General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUS Business Hits Out At ‘Obamacare’ Costs
By Barney Jopson in New York and Alan Rappeport in Washington
US retailers and restaurants chains that employ millions of low-wage workers are considering cutting working hours or paying fines rather than enrolling employees in health insurance plans under Barack Obamas landmark healthcare law.
Employers are concerned that the law increases the cost of insuring employees on existing plans, partly by broadening the range of benefits. It also requires companies to insure some employees not previously covered.
David Dillon, chief executive of the Kroger supermarket chain, told the Financial Times that some companies might opt to pay a government-mandated penalty for not providing insurance because it was cheaper than the cost of coverage.
Nigel Travis, head of Dunkin Brands, said his doughnut chain was lobbying to change the definition of full-time employees eligible for coverage from those working at least 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2bce37c-7644-11e2-8eb6-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2LMQJNyIU
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)Single payer now.
cloudbase
(5,520 posts)says that their employees are their most valuable assets.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)I believe the USA is the ONLY country that seems to believe this is how it should be... It sure makes American business less competetive with business from other countries...Health care is a MAJOR expense for American business and it should not be so.. The main purpose of government is to "Maintain the Health and Welfare of the Nation" Business's main purpose is to make a Profit and Provide a Service...
railsback
(1,881 posts)Why would you give them a free pass?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Anything that moves us faster towards single payer the better imho.
When we reach a critical mass of mid-level and high-level employees who are no longer insured, there may be some real pressure from that angle. Its going to take many factors before it happens but having companies drop their employees coverage is one part of it that should move the process along quicker.
And yes, I recognize there will be short term pain but our current system of health care delivery and availability is unsustainable...
pampango
(24,692 posts)The right looks at detaching health care from employment as 'socialism'. The current system makes people more dependent on businesses since not just their wages but their family's health care depends on the employer. Corporations undoubtedly like having their employees more dependent on them rather than less.
The left does not want to let employers off the hook for an expense that they have been shouldering for decades.
For international trade employer-based health care makes it more difficult for American companies to compete with European companies whose products do not include an expense for employee health care.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)For example, a business with more older employees will have higher per-employee health costs.
Doing it this way causes discrimination against older employees and those who seem less healthy. A business might not like the situation, but businesses compete against other businesses. It's a reality that good ethics don't always cause you to win economically.
Businesses should pay part of the costs, but part of the costs on a pooled basis. A business should have the freedom to hire a 60 year old who's best for the job without worrying if their health insurance costs are going to double.
Employment-tied health insurance hasn't worked well for the US, and it is time to change this system.
railsback
(1,881 posts)My angle is that since businesses rely on workers for their success, then they should have some responsibility to make sure their workers are receiving care. Of course, single payer, like the rest of the civilized world, is where we should be.
rgbecker
(4,831 posts)should they collect and pay withholding tax payments either. It's so inconvenient.
magellan
(13,257 posts)How do they feel about universal healthcare, which would relieve them of paying for their employees completely?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)is actually a win win for them (and us).
If they haven't thought about it before, they are now.
And that's a good thing.
Initech
(100,080 posts)The CEO might have to downgrade his new private jet from the Gulfstream 4 to the Gulfstream 3!