If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Global Post)   One in ten businesses now planning to drop employee's health insurance coverage Other nine just plan on dropping all their employees   (globalpost.com) divider line 112
    More: Followup, average cost, open market  
•       •       •

1900 clicks; posted to Business » on 26 Jul 2012 at 10:37 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-26 10:40:52 AM
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-26 10:42:39 AM
Have fun retaining/attracting talent.
 
2012-07-26 10:45:05 AM
I've never understood why the job creators have tolerated their businesses being burdened with the additional costs of health insurance and health insurance administration. Think of the profits they could deposit in their bank accounts if they didn't have that expense any more. Because I'm not so naive as to think that they're going to use the savings to create jobs or hire more people.

We need national health care, asap, no joke. Then, we could walk out on these fark-tarded bosses instead of groveling because we need the health insurance.
 
2012-07-26 10:49:48 AM
Good. As more people have to fend for themselves in the private market maybe they'll start coming around to the conclusion that we need UHC.
 
2012-07-26 10:53:31 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: I've never understood why the job creators have tolerated their businesses being burdened with the additional costs of health insurance and health insurance administration. Think of the profits they could deposit in their bank accounts if they didn't have that expense any more. Because I'm not so naive as to think that they're going to use the savings to create jobs or hire more people.


It's called government interference. Gov't provides tax incentives to provide healthcare, but then of course stops employers from doing anything to keep costs under control
 
2012-07-26 10:55:39 AM

MugzyBrown: HotIgneous Intruder: I've never understood why the job creators have tolerated their businesses being burdened with the additional costs of health insurance and health insurance administration. Think of the profits they could deposit in their bank accounts if they didn't have that expense any more. Because I'm not so naive as to think that they're going to use the savings to create jobs or hire more people.

It's called government interference. Gov't provides tax incentives to provide healthcare, but then of course stops employers from doing anything to keep costs under control


How are employers supposed to keep health care costs under control?
 
2012-07-26 10:55:52 AM
HotIgneous Intruder:
I've never understood why the job creators have tolerated their businesses being burdened with the additional costs of health insurance and health insurance administration. Think of the profits they could deposit in their bank accounts if they didn't have that expense any more. Because I'm not so naive as to think that they're going to use the savings to create jobs or hire more people.

Except that - if you knew anything about anything - you'd know that most businesses do supply insurance (especially the bigger ones), and they use that as leverage to hire better employees, even though it costs them more.

So... since reality disagrees with you, you just changed your mind about your little rant about the people who actually do create jobs, right?
 
2012-07-26 10:56:02 AM
The survey was done before the Supreme Court ruling.

I'm sure that affected the numbers significantly.

"Oh crap, it'll cost us HOW much to drop insurance?"

/I have to hand it to the Heritage Foundation, this really is a good step toward UHC
 
2012-07-26 10:57:53 AM
So are they blaming ACA or not? The headline says yes, it concludes with a quote from a DHHS spokesperson implying that the ACA is part of the fingered 'problem' here, but no part of the article actually says that the respondents cited the ACA as a cause or, if they did, how many did.

Small to medium businesses are already getting hosed by health insurance costs and squeezed out. If you don't have a large risk pool, your premiums go up if you can even get an insurer to bother with quoting you in the first place. That's the "free market" setting prices. If you can't afford rising health care costs, blame the people responsible: the insurers who actually raised your damn rates.

You want "free market health care" and for the government to stay out of your business? Guess what, that's what jacked your rates up 75% over the last three renewal periods. You don't get to screech and howl about government interference in healthcare and then point at negative free market factors as proof that the government should stay out of it.
 
2012-07-26 11:01:19 AM

Pincy: How are employers supposed to keep health care costs under control?


If you're my employee and you need a new laptop and you're going to expense it me and you come to me with a receipt for the biggest, baddest laptop for $2,500, I can say to you. That's great, but for your job this laptop is only slightly better than this Toshiba for $1,400, so you can either get the Toshiba, or pay for the $2,500 yourself.

If you're my employee and I'm paying for your healthcare, and you need a perscription for Brand X drug that cost $50 per pill and is 78% effective and there is Generic Drug X for $25 per bottle that is 76% effective for the same condition, I can't tell you I'll only pay for the generic.
 
2012-07-26 11:03:10 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: That's the "free market" setting prices


No, it's not. There's a whole lot of things wrong about healthcare in the US. It being a free market is not one of them, because it's far from a free market.
 
2012-07-26 11:03:53 AM

cirby: HotIgneous Intruder:
I've never understood why the job creators have tolerated their businesses being burdened with the additional costs of health insurance and health insurance administration. Think of the profits they could deposit in their bank accounts if they didn't have that expense any more. Because I'm not so naive as to think that they're going to use the savings to create jobs or hire more people.

Except that - if you knew anything about anything - you'd know that most businesses do supply insurance (especially the bigger ones), and they use that as leverage to hire better employees, even though it costs them more.

So... since reality disagrees with you, you just changed your mind about your little rant about the people who actually do create jobs, right?


Well, instead of providing insurance they could just offer higher wages to get better employees so your argument doesn't really make sense.
 
2012-07-26 11:04:56 AM
That's not a bad thing, particularly for small businesses, if the exchanges are able to offer more affordable coverage plans. However, they will still need to adjust salaries upwards or risk losing critical personnel.
 
2012-07-26 11:05:45 AM

MugzyBrown: Vegan Meat Popsicle: That's the "free market" setting prices

No, it's not. There's a whole lot of things wrong about healthcare in the US. It being a free market is not one of them, because it's far from a free market.


There is no such thing as a Free Market
 
2012-07-26 11:07:08 AM
There is no such thing as a Free Market

Maybe, but there are many markets that are much freer than others. Healthcare is very highly regulated on many different fronts.
 
2012-07-26 11:07:23 AM

MugzyBrown: If you're my employee and I'm paying for your healthcare, and you need a perscription for Brand X drug that cost $50 per pill and is 78% effective and there is Generic Drug X for $25 per bottle that is 76% effective for the same condition, I can't tell you I'll only pay for the generic.


It's called prior authorization. It's a pretty standard process used to control for exactly this type of thing. I've never seen an insurance policy that doesn't have it codified.

If you don't know what the fark you're talking about, don't talk.
 
2012-07-26 11:09:10 AM

MugzyBrown: Pincy: How are employers supposed to keep health care costs under control?

If you're my employee and you need a new laptop and you're going to expense it me and you come to me with a receipt for the biggest, baddest laptop for $2,500, I can say to you. That's great, but for your job this laptop is only slightly better than this Toshiba for $1,400, so you can either get the Toshiba, or pay for the $2,500 yourself.

If you're my employee and I'm paying for your healthcare, and you need a perscription for Brand X drug that cost $50 per pill and is 78% effective and there is Generic Drug X for $25 per bottle that is 76% effective for the same condition, I can't tell you I'll only pay for the generic.


Actually, yes, this is something that already happens.
 
2012-07-26 11:09:12 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: It's called prior authorization. It's a pretty standard process used to control for exactly this type of thing. I've never seen an insurance policy that doesn't have it codified.

If you don't know what the fark you're talking about, don't talk.


So you think employers should have the ability to go over the health records of their employees and determine cost effective ways of cutting their medical treatments?
 
2012-07-26 11:11:46 AM

MugzyBrown: HotIgneous Intruder: I've never understood why the job creators have tolerated their businesses being burdened with the additional costs of health insurance and health insurance administration. Think of the profits they could deposit in their bank accounts if they didn't have that expense any more. Because I'm not so naive as to think that they're going to use the savings to create jobs or hire more people.

It's called government interference. Gov't provides tax incentives to provide healthcare, but then of course stops employers from doing anything to keep costs under control


No. At first health insurance was a nice benefit, not too expensive to give, very useful to receive. It was a union fighting point. However the for-profit hospital/physician model led to abuse of the payment system, inflating costs, to the point that health insurance has steadily increased in cost.
 
2012-07-26 11:12:47 AM

MugzyBrown: So you think employers should have the ability to go over the health records of their employees and determine cost effective ways of cutting their medical treatments?


Prior authorization is handled by your doctor and the insurance company. Anybody who's ever actually bothered to even HAVE an insurance plan should know this.

Again, if you don't know what you're talking about, why do you keep talking?
 
2012-07-26 11:13:59 AM

MugzyBrown: Vegan Meat Popsicle: It's called prior authorization. It's a pretty standard process used to control for exactly this type of thing. I've never seen an insurance policy that doesn't have it codified.

If you don't know what the fark you're talking about, don't talk.

So you think employers should have the ability to go over the health records of their employees and determine cost effective ways of cutting their medical treatments?


No, that's not how it works. If there is a generic equivalent for your drug then your Pharmacy plan will cover the cost of the generic. If you want the real thing you are still free to get it but your Pharmacy plan will only cover what the generic would cost so you are stuck with the rest of the bill. No one is going over you health records.
 
2012-07-26 11:14:27 AM

Lost Thought 00: That's not a bad thing, particularly for small businesses, if the exchanges are able to offer more affordable coverage plans. However, they will still need to adjust salaries upwards or risk losing critical personnel.


By raising the salaries upwards to offset health insurance cost, that's income and becomes taxable. So the end user gets to be taxed on the money he now has to spend on insurance but also gets to deal with the Exchanges and the IRS directly. And the small business washes it's hands of the whole affair.

I'd be surprised if it's only 1 in 10 businesses dumping their employees onto the exchanges, I'm betting more like 30% or more. There's no reason not to if this boondoggle holds.
 
2012-07-26 11:14:56 AM

natmar_76: At first health insurance was a nice benefit, not too expensive to give, very useful to receive. It was a union fighting point. However the for-profit hospital/physician model led to abuse of the payment system, inflating costs, to the point that health insurance has steadily increased in cost.


The payment system is abused because the consumer is far removed from the process. When you get a test done and you're insured, you're never told how much it costs, and frankly you don't care because it'll be paid by your insurer, and the insurer is paid by your employer. There is no consequence to you.

The employer can't come to you and say, we need you to lose 50 lbs and exercise because your unhealthy habits are killing our premiums.
 
2012-07-26 11:16:20 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: So are they blaming ACA or not? The headline says yes, it concludes with a quote from a DHHS spokesperson implying that the ACA is part of the fingered 'problem' here, but no part of the article actually says that the respondents cited the ACA as a cause or, if they did, how many did.

Small to medium businesses are already getting hosed by health insurance costs and squeezed out. If you don't have a large risk pool, your premiums go up if you can even get an insurer to bother with quoting you in the first place. That's the "free market" setting prices. If you can't afford rising health care costs, blame the people responsible: the insurers who actually raised your damn rates.

You want "free market health care" and for the government to stay out of your business? Guess what, that's what jacked your rates up 75% over the last three renewal periods. You don't get to screech and howl about government interference in healthcare and then point at negative free market factors as proof that the government should stay out of it.


Sign with a large payroll company and you get assumed into their healthcare group, regardless of your small pool. You get to deal with endless other BS but there's that.
 
2012-07-26 11:17:34 AM

MugzyBrown: Pincy: How are employers supposed to keep health care costs under control?

If you're my employee and you need a new laptop and you're going to expense it me and you come to me with a receipt for the biggest, baddest laptop for $2,500, I can say to you. That's great, but for your job this laptop is only slightly better than this Toshiba for $1,400, so you can either get the Toshiba, or pay for the $2,500 yourself.

If you're my employee and I'm paying for your healthcare, and you need a perscription for Brand X drug that cost $50 per pill and is 78% effective and there is Generic Drug X for $25 per bottle that is 76% effective for the same condition, I can't tell you I'll only pay for the generic.


Can I assume you have never been on a health plan that has an "approved formulary" where unapproved drugs are not allowed or have a much higher copay. I just went through this with my plan where my plan dropped what my doctor thought was the most effective drug from their formulary and raised copay from $87.50 per three months to almost $200.
 
2012-07-26 11:19:06 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Have fun retaining/attracting talent.


Done in two.
 
2012-07-26 11:21:24 AM

Spare Me: There's no reason not to if this boondoggle holds.


So now tell me why Best Buy and basically every F500 bank/financial services company in 2008-9 needed to pay execs millions of dollars (against the advice of their compensation analyst) to "retain talent". Either job perks keep good people on board, or they're expensive fluffery that can be jettisoned at the first sign of expectations missing earnings benchmarks.

Or is this another one of those things that we just have to accept is different about the CEO class?
 
2012-07-26 11:22:35 AM

Spare Me: Lost Thought 00: That's not a bad thing, particularly for small businesses, if the exchanges are able to offer more affordable coverage plans. However, they will still need to adjust salaries upwards or risk losing critical personnel.

By raising the salaries upwards to offset health insurance cost, that's income and becomes taxable. So the end user gets to be taxed on the money he now has to spend on insurance but also gets to deal with the Exchanges and the IRS directly. And the small business washes it's hands of the whole affair.

I'd be surprised if it's only 1 in 10 businesses dumping their employees onto the exchanges, I'm betting more like 30% or more. There's no reason not to if this boondoggle holds.


Except they could have already done so at any point but haven't. Now that there is a penalty associated with not covering health care it makes less sense to drop coverage than it did a year ago.
 
2012-07-26 11:23:26 AM

sdd2000: Can I assume you have never been on a health plan that has an "approved formulary" where unapproved drugs are not allowed or have a much higher copay. I just went through this with my plan where my plan dropped what my doctor thought was the most effective drug from their formulary and raised copay from $87.50 per three months to almost $200.


My NCSB

I was on a private non-employee health insurance plan that had NO brand name drug coverage under ANY circumstance. So when I got into a situation where the only generic for my condition gave me explosive gray diarrhea, I had to get on a new plan with double the premium just to get 75% of the brand name med covered. Even with some copay assistance, I'm paying 1500 a year for it.
 
2012-07-26 11:25:51 AM
Except they could have already done so at any point but haven't. Now that there is a penalty associated with not covering health care it makes less sense to drop coverage than it did a year ago.

Well now there are 'exchanges' that are there to handle the employees health insurance. That's what will be different.
 
2012-07-26 11:26:40 AM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: HotWingConspiracy: Have fun retaining/attracting talent.

Done in two.


Normally I'd agree, but I'm seeing more and more derpy teatards harboring the idea that employers are entitled to workers at whatever price "the market" sets, and the workers have no say in the matter. They'll either work and like it, or hopefully someone will end the welfare programs that keeping job creators from cheap (desperate) labor.
 
2012-07-26 11:27:47 AM
Article lede: "Nearly 10 percent of employers in the US say they plan to cancel health care coverage for workers in the next several years as insurance costs rise."

Next sentence: "The survey released by Deloitte says that around one in 10 employers are considering plans to drop coverage..."

It's smart to think about the consequences of the ACA, but dumb for a reporter to write as this one did. As Ike said, "Plans are nothing; planning is everything."
 
2012-07-26 11:30:01 AM

MugzyBrown: Pincy: How are employers supposed to keep health care costs under control?

If you're my employee and you need a new laptop and you're going to expense it me and you come to me with a receipt for the biggest, baddest laptop for $2,500, I can say to you. That's great, but for your job this laptop is only slightly better than this Toshiba for $1,400, so you can either get the Toshiba, or pay for the $2,500 yourself.

If you're my employee and I'm paying for your healthcare, and you need a perscription for Brand X drug that cost $50 per pill and is 78% effective and there is Generic Drug X for $25 per bottle that is 76% effective for the same condition, I can't tell you I'll only pay for the generic.


You could also say "No, you don't get a new laptop". Are you trying to say that you should be able to say "No, you can't get chemo"?
 
2012-07-26 11:31:20 AM

GameSprocket: You could also say "No, you don't get a new laptop". Are you trying to say that you should be able to say "No, you can't get chemo"?


I'm saying employers shouldn't be involved.
 
2012-07-26 11:35:04 AM

MugzyBrown: GameSprocket: You could also say "No, you don't get a new laptop". Are you trying to say that you should be able to say "No, you can't get chemo"?

I'm saying employers shouldn't be involved.


Then you should be supporting UHC.
 
2012-07-26 11:35:11 AM

MugzyBrown: natmar_76: At first health insurance was a nice benefit, not too expensive to give, very useful to receive. It was a union fighting point. However the for-profit hospital/physician model led to abuse of the payment system, inflating costs, to the point that health insurance has steadily increased in cost.

The payment system is abused because the consumer is far removed from the process. When you get a test done and you're insured, you're never told how much it costs, and frankly you don't care because it'll be paid by your insurer, and the insurer is paid by your employer. There is no consequence to you.

The employer can't come to you and say, we need you to lose 50 lbs and exercise because your unhealthy habits are killing our premiums.


After getting hit with a huge medical bill for failing to read the fine print - I've taken to being a complete ass at the doctor's office. Not because I like being an ass - but because I really can't afford a 3-4k dollar mistake.

First - its absolutely amazing how wasteful things are. I had a doctor say, 'I'm 99% sure everything is fine, but let's do an MRI - just to be safe'. Now, he's only saying that because he thinks

1.) Money is no object
2.) If he doesn't I might sue him

If the doctor would sit down and say, 'Well Fark_Guy_Rob - there is less than a 1% chance you have something else; and truthfully, we'd figure it out pretty quickly if the treatment for the 99% situation doesn't work. We *could* do an MRI to let us know sooner, but it will cost nearly $3,000 dollars to you; and a bunch of money to your insurance company. Now, since you've had this problem for over two years and are dealing with it fine - you might want to keep 3k in your pocket and wait another month to see if it's better. What do you think?'

But that would take more time than just saying 'Okay - I'm sure everything is fine, but let's do an MRI - just to be safe'. And it would be more risky to him than a lawsuit.

I've had similar experiences with drugs. They doc will write the prescription for whatever drug company sent him the best welcome package or gave him the nicest cruise. They don't say anything, they just say, 'Okay - I'm going to write you prescription - take 2x per day. Here you go'.

Then I say, 'Okay - and how much does this cost?'

They say, 'Well, I don't know. The pharmacy deals with that'. Here's another shocker - the price between pharmacies for the SAME drug (and I'm not talking about generic verse a particular brand, I'm talking about the same brand and the same dosage) varies WILDLY. $150 per month verse $750 per month for two pharmacies. But getting the pharmacies to tell me the price was like pulling teeth.

'Yeah - and how much does that cost'
"Well - do you have insurance? You do? Okay then we'll need you to bring your card"
'Yeah - but how much do you charge them. Like what is the total price?'
"What do you mean"
'How much does the drug cost!'

What's even worse - is that both the $150 and the $750 were covered exactly the same under my insurance. I think I had to pay $40. Before my medical bill troubles - I'd never have noticed or cared. 'I pay $40'.

Why should I shop around?

So where does that outrageous amount of markup go to? Some rich guys pocket. But all of these details are shielded from almost all of us.

Even more disgusting is that if you say you have 'no insurance' the cost is even less. Under $100 dollars. That means they can turn a profit selling the drug for less than $100 dollars - but there is a major pharmacy selling it at a 7.5x markup. Because nobody notices or cares.

It's pretty f***ed up.
 
2012-07-26 11:38:42 AM

Pincy: Then you should be supporting UHC.


No, because that just replaces my employer with the gov't.
 
2012-07-26 11:39:38 AM
I am so sick of this debate. The solution is so obvious.

Healthcare costs have been a massive tax on small business for may decades.

That's right -- want good employees? You have to provide health insurance for them and their family. Small business without a big actuarial table? You are paying BIGTIME.

Single payer removes all of these problems and would be a massive economic stimulant - like a tax cut enabling much more hiring and marketing expenses.


There are more points that could be made but do you need them?
 
2012-07-26 11:43:25 AM

MugzyBrown: Pincy: Then you should be supporting UHC.

No, because that just replaces my employer with the gov't.


In case you forget, we are the government.

I'm guessing you think that the Free Market will fix health insurance costs. Do you really think that health insurance companies are looking out for you? Here's a hint: they are not.
 
2012-07-26 11:46:22 AM

Pincy: I'm guessing you think that the Free Market will fix health insurance costs. Do you really think that health insurance companies are looking out for you? Here's a hint: they are not.


Do you think the Dept of Health and Human services is looking out for you? Here's a hint: they're not.

Pincy: In case you forget, we are the government.


No, we're not.


I'm healthy, eat well, right on my target weight, exercise, but I pay the same premium as the fat older woman sitting right next to me. Sounds about right.
 
2012-07-26 11:49:23 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: I've never understood why the job creators have tolerated their businesses being burdened with the additional costs of health insurance and health insurance administration. Think of the profits they could deposit in their bank accounts if they didn't have that expense any more. Because I'm not so naive as to think that they're going to use the savings to create jobs or hire more people.

We need national health care, asap, no joke. Then, we could walk out on these fark-tarded bosses instead of groveling because we need the health insurance.


You answered your own question.
 
2012-07-26 11:53:46 AM

MugzyBrown: Pincy: I'm guessing you think that the Free Market will fix health insurance costs. Do you really think that health insurance companies are looking out for you? Here's a hint: they are not.

Do you think the Dept of Health and Human services is looking out for you? Here's a hint: they're not.

Pincy: In case you forget, we are the government.

No, we're not.


That's the problem with America today, too many people think like you.

I'm healthy, eat well, right on my target weight, exercise, but I pay the same premium as the fat older woman sitting right next to me. Sounds about right.

I've come to the conclusion that you don't understand insurance very well.
 
2012-07-26 12:00:22 PM
I've come to the conclusion that you don't understand insurance very well.

So you're saying the person next to me isn't paying the same premium as me? I'm quite certain she is.

In fact, if my employer hired only in-shape people in their 20's and 30's who didn't smoke our health insurance costs would go down.. ahh but that's illegal. Damn free market.
 
2012-07-26 12:02:05 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Even more disgusting is that if you say you have 'no insurance' the cost is even less. Under $100 dollars. That means they can turn a profit selling the drug for less than $100 dollars - but there is a major pharmacy selling it at a 7.5x markup. Because nobody notices or cares.


You don't think the insurance companies negotiate or even dictate pricing? How the hell does "no one care", the only job of the insurance company is to provide as little care for as little money as possible, that's how they make money.
 
2012-07-26 12:03:19 PM
Currently negotiating renewal for a 60-something design build firm so I am getting a kick. As for considering dropping health insurance? Why the fark would we do that? We'd shut our doors before we'd do that.
 
2012-07-26 12:04:34 PM

MugzyBrown: In fact, if my employer hired only in-shape people in their 20's and 30's who didn't smoke our health insurance costs would go down.. ahh but that's illegal. Damn free market.


Pincy is right. You don't understand insurance very well.
 
hej
2012-07-26 12:04:51 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Have fun retaining/attracting talent.


Not sure the kinds of business that would be dropping the health insurance (or the employees) would refer to their workers as "talent".
 
2012-07-26 12:05:28 PM
Pincy is right. You don't understand insurance very well.

Tell me where I'm wrong then. Does the employee base of an employer healthcare plan not affect the premium?
 
2012-07-26 12:12:08 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Have fun retaining/attracting talent.


Well I'm sure a couple freetard businesses will go tits up because of this. Public sector and unionized businesses are pretty much always going to offer health insurance unless the country goes single payer. So if private businesses drop it, people will just flee there. Go make 10k under industry average at some University but have amazing benefits.

Or if all the private businesses drop it, that leaves a bunch of uninsured people who will demand the government do something to give them healthcare which opens the door for, wait for it, single payer.
 
2012-07-26 12:14:10 PM

MugzyBrown: Does the employee base of an employer healthcare plan not affect the premium?


Not the way you describe it, no.

Here's what matters on ours (11 employees) that affects cost: Single, Married/Spouse, Family Plan (kids). Three tiers of price, quoted without any information other than general number of employees. I get quotes from many companies like that each year at renewal time. It does NOT work like personal life insurance, which I would guess is the source of your confusion.

That's the way the Empire plan I have had for 4 years works and so did the Oxford plan that proceeded it for 14.
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report