Employers Could Save MILLIONS!!

[auditor0007]

I apologize if this has already been posted, i didn't find it.

Just found this on Yahoo News...again, a lie from our great leaders again??

A new survey of Fortune 100 companies finds that the health care overhaul, contrary to the claims of its authors, created some perverse incentives for employers to drop workers from company insurance plans.

If the companies indeed take this step, the move would fly in the face of pledges by the law's backers, including President Obama, that U.S. workers would not lose their employer-provided health plans.

Employers could save billions by dropping workers from health plans, report shows | Fox News

Of course companies don't need the healthcare law to drop coverage on employees to save money. This has already been happening due to the increased costs. Some companies just cannot afford it period anymore. But I'm sure it's the healthcare legislation that will cause employers to drop coverage.

 

[Caroljo]

I apologize if this has already been posted, i didn't find it.

Just found this on Yahoo News...again, a lie from our great leaders again??

A new survey of Fortune 100 companies finds that the health care overhaul, contrary to the claims of its authors, created some perverse incentives for employers to drop workers from company insurance plans.

If the companies indeed take this step, the move would fly in the face of pledges by the law's backers, including President Obama, that U.S. workers would not lose their employer-provided health plans.

Employers could save billions by dropping workers from health plans, report shows | Fox News

Of course companies don't need the healthcare law to drop coverage on employees to save money. This has already been happening due to the increased costs. Some companies just cannot afford it period anymore. But I'm sure it's the healthcare legislation that will cause employers to drop coverage.

Of course they don't need it...BUT, they said it gives employers PERVERSE INCENTIVES to do it. The employers know we will still have insurance, although it would be pretty crappy insurance....so why wouldn't they want to drop everyone and SAVE money?

 

[jillian]

I apologize if this has already been posted, i didn't find it.

Just found this on Yahoo News...again, a lie from our great leaders again??

A new survey of Fortune 100 companies finds that the health care overhaul, contrary to the claims of its authors, created some perverse incentives for employers to drop workers from company insurance plans.

If the companies indeed take this step, the move would fly in the face of pledges by the law's backers, including President Obama, that U.S. workers would not lose their employer-provided health plans.

Employers could save billions by dropping workers from health plans, report shows | Fox News

well, if fauxnews says it, it must be true.

 

[Douger]

At least someone has it covered.
Walgreens,Chileans Have Another Health Care Option While in the US - Hispanically Speaking News

 

[Conservative]

You do realize that before Obamacare corporations could drop your health coverage without paying a penalty at all. Meaning due to obamacare less corporations will drop your coverage because then they have to pay. Odd isn't it taht reltiy is always the oppposite of what right-wigners say

you truly are a dumbass. Corporations included insurance coverage initially to entice higher quality workers. THAT was their incentive to include it.

Now, under Obamacare, they can save billions by dropping it, their employees would be forced into the exchanges, thus still having insurance (although it would be insurance they do not want and will not be satisfied with). The SAVING BILLIONS is their incentive to drop it. Since they already HAVE the qualified employees they wanted, dropping the coverage is a win/win for employers and a lose lose for employees.

dumbass.

but with the high joblessness the corpies do not have to have health ins to attract/retain employees...

of course they do.

 

[Conservative]

I apologize if this has already been posted, i didn't find it.

Just found this on Yahoo News...again, a lie from our great leaders again??

A new survey of Fortune 100 companies finds that the health care overhaul, contrary to the claims of its authors, created some perverse incentives for employers to drop workers from company insurance plans.

If the companies indeed take this step, the move would fly in the face of pledges by the law's backers, including President Obama, that U.S. workers would not lose their employer-provided health plans.

Employers could save billions by dropping workers from health plans, report shows | Fox News

well, if fauxnews says it, it must be true.

you must have missed the part of the article where it shows who actually did the survey.

Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee surveyed the top 100 companies...

 

[Greenbeard]

you truly are a dumbass. Corporations included insurance coverage initially to entice higher quality workers. THAT was their incentive to include it.

Now, under Obamacare, they can save billions by dropping it, their employees would be forced into the exchanges, thus still having insurance (although it would be insurance they do not want and will not be satisfied with). The SAVING BILLIONS is their incentive to drop it. Since they already HAVE the qualified employees they wanted, dropping the coverage is a win/win for employers and a lose lose for employees.

Your argument makes no sense. Health insurance benefits "entice" workers because workers want it (indeed, they'll want it even more in 2014 when they're penalized for not having it); that is, health benefits are more appealing than equivalent wages. If you believe that exchange coverage in particular is something they "do not want and will not be satisfied with" then that means under the ACA workers will want employer-sponsored coverage even more. It would become a larger enticement, not a smaller one.

Moreover, obviously any company can save money by slashing compensation. They could cut wages, eliminate retirement contributions, whatever. It only "saves money" as long as you forget that compensation itself is what's used to "entice higher quality workers." Eliminating health benefits without giving employees an equivalent wage increase (which then becomes more expensive than the old compensation package for two reasons: 1) a dollar of health benefits > one dollar of wages from the employee's point of view for tax reasons and thus requires a larger wage increase to replace it, and 2) in 2014, for the first time in history, there will be penalties for dropping coverage) is simply a pay cut.

Is it breaking news that giving all of his employees a pay cut would save an employer money? Surprisingly yes, it seems to be.

Of course companies don't need the healthcare law to drop coverage on employees to save money. This has already been happening due to the increased costs. Some companies just cannot afford it period anymore. But I'm sure it's the healthcare legislation that will cause employers to drop coverage.

Fun fact: between 2001 and 2009 the percentage of American employers offering health insurance fell from 68% to 60%. Over the same interval, the percentage of Massachusetts (which enacted a weaker, though slightly more expansive employer mandate than the ACA in 2006) employers offering health insurance grew from 69% to 76%.

 

[Conservative]

you truly are a dumbass. Corporations included insurance coverage initially to entice higher quality workers. THAT was their incentive to include it.

Now, under Obamacare, they can save billions by dropping it, their employees would be forced into the exchanges, thus still having insurance (although it would be insurance they do not want and will not be satisfied with). The SAVING BILLIONS is their incentive to drop it. Since they already HAVE the qualified employees they wanted, dropping the coverage is a win/win for employers and a lose lose for employees.

Your argument makes no sense. Health insurance benefits "entice" workers because workers want it (indeed, they'll want it even more in 2014 when they're penalized for not having it); that is, health benefits are more appealing than equivalent wages. If you believe that exchange coverage in particular is something they "do not want and will not be satisfied with" then that means under the ACA workers will want employer-sponsored coverage even more. It would become a larger enticement, not a smaller one.

Moreover, obviously any company can save money by slashing compensation. They could cut wages, eliminate retirement contributions, whatever. It only "saves money" as long as you forget that compensation itself is what's used to "entice higher quality workers." Eliminating health benefits without giving employees an equivalent wage increase (which then becomes more expensive than the old compensation package for two reasons: 1) a dollar of health benefits > one dollar of wages from the employee's point of view for tax reasons and thus requires a larger wage increase to replace it, and 2) in 2014, for the first time in history, there will be penalties for dropping coverage) is simply a pay cut.

Is it breaking news that giving all of his employees a pay cut would save an employer money? Surprisingly yes, it seems to be.

Of course companies don't need the healthcare law to drop coverage on employees to save money. This has already been happening due to the increased costs. Some companies just cannot afford it period anymore. But I'm sure it's the healthcare legislation that will cause employers to drop coverage.

Fun fact: between 2001 and 2009 the percentage of American employers offering health insurance fell from 68% to 60%. Over the same interval, the percentage of Massachusetts (which enacted a weaker, though slightly more expansive employer mandate than the ACA in 2006) employers offering health insurance grew from 69% to 76%.

larger enticement to the workers, but the issue is the enticement to the employers to drop the coverage.

Your simplistic view is... simplistic.

 

[Greenbeard]

larger enticement to the workers

Yeah. The reason you just gave for employers offering insurance in the first place.

"Corporations included insurance coverage initially to entice higher quality workers. THAT was their incentive to include it."

 

[Conservative]

larger enticement to the workers

Yeah. The reason you just gave for employers offering insurance in the first place.

"Corporations included insurance coverage initially to entice higher quality workers. THAT was their incentive to include it."

and they now have a GREATER incentive to drop it, while still keeping the workers they already have. How fucking stupid ARE you?

 

[Greenbeard]

and they now have a GREATER incentive to drop it, while still keeping the workers they already have.

Under your argument, no they don't. According to your argument, they have less incentive to drop it now than before. It's a bit absurd that I have to repeat your own argument back to you to help you understand it but here you go:

1) Employers offer coverage because potential employees want it. By offering something in high demand among potential recruits, they can attract talent. Or, as you put it: "Corporations included insurance coverage initially to entice higher quality workers. THAT was their incentive to include it. "

2) Under the ACA, employees will want employer-sponsored coverage even more than they do now. According to you, the alternative to employer-sponsored coverage under the ACA is "insurance they do not want and will not be satisfied with." That means employer-sponsored coverage becomes an even more potent tool for attracting talent. And, on the flip side, dropping coverage becomes an even better way to encourage the defection to your competitors of talent you already have and are trying to retain.

 

[Meister]

and they now have a GREATER incentive to drop it, while still keeping the workers they already have.

Under your argument, no they don't. According to your argument, they have less incentive to drop it now than before. It's a bit absurd that I have to repeat your own argument back to you to help you understand it but here you go:

1) Employers offer coverage because potential employees want it. By offering something in high demand among potential recruits, they can attract talent. Or, as you put it: "Corporations included insurance coverage initially to entice higher quality workers. THAT was their incentive to include it. "

2) Under the ACA, employees will want employer-sponsored coverage even more than they do now. According to you, the alternative to employer-sponsored coverage under the ACA is "insurance they do not want and will not be satisfied with." That means employer-sponsored coverage becomes an even more potent tool for attracting talent. And, on the flip side, dropping coverage becomes an even better way to encourage the defection to your competitors of talent you already have and are trying to retain.

Obama knew exactly what he was saying when he sold it. I will always remember Pelosi's words, that "we have to pass it to see what's in it". Now the truth's are coming out, and we probably won't be able to keep our dr.'s and healthcare that we now have.

 

[Conservative]

and they now have a GREATER incentive to drop it, while still keeping the workers they already have.

Under your argument, no they don't. According to your argument, they have less incentive to drop it now than before. It's a bit absurd that I have to repeat your own argument back to you to help you understand it but here you go:

1) Employers offer coverage because potential employees want it. By offering something in high demand among potential recruits, they can attract talent. Or, as you put it: "Corporations included insurance coverage initially to entice higher quality workers. THAT was their incentive to include it. "

2) Under the ACA, employees will want employer-sponsored coverage even more than they do now. According to you, the alternative to employer-sponsored coverage under the ACA is "insurance they do not want and will not be satisfied with." That means employer-sponsored coverage becomes an even more potent tool for attracting talent. And, on the flip side, dropping coverage becomes an even better way to encourage the defection to your competitors of talent you already have and are trying to retain.

Point 1: OFFERED.. past tense. In the current economy, with unemployment where it is and employers NOT HIRING, past tense is the operative phrase.

Point 2: CURRENT EMPLOYEES, already brought into a company when health insurance was offered, want to keep what they have. Dropping coverage will NOT entice employees to 'defect', because there is nothing to defect TO in the current economy!