an outlet to eliminate a cost that they were never obligated to incur in the first place isn’t a bad thing.

That “employer-paid” healthcare is a part of a worker’s compensation package, just like the cost of vacation and the actual cost of wages. When an employer is deciding how much to pay an employee, they look at the total cost and not just the salary.

So, if a worker makes $30/hr and another $15/hr in benefits, the total cost (and total compensation) is $45/hr. Giving businesses a way to shift $13/hr of that “cost” is another way of saying that they are cutting the compensation by $13/hr. Will they give that $13/hr to the employee to maintain the level of his compensation (since I doubt his work load will be reduced) or pocket it as profits? We all know the answer to that.

This was a brilliant move by the Progressives, knowing that the greed of the corporations will cause millions of loyal Conservatives to have their compensation cut by 20% or more, and then those workers will decide that they have to vote with the Progs so they can get some of that lost compensation back from the government in the form of subsidies.

It will be the destruction of the petit bourgeois (i.e. working middle class) that Marx says must be done to create the proper split between the labor class and the capital class.


19 posted on 05/02/2014 6:43:40 AM PDT by Bryanw92 (Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Some employees will think it’s a good deal, the employer will give them the money for their part of the insurance, and the federal government picks up the rest of the tab.

This just happened to a friend of ours. He is retired but his wife is still working and her employer gives X amount of $ to her to help with health insurance. They had a castastrophic plan that cost $367 ( or thereabouts) a month. Got cancelled under Obamacare. Every policy they checked was waaaaaay expensive. They finally used CoveredCa to get an $1100 a mnth policy that costs them almost $400 amnth after subsidies. Their coverage for the new Obamacare policy is less than their catastrophic policy and costs almost triple the price without subsidies!!!


20 posted on 05/02/2014 6:47:17 AM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: willywill

Well, it doesn’t surprise me, as I know the press and driveby media talking heads are “friggin retards”.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all to hear they actually believe whatever the Magic Negro tells them.

I teach at a big university down South. It still amazes me how dumb journalism students are and how unmotivated they are to learning. It is 24/7 partying for most of them. Luckily, as a Computer Scientist, very few if any take my courses!


21 posted on 05/02/2014 6:52:03 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I knew it was inevitable. Think about how much time, money, and resources companies devote to managing employees’ health insurance, rather than their core business.


22 posted on 05/02/2014 6:53:55 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sheana

Wait until she retires, their costs will skyrocket.


23 posted on 05/02/2014 7:06:54 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

I know. Hubby and I are both retired and have been paying for our own health insurance for over 9 years. If we had the money keeping that insurance had cost us........


24 posted on 05/02/2014 7:16:49 AM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

“S&P 500 companies will likely move their employees from employer-provided health insurance plans to the healthcare exchanges under the Affordable Care Act,”

My employer will not “move me onto the exchange.” They may drop my current employer provided health insurance, but I will not join the exchange.


25 posted on 05/02/2014 7:29:44 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

And w the paycuts, a Great Depression.


26 posted on 05/02/2014 7:30:44 AM PDT by DownInFlames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LS
And continue to punish and wipe out,[by design] small business.
27 posted on 05/02/2014 9:58:16 AM PDT by cowboyusa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

How can that be, since it will be repealed?


28 posted on 05/02/2014 10:11:15 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92
Don't be so sure that employers are interested only in reducing the compensation. There's a lot more to it than that.

As an employer, if I'm paying an employee $30/hour in direct wages and I'm picking up the cost of a medical insurance policy that translates to around $5/hour for him, it's true that I am effectively paying him $35/hour (let's leave aside any other benefits he may be receiving). But that doesn't mean I'm going to go to great lengths to look for opportunities to eliminate that medical plan just to save $5/hour in costs. Think of it this way:

1. If I'm looking to save $5/hour in labor costs with this employee, it might be easier to just reduce the direct salary to $25/hour either by cutting his pay or (more likely) by hiring someone else to do the same job for less money.

2. It costs more than $5/hour to pay for an insurance plan that translates to a $5/hour cost for this employee. There's an administrative side of this that costs money and is increasingly bureaucratic, legalistic and complex. To be frank with you, it is an enormous pain in the @ss. I'm not in the health care business ... I'm in the business of selling Product X or Service Y. And yes, I'd be perfectly fine just paying the employee $35/hour and letting him deal with his insurance needs on his own. Getting involved in health care for my employees isn't much different than negotiating with their landlords or mortgage lenders, or attending parent-teacher conferences for their children. Did I mention that it's an enormous pain in the @ss?

29 posted on 05/02/2014 5:09:54 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Exactly. See my previous post just above this one.


30 posted on 05/02/2014 5:13:07 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

The only reason that employers got involved in health insurance in the first place, was as a workaround for wage controls.


31 posted on 05/02/2014 5:16:39 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Right. But the U.S. tax code also provides an incentive for it by making it a tax-deductible expense for employers. If my employer buys a life insurance policy for me, I have to report the premiums as income. But if my employer covers my medical insurance costs, it’s tax-deductible to the employer as a “business expense” and I don’t have to report it on my own tax return.


32 posted on 05/02/2014 5:25:42 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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