Benefit of Single Payer that is not often discussed.

[LuckyCharms]

Many people don't realize that while they usually see a large deduction from their gross pay for health insurance in their check stub, their employer is also bearing the burden of that cost.

Depending on the risk pool that an employer's medical insurance company places the employees of the insured company in, the employee premiums can be tremendously high. The employer usually shares the cost of the premium. I have generally seen a 50/50 share.

Single payer has the potential of eliminating both the employer's and employee's share of the premium. The employer would incur zero premium cost, and while the employee would incur some type of "tax" deduction which contributes to the single payer system, it would not approach the premiums previously deducted from his or her paycheck because the employee is now contributing to a pool where risk is diversified over a large percentage of the US population, and not the much smaller base of the employees working for their particular company.

The benefits to the employee in this case are obvious. But the benefits of single payer to the employer are hardly ever discussed. The employer no longer pays 50% of their employee's medical insurance premiums. This substantial cost is no longer a hindrance to the bottom line. A significant amount of cashflow is freed up. Profits improve, and therefore, stock prices improve for public companies. Private companies are benefited in the same manor by an improved net income. More employees can be hired, more profit can be taken by owners, businesses can be expanded, quality employees can be retained by giving them more frequent raises, and these employees then in turn pump more money into the economy, etc.

[wcmagumba]

1. and bad employers might be forced to improve...

their own work environments as employees are no longer "trapped"
at a crap job to retain some sort of health insurance for themselves
and their families...

[LuckyCharms]

2. Yes, good point. n/t

[Sherman A1]

3. I for one have never understood why large corporations are not

screaming at the top of their lungs to move to single payer and get that cost off their balance sheets. Never made any sense to me. Certainly taxes would go up in some way to pay for it, but in the long run it eliminates lots of labor dedicated to working on finding and maintaining health plans and the costs of providing them as a benefit to their work force.

[LuckyCharms]

4. I don't understand it either.

I think the employer benefits of single payer need to be talked about over and over until some light bulbs start turning on. It's a strong selling point.

[Sherman A1]

5. Agreed

I believe that you are correct.

[safeinOhio]

14. Big 3 lost a lot of plants to Canada

because of health cost, even with other higher taxes.

[riverine]

7. Because it is just payroll to employers.

When the bean counters forecast payroll they add in benefits for each position.


Salary + medical + 401K match + fringe benefits + auto allowance, etc = pay.

Many like Google pay for exercise and entertainment.

The more liberal and enlightened a company is the more they value humans as a resource and not a cost.

[mitch96]

13. "move to single payer and get that cost off their balance sheets"

I thought the same way... For instance Germany and Japan the automakers did not have to pay for health insurance so they could cut the prices of the autos to make inroads into the American market. Yes they paid just like everybody else, but it was spread around...
m

[Ron Obvious]

16. As I recall, $1,000 of every American car's cost is because of health insurance costs

And that was several years ago. It's a huge drag on their competitiveness.

I share the frustrations of everyone in this thread. The big 3 in Detroit can see how well it works in Canada and have moved a lot of manufacturing over the border because of it.

I can only imagine it's an ideological attachment to vulture capitalism on their part. All these parasites sit on each others boards.

[Mr. Quackers]

21. Because it's cheaper no benefits at all

or if they do, junk insurance.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. We pay 100% of our employee's health/dental insurance, long term care, and life. One Hundred Percent

Single payer would be a huge benefit to my partner and me.

[AJT]

8. Single payer would also be a great benefit to people who want to do strictly

consulting for a living, have their own business.

[dugog55]

9. Single payer

I think would have to be treated like current Medicare and Social Security with the employer still paying a percentage per employee. That would make it cheaper for each individual and ensure sustainability for the future. It would still be was less expensive even for companies in their contributions.

Also, single payer would provide a huge advantage of having freedom for individuals knowing they have health care available regardless of their job, where they live or move to. Quite a nice feeling of relief not to be worried about one major illness putting an entire family in the poorhouse for the rest of their lives.

[Jarqui]

10. Here's a simplistic example that folks do not discuss much

Let's pretend that we just shift everyone to single payer that is currently insured. Those not currently insured won't be for discussion purposes here only.

Profit and admin costs of multiple insurance companies over single payer that has no profit is about roughly 20% for discussion purposes here only.

So everyone covered for $10,000 per year now (low US per capita health average care cost roughly) would only cost $8,000 per year under single payer.

For those employed and insured representing a family of four, require $8,000 less a year to make ends meet under single payer. And therefore, the cost of US labor is less, making US labor more competitive - which helps retain or attract more jobs for the US.

If America embraced the Canadian system & rates, health care costs would drop roughly 40-50% and life expectancy would significantly improve. All kinds of jobs could return to the US because the cost of US labor would be substantially reduced. You would have ample left over to care for the uninsured.

A 40% reduction in health care costs via the Canadian approach could flip a nearly trillion dollar annual deficit into a $0.4 trillion surplus. The economic trajectory of the country would take off and jobs and median income along with it - some of the savings could go to the working class.

I do not think there is enough discussion of the bigger picture of how single payer could impact the country. The hand-wringing over paying for it is nonsense as America is already paying double what everyone else is now. The doctors, insurance and drug companies won't like it because they'll be brought into line with everyone else - as they should be.

[mjvpi]

11. Your employer should pay you the amount they spend on your premium.

It’s part of your compensation package. Your employer keeps that to spend as they see fit, just as if the government withheld taxes.

[forthemiddle]

22. My employer provides coverage, paying 1/2 the premium

But because I get excellent insurance through my husbands employer I don't take that benefit.
My employer does not give me that money now, so I can't imagine that would change in the future.

I don't know of any employer who gives premium to employees that opt out of the insurance benefit.

[shanti]

12. Absolutely

And it keeps people in jobs they hate. No job, no insurance. I've said this before, but medical insurance should never be connected to ones employment.

[ck4829]

15. K&R

[brewens]

17. It's not discussed because corporations intend to just pocket that savings if single payer ever

is passed. They must be. I always see the right speak about the cost of single payer as if that would be just added onto what we already pay. Complete bullshit of course.

If there was no larger corporate contribution to the single payer plan, you'd like to think workers might see a big bump in wages. My last job our employee contribution was about $70 a month and the company paid about $500. For men anyway. That was part of what they were paying to have me on the job, so workers should get that in some way.

Part of the beauty of single payer should be that it will no longer depend on where you work what insurance you have. Not once have I heard anyone point out that what stops many people from quitting their job and starting a business is health insurance.

[Recursion]

18. And this is a big problem, actually

My employer pays a lot for our health insurance. McDonalds does not.

If that money from my employer gets added to the wage pool, we've just increased income inequality in the country, substantially. If it doesn't, the whole thing becomes a subsidy to corporations' bottom lines.

[pecosbob]

19. It's the sole reason US manufactured goods are not competitive on the world market

I've never understood why Republicans promoted such a thing in the first place...were they so shortsighted back when Nixon pulled this sh*t out of his pocket?

[NewJeffCT]

20. it would also be a boon to people trying to start their own business

and to small businesses as well.

How often has a person with a potentially great idea stuck with their job at ABC Company because ABC Company had good benefits and they couldn't afford to be without health insurance while they started their own business?

Or just labored through at a job where they were miserable because the small company that recruited them didn't offer health insurance until 6 or 12 months after hire?

[crazycatlady]

23. on that note

I also wonder how many people are trapped in unhappy marriages due to health insurance.

[Poiuyt]

24. If someone could come up with a simple explanation of the benefits of single payer and eliminate

the boogyman words (It's SOCIALISM!!!!), I'm sure the American public would strongly support single payer insurance, and they would demand that Congress enact it.