|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 19, 2013 9:54:13 GMT
U to 65 million of working middle class with good company sponsored health care plans may be tossed into the crappy plans of the exchanges. My Ex works for Wally World, been there a long time. She pay $400 a month with a $20 co-pay for everything except for $50 for ER and $100 for Hospitalization and she's done. There isn't a plan in the exchanges that comes close even with the subsidies.
They decided at the time they chose their group insurance that the better coverage was better for their enterprise so what possibly changes are there that would induce them to reduce coverage? Remember this is about "value" to the enterprise where the enterprise believed the higher premium group health insurance for their employees that provided more benefits provided more "value" to the enterprise. I don't see that changing. If they didn't want to "save a buck before" then they wouldn't be inclined to "save a buck" today by providing less coverage.
For the enterprise it's all about "value for the dollar" and reducing the benefits to the employee decreases the "value for the dollar" for the enterprise and only a foolish enterprise would do that. Not saying there aren't stupid employers out there but most businessmen are pretty savvy and chose the higher cost/more coverage group policies for a reason and that reason hasn't changed.
Here's where I have an actual problem. Using insurance for expenditures that should be a part of a personal budget increases the costs of the expenditure. Using insurance for routine doctor office visits, in whole or in part, increases the cost of the medical services. For example a doctor could charge as little as $60 for an office visit if the patent paid cash but has to charge up to $120 if insurance is used because of administrative costs in collecting from the insurance company. Insurance is cost effective for high cost medical services but dramatically increases the cost of routine medical services.
We could dramatically reduce the cost of health care in the United States by not using insurance for routine medical expenditures. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 22, 2013 10:42:59 GMT
A new potential problem for "Obamacare" that is worthy of noting.
money.cnn.com/2013/08/21/news/companies/ups-obamacare/index.html
I say it's a potential problem because all of these individuals (spouses) are eligible for health insurance from their employers and those spouses that don't have employer offered health insurance will not lose their UPS coverage.
The problem is, from my perspective, is that a spouse on a group policy is covered for less cost than the primary person (employee) on that policy. It could increase the cost to the couple or it could actually reduce the cost because often the employee contribution for a spouse is greater than for the employees themselves. Using hypothetical numbers the employee may only have a $50 monthly contribution for themselves but a $200 contribution for their spouse (I've had this type of spousal coverage in the past although the numbers here are hypothetical).
We might also note that the spouse's employer may not offer the same quality of coverage that UPS is offering which could also cause more cost to the couple.
In any case I think some of these 15,000 affected spouses might be better off and some might be worse off financially because of this situation at UPS. It's too hard to tell but fortunately the 15,000 affected will still have the option of group health insurance being provided by their employer.
|
|
jiyuu
Scribbler
Posts: 6 
Politics: Conservative
|
Post by jiyuu on Sept 1, 2013 10:11:25 GMT
I am sure Shiva did his homework on what costs employers must pay out for each full time employee.
The government isn't going to give any employers with 50 or more workers any incentive to be able to keep them working 40 hours or to keep coverage. That's the problem. I believe they really want all Americans to be on Obamacare in order to pay for the higher costs than the CBO predicted it would cost individuals.
First we don't want any more mandates/or amendments to Obama Care. From what I hear with all the problems and set backs things will not get better for employers and the cost to provide coverage will rise. This will happen because of the cost of healthcare rising regardless of how wonderful it sounds. To me, it makes sense for emloyers to cut the hours to under 30 because if they don't, they may end up laying off employees. I don't believe they have no idea what the end costs will be for employers.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 2, 2013 9:04:20 GMT
Once again I want to emphasize that I don't like "Obamacare" but it's what we've been stuck with and it's far better than a single-payer system that will replace it if it fails. There were alternatives to "Obamacare" such as simply funding Medicaid so that it could meet it's original Mission Statement of providing health care services for those that couldn't afford medical treatment but no one proposed that. With that said....
I hate "loopholes" that lead to negative consequences and the "part time employee" and "50 employee minimum" are loopholes in "Obamacare" that, as Republicans warn, are going to have negative consequences, albeit limited, for some employees. It's the workers themselves that will be suffering from these loopholes either by having their hours cut down to part time or by not being employed so that an employer can remain below the 50 employee limit (causing the companies existing employees to be over-worked in many cases which can be just as bad).
From my perspective an employer is profiting from the labor of the person and given the choice of them having a $1/hr financial obligation for "health care" funding or all of Americans being taxed to provide the funding I'm going to choose the employer. I'm not profiting from a part time worker but the employer is. Let the employers help fund the employees' health insurance needs as opposed to taxing me to pay for it. Providing some employers a loophole that allows them to avoid the intent of the law is not an acceptable solution when it leads other "workers" having to pay for those benefits to the workers.
It's not a perfect solution but having those that obtain their wealth from the labor of others paying to fund health insurance is better than having the workers that only receive a part of the wealth they create from their own labor having to pay to fund health insurance for others.
And it beats a single-payer system that is the alternative down the road.
|
|
