Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Health Insurance Benefits Ending? Employers Consider Stopping Coverage After Overhaul: Survey

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-11 09:32 AM
Original message
Health Insurance Benefits Ending? Employers Consider Stopping Coverage After Overhaul: Survey
Source: Huffington Post

INDIANAPOLIS -- A new survey from a large benefits consultant says nearly one of every 10 mid-sized or big employers expects to stop offering health coverage to workers once federal insurance exchanges start in 2014.

Towers Watson says an additional 20 percent of the companies it surveyed last month are unsure about what they will do. The remaining 71 percent expect to continue offering benefits.

Exchanges were devised under the health care overhaul and aim to provide a marketplace for people to buy insurance that can be subsidized by the government based on income levels.

Benefits experts say retailers and companies that pay low wages are most likely to drop coverage for their workers. But they also caution that companies are far from making a final decision on this.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/24/health-insurance-benefits-ending_n_935068.html



Another step towards the inevitable: universal health care.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-11 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. Universal health care makes SOO much more sense! It takes a lot off the companies themselves.
Let us all pay a bit more in taxes (2.5% or so) and companies won't have to subsidize healthcare and free up that money for capital investments, stock dividends, higher salaries, hiring new employees, etc.

you'd think the repukes would like that but nooooo...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yo_Mama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-11 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. It's usually 15% or more if it's a payroll tax
Makes sense in a lot of ways - when you have income you pay, when you don't you don't. You don't have to worry about losing insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeglow3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-11 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. How did you get to 2.5%?
I would bet it would be MUCH higher. Keep in mind employers usually pick up a portion of the premiums. I will bet my life they will NOT increase your salary when they do away with benefits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-11 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Physicians for a National Health Program
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq

Currently, about 60% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including police and teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees’ health insurance. About 20% of health care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. Private employers only pay 21% of health care costs. In all, it is a very “regressive” way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do.

A universal public system would be financed in the following way: The public funds already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care, which would be eliminated. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments. For the vast majority of people, a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly if a family member has a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution.

Currently, 47 million people have no insurance and hundreds of thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but those who currently offer coverage would, on average, pay less. For most large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay slightly less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would gain a competitive advantage because he had scrimped on employee health benefits. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.

Of course, the biggest change would be that everyone would have the same comprehensive health coverage, including all medical, hospital, eye care, dental care, long-term care, and mental health services. Currently, many people and businesses are paying huge premiums for insurance so full of gaps like co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services that it would be almost worthless if they were to have a serious illness.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thelordofhell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-11 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
2. And with the money they save doing this
They will not improve their products or hire more people or reduce the products price.......they will just pay more in dividends to stock holders.

Greedy
Fucking
Pigs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-11 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Capitalism rewards greedy fucking pigs. Change the system
and reward differently - and you might see different results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-11 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
4. Good. The US is going to have to enact Single Payer sooner or later.
If major corporations abandon healthcare benefits, you can bet your ass that it will be SOONER.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-11 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
5. unless ALL employers are taxed the health care plan will fail
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-11 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
6. They drop health insurance then my salary better go up by the amount they save.
After all, health insurance and other benefits are part of my "total compensation." My employer spends gawds-know how much to send each employee a personalized statement every year showing how much benefits contribute to "total compensation." Any reduction in my "total compensation" is unacceptable. Take away the health insurance bennie and my salary had better increase by the amount listed under "health insurance" on that statement they send out every year...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yo_Mama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-11 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. It won't, but you probably will get that less the fine
Larger employers pay a fine for each worker they don't cover.

So the employer could take what they are now spending for health care, subtract the fine, and pay you more. And you'll pay more in taxes on that extra amount, so in the end you will end up with reduced compensation. And then you'll have to buy insurance on the exchange, and pay a high deductible and premiums depending on your income.

This was always inevitable.

The extra taxes the federal government will get from such workers was actually figured into the calculations on how much the net cost would be. It's a big hidden middle-class tax increase, really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-11 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Any additional pay would go into my retirement account pre-tax,
so no additional tax burden for me. After all, I'm getting by on what I take home now. I could easily get by on it *and* save more for retirement, too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yo_Mama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-11 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Yes, but you will have to pay for health insurance
Also, FICA will be deducted. Unless you're over the cap already, that is, but you'll still pay Medicare.

And the employer will figure it out so their cost for the additional taxes is deducted from any additional pay as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-11 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
9. Here is a better article with more details than the weak HP one
Edited on Wed Aug-24-11 12:15 PM by karynnj

A new survey has found that almost one in 10 employers are looking to scratch health coverage for its workers once the federal insurance exchanges kick off in 2014.

The survey carried out by the benefits consultancy group Towers Watson, found some employers, especially retailers and those offering low wages, feel they would be better off paying fines and taxes than the health coverage of their workers, the Associated Press reported.

A large majority of employers said they still expect to continue health care when the exchanges start, but the 8 or 9 per cent of companies that said they expect to drop it came as a surprise.

"Dropping coverage is going to be very difficult for these (companies) to do," said Bob Laszewski, a consultant who was not involved with the studies.


http://newyork.ibtimes.com/articles/203232/20110824/survey-employers-plan-to-end-health-coverage-towers-watson.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-11 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
14. Not surprised. This backlash was inevitable considering the FUBAR-ed health insurance reform mess.
Ugly. Really ugly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC