• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Employer sponsored health benefits going going ....gone

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Predictions are looking grim for employer sponsored health benefits.

From the Mckinsey Hospital Institute


How US health care reform will affect employee benefits

The shift away from employer-provided health insurance will be vastly greater than expected and will make sense for many companies and lower-income workers alike.

US health care reform sets in motion the largest change in employer-provided health benefits in the post–World War II era. While the pace and timing are difficult to predict, McKinsey research points to a radical restructuring of employer-sponsored health benefits following the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act.

Many of the law’s relevant provisions take effect in 2014. Our research suggests that when employers become more aware of the new economic and social incentives embedded in the law and of the option to restructure benefits beyond dropping or keeping them, many will make dramatic changes. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that only about 7percent of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) will have to switch to subsidized-exchange policies in 2014. However, our early-2011 survey of more than 1,300 employers across industries, geographies, and employer sizes, as well as other proprietary research, found that reform will provoke a much greater response.

* Overall, 30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering ESI in the years after 2014.
* Among employers with a high awareness of reform, this proportion increases to more than50 percent, and upward of 60 percent will pursue some alternative to traditional ESI.
* At least 30 percent of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries.
* Contrary to what many employers assume, more than 85 percent of employees would remain at their jobs even if their employer stopped offering ESI, although about 60percent would expect increased compensation.

In this new world, employers must quickly examine the implications of health care reform on their benefit and workforce strategies, as well as the opportunities and risks that reform generates. Of course, the type and extent of the changes employers make will vary by industry, collective-bargaining agreements, and other constraints. Most employers, however, will find value-creating options between the extremes of completely dropping employee health coverage and making no changes to the current offering. Even employers that intend to provide benefits similar to those they currently offer can take no-regrets moves, like tailoring plans to maximize what their employees will value most about ESI after 2014. Employers pursuing more radical changes will have to rethink benefit packages for higher-income employees.

And all employers must continue to keep in mind their employees’ health and wellness needs, even as insurance coverage levels evolve. To serve employers, insurers must retool their business models to provide more consultative support during the transition and develop innovative approaches to support employers’ new benefit strategies (see sidebar “Implications for health insurers”). For employers and insurers, success after 2014 will require a better understanding of employee and employer segments, and the development of the right capabilities and partnerships to manage the transition.

A transformed employer market

Health care reform fundamentally alters the social contract inherent in employer-sponsored medical benefits and how employees value health insurance as a form of compensation. The new law guarantees the right to health insurance regardless of an individual’s medical status. In doing so, it minimizes the moral obligation employers may feel to cover the sickest employees, who would otherwise be denied coverage in today’s individual health insurance market. Reform preserves the corporate tax advantages associated with offering health benefits—except for high-premium “Cadillac” insurance plans.

Starting in 2014, people who are not offered affordable health insurance coverage by their employers will receive income-indexed premium and out-of-pocket cost-sharing subsidies. The highest subsidies will be offered to the lowest-income workers. That reduces the social-equity advantage of employer-sponsored insurance, by enabling these workers to obtain coverage they could not afford on today’s individual market. It also significantly increases the availability of substitutes for employer coverage. As a result, whether to offer ESI after 2014 becomes mostly a business decision. Employers will have to balance the need to remain attractive to talented workers with the net economics of providing benefits—taking into consideration all the penalties and tax advantages of offering or not offering any given level of coverage.

article continued here: http://www.mckinseyhospitalinstitut...lth-care-reform-will-affect-employee-benefits
 

Snowtrac Nome

member formerly known as dds
GOLD Site Supporter
Doc i only had time to speed read though your post i have to ask one question if the government makes us all pay for this mandated insurance does this mean the tax payers will be footing the bill for boob enhancements ,viagra and sex changes to if so i think thats bs these are not items you need to live rather things you should have to work for just like a nice hous or a big new car
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
Doc i only had time to speed read though your post i have to ask one question if the government makes us all pay for this mandated insurance does this mean the tax payers will be footing the bill for boob enhancements ,viagra and sex changes to if so i think thats bs these are not items you need to live rather things you should have to work for just like a nice hous or a big new car

My understanding is that these procedures are already largely (if not completely) funded by the patients themselves.
 

Adillo303

Diesel Truck Fan
GOLD Site Supporter
In the system today, A company that wants to provide insurance gets an insurance company to write a policy. The rate is dependent on the number of people in the group, the average age of the group and some other things, I am sure. Bigger companies get better rates than smaller companies.

Someone goes to work for said company and has whatever the company has provided. Should they then go to work for another company their coverage and rates can change for the better or worse. There are "Certificates of credible coverage" to worry about getting to prevent loosing coverage for "prior existing conditions". several things like that.

I really do not know a lot about Obamacare, so my question is this. Is the group now the American populace? If so would one not get uniform care at a uniform cost no matter where they work? I can see where the insurance companies would not like this. With a group that size covering everyone they would not make the money they want to, nor would they have the opportunity to slam the door on people as easily.

So, I am asking for information from those of you that know way more than me about this, Is this basically how it works? Since I think that it really does not work this way I am asking.

Thank You in advance

Andy
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
My understanding of Obamacare is:

Medicare and Medicaid stay largely the same.

Those not eligible for the above must have their own health insurance or face a civil fine.

The health insurance will largely come from private health insurance companies, but with much more stringent federal regulation, compelling them to cover everyone not covered by Medicare and Medicaid.

Furthermore, the premiums paid by insureds will be much more uniform across demographics\age groups. The thought being that those younger and healthier folks (previously uninsured by choice) and less in need of insurance, will now be paying premiums, which will offset the higher costs of insuring older and less healthier folks.

On its face, it sounds like it might work. In reality, our company's health insurance cost went up 28% this year in direct response to Obamacare's enactment.
 

Snowtrac Nome

member formerly known as dds
GOLD Site Supporter
In the system today, A company that wants to provide insurance gets an insurance company to write a policy. The rate is dependent on the number of people in the group, the average age of the group and some other things, I am sure. Bigger companies get better rates than smaller companies.

Someone goes to work for said company and has whatever the company has provided. Should they then go to work for another company their coverage and rates can change for the better or worse. There are "Certificates of credible coverage" to worry about getting to prevent loosing coverage for "prior existing conditions". several things like that.

I really do not know a lot about Obamacare, so my question is this. Is the group now the American populace? If so would one not get uniform care at a uniform cost no matter where they work? I can see where the insurance companies would not like this. With a group that size covering everyone they would not make the money they want to, nor would they have the opportunity to slam the door on people as easily.

So, I am asking for information from those of you that know way more than me about this, Is this basically how it works? Since I think that it really does not work this way I am asking.

Thank You in advance

Andy
good questions to ask ,my questions come up because what happens when the aclu gets involved and thinks these things should be covered too. also i have never seen a mandatory insurance rates go down so as i see it it just allows more corperations to rape the general public . also why would workers want to be loyal to the compan they work for if every one has the same plan and if you get canned you don't loose your insurance
 

pirate_girl

legendary ⚓
GOLD Site Supporter
In reality, our company's health insurance cost went up 28% this year in direct response to Obamacare's enactment.
Where I work, we've been given a choice of going for a premium increase or going for another less popular option, which is pretty shitty to say the least.
I'll stick with what I have now with the increase because to do otherwise wouldn't be wise.
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Where I work, we've been given a choice of going for a premium increase or going for another less popular option, which is pretty shitty to say the least.
I'll stick with what I have now with the increase because to do otherwise wouldn't be wise.
Mine went up 22% this year also. Sucks but really not an option to drop it.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
As I researched ObamaCare it became apparent that many companies would simply DROP insurance, and that seems to be coming true.

Here are the problems. ObamaCare ties the hands of the employer and eliminates his ability to be flexible with coverage. While it eliminates that, it also mandates other things like requiring the coverage to remain the same, even if it no longer makes sense.

So what you have is an employer who is stuck between a ROCK and a HARD PLACE with the law. No flexibility. No way to change things. Mandates on costs, coverage, etc.

Of course the companies will begin to drop the coverage.

Then you have, on the other hand, the federal penalty of something like $2000 per year per employee. Considering that employee coverage can average close to $400 or $500 a month, ($5000+ per year) then dropping the coverage and paying the $2000 fine is a cheap alternative for employers. This, I believe was the plan. Make it attractive for employers to drop insurance, throw the employees into the government plan, and you have, defacto socialized medicine!
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
As I researched ObamaCare it became apparent that many companies would simply DROP insurance, and that seems to be coming true.

Here are the problems. ObamaCare ties the hands of the employer and eliminates his ability to be flexible with coverage. While it eliminates that, it also mandates other things like requiring the coverage to remain the same, even if it no longer makes sense.

So what you have is an employer who is stuck between a ROCK and a HARD PLACE with the law. No flexibility. No way to change things. Mandates on costs, coverage, etc.

Of course the companies will begin to drop the coverage.

Then you have, on the other hand, the federal penalty of something like $2000 per year per employee. Considering that employee coverage can average close to $400 or $500 a month, ($5000+ per year) then dropping the coverage and paying the $2000 fine is a cheap alternative for employers. This, I believe was the plan. Make it attractive for employers to drop insurance, throw the employees into the government plan, and you have, defacto socialized medicine!
Good points Bob. As far as I know you are right on. I wondered if the companies are inflating their costs now because they will be limited to what they are charging the large group policies when they have to start insuring everyone outside of company policies.

Also I've read of a number of companies (McDonalds comes to mind) who have been given a waiver for the mandate. So they can opt not to offer the insurance and not pay the penalty. If my memory is correct one report said a huge percentage of those waivers were in Pelosi's district.
 

Wart

New member
Wouldn't be the first time I've heard of a company doing something (raise rates in this stance) to create a false impression, or use something as an excuse to do what they want to do anyway.

Sort of like a Middle East dictator farts and the same day the pump price of gasoline already in the tanks at the station jumps.

Sort of like that so I'm not inclined to believe a whole hell of allot coming from the insurance industry on this, rates jumping simply because a law passes and before there is enough time for the law to actually effect revenues? Please. To believe the rate increases in the time frame are anything but self serving would be a insult to ones intelligence.

More later.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Good points Bob. As far as I know you are right on. I wondered if the companies are inflating their costs now because they will be limited to what they are charging the large group policies when they have to start insuring everyone outside of company policies.

Also I've read of a number of companies (McDonalds comes to mind) who have been given a waiver for the mandate. So they can opt not to offer the insurance and not pay the penalty. If my memory is correct one report said a huge percentage of those waivers were in Pelosi's district.

Insurance companies are increasing rates to cover the added costs of covering "children" up to the age of 26 years old as mandated by ObamaCare as well as other mandates. This is NOT something that I would consider "inflating" rates.

Further, the insurance companies are NOT limited under ObamaCare from increasing rates. However, EMPLOYERS are not allowed to raise the 'employee portion' of the policy cost more than a very limited amount. This further acts to be a disincentive for the companies to provide insurance. As rates go up to the companies, they cannot correspondingly share those increases with the employees. For example, if you work for an employer that covers 70% of the 'premium' cost today and there is a big increase in the premium, it may end up that, because of the limits imposed by ObamaCare on rate increases to employees, that the company may soon be paying 80% of a higher rate. That is not fair to the employer if everyone agreed on the % split, so that it more incentive for employers to drop their policies before the law takes full effect.

Actually it is true that many companies have been given waivers, however, UNIONS have received a disproportionate number of waivers and have been exempted from insuring their employees. And yes, it is true, a large number of waivers were granted in Pelosi's district.





. . . rates jumping simply because a law passes and before there is enough time for the law to actually effect revenues? Please. To believe the rate increases in the time frame are anything but self serving would be a insult to ones intelligence. . .
The rates are not jumping "simply" because a law passes. They are going up because of what is written into the law.

Start insuring "children" until they are 26 years old and that is not free to the insurance company, it is only logical that the rates have to be adjusted to cover those so-called children.

What is more insulting to the intelligence is the lack of research so many people engage in when they don't bother to understand the facts.

FROM THE FORMER HEAD OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE who said the legislation will FORCE increased costs:
. . . with the mandated insurance likely to cost $15,000 or more by 2016, employers will have powerful incentives to dump their employee coverage and pay the $2,000 per worker fine that applies to such termination of coverage. Employers are all the more likely to do this and pay their workers higher wages in place of the health coverage precisely because the workers would then be able to get the huge subsidies for purchasing their insurance through the exchanges, effectively a net income increase. As former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin reported. . .

HE FURTHER WENT ON TO INDICATE that employers AND employees will be BETTER OFF by having companies DROP the insurance policies for many employee . . . and the COSTS WILL SHIFT TO THE TAXPAYERS and will INCREASE THE BUDGET DEFICIT:
. . . employers could gain the enormous savings from dropping the coverage and just paying the $2,000 penalty, while giving their employees a net pay raise because of these enormous subsidies, for all workers making roughly $60,000 per year or less. That means it would make sense for employers to drop their coverage for 43 million additional workers who would then receive the subsidies at taxpayer expense for obtaining their insurance through the exchanges. That alone would triple the $450 billion in estimated costs for the health insurance subsidies of Obamacare under the first 6 full years, adding nearly a trillion dollars to the costs and deficits of Obamacare during that time alone . . .​
 

Dargo

Like a bad penny...
GOLD Site Supporter
Mine went up 22% this year also. Sucks but really not an option to drop it.

Mine went up about 20% in January and now just went up another $300 per month June 1 due to my daughter's health issue. I am paying around $1500 a month for 80/20 coverage with a $2000 deductible per person. Figure in two brain surgeries in the last 6 months along with my $35k knee surgery and try to guess how much I've had to pay out of pocket in addition to the $2000 deductible per person plus 20%! :sad:
 
Top