Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
Barack Obama on the stump promoting Obamacare in 2009:
Let me be exactly clear about what health care reform means to you. First of all, if you’ve got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.
Now the promises of 2009 meet the reality of 2012. The findings of a new report out of the House of Representatives, as reported by the Daily Caller:
A new report prepared by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee suggests that companies would save billions of dollars by ending health insurance coverage for employees under Presidents Barack Obama’s health care reform law.
Based on an analysis of health care data received from 71 of the America’s Fortune 100 companies, the report found that if the companies terminate insurance coverage in favor of paying the $2,000 per employee penalty, they would incur a financial benefit.
According to the report, companies surveyed would save on average $400 million — or a total of $28.6 billion in 2014 — simply by putting their employees on the government exchanges.
Between 2014 and 2023, the report says, the average savings per company would be nearly $6 billion, a total savings of $422.4 billion.
This, of course, was the problem all along. Whether or not "you" keep your plan is inextricably tied to whether or not "you" pay for your plan. If, like about 45 percent of Americans (according to the most recent Gallup numbers), you receive your insurance through your employer, the decision isn't yours to make.
Points to the president for honesty. No one in the government is taking your current health insurance away from you. They're just making it so unpalatable for employers that your boss will do the dirty work for them. Squint hard enough and you may be able to see the distinction.
- Comment (23)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
I love it, the left claimed that 47 million people don't have health insurance. Solution, pass a law mandating everyone must buy health insurance. Job done! This governing stuff is so easy.
Aug '11
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
Do I have this right (I don't have ObamaCare memorized):
Since the employers will be paying a $2,000 per employee penalty, they also won't give the employee a raise to go buy insurance in the government exchange (the government exchange policies cost money, don't they)?
That would mean every employee who had his paycheck and a health insurance bene, only has is paycheck, minus the insurance he now has to buy.
Edited on May 2, 2012 at 7:47pmDec '10
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
How will the government coerce businesses out of doing this? How will government be able to subsidize the exchanges enough that people can buy individual insurance for what they are no longer having deducted for the employee portion of the premiums?
Mar '11
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
Err, no.
Let's hope the Supreme Court strikes it down.
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
I think yours and mine are part of the same question.
Nov '11
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
Tommy De Seno: Do I have this right (I don't have ObamaCare memorized):
Since the employers will be paying a $2,000 per employee penalty, they also won't give the employee a raise to go buy insurance in the government exchange (the government exchange policies cost money, don't they)?
That would mean every employee who had his paycheck and a health insurance bene, only has is paycheck, minus the insurance he now has to buy. · 13 minutes ago
Edited 11 minutes ago
That's pretty much the crux of it. A lot of commentators thought that this was a move towards single payer because it would incent employers to simply dump insurance plans - hence the hundreds of waivers given out by HHS to prevent that behavior before Obamacare took affect.
A complaint of the self-employed that I've heard is that negotiating individually with insurance companies is hard compared to a large group of employees. And why wouldn't it be? Who would you rather lose: a Fortune 500 company's employee pool or a self-employed person?
Collective bargaining is why large corporations can give good (or decent) coverage for less than an individual does.
May '10
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
Tommy De Seno: Do I have this right (I don't have ObamaCare memorized):
Since the employers will be paying a $2,000 per employee penalty, they also won't give the employee a raise to go buy insurance in the government exchange (the government exchange policies cost money, don't they)?
That would mean every employee who had his paycheck and a health insurance bene, only has is paycheck, minus the insurance he now has to buy. · 13 minutes ago
Edited 12 minutes ago
Well to be intellectually rigorous here, the employee will have the amount s/he has been paying out-of-pocket for insurance, not to mention deductibles which for me has been growing expontentially in recent years even as my employer's contribution has remained static. Let's not let anyone kid themselves, as unpalatable as Obamacare may be, the status quo is no picnic and the president is correct that he was voted into office in part to address what most Americans -- even those with employer-paid health insurance -- grasp is a problematic system.
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
Trace Urdan
Tommy De Seno: Do I have this right (I don't have ObamaCare memorized):
Since the employers will be paying a $2,000 per employee penalty, they also won't give the employee a raise to go buy insurance in the government exchange (the government exchange policies cost money, don't they)?
That would mean every employee who had his paycheck and a health insurance bene, only has is paycheck, minus the insurance he now has to buy. · 13 minutes ago
Edited 12 minutes ago
Well to be intellectually rigorous here, the employee will have the amount s/he has been paying out-of-pocket for insurance, not to mention deductibles which for me has been growing expontentially in recent years even as my employer's contribution has remained static. Let's not let anyone kid themselves, as unpalatable as Obamacare may be, the status quo is no picnic and the president is correct that he was voted into office in part to address what most Americans -- even those with employer-paid health insurance -- grasp is a problematic system.
My question though is, at the end of the day, the employee will have less disposable income, true?
Apr '11
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
Trace Urdan
Let's not let anyone kid themselves, as unpalatable as Obamacare may be, the status quo is no picnic and the president is correct that he was voted into office in part to address what most Americans -- even those with employer-paid health insurance -- grasp is a problematic system. · 2 minutes ago
It would be silly to pretend there is no problem and reform is not needed. But now that the statists have proved their plan a disaster I think the time is ripe for some free-market solutions.
Jul '11
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
30% increases and higher deductibles/copays all around as well as increasing limited access is what this has created.
As Trace Urdan states above the system is failing. Nothing can save it in my opinion. Obamacare just rammed the gas pedal. If repeal occurs the idiots of the GOP should do better than to leave the system to wolves who have been running it.
Nov '10
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
Exactly. Those evil corporations denying their employees health care is indisputable proof that we need to take it out of their hands and have the government pay for everybody.
Jul '11
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
From the government / political point of view Obamacare has the benefit of placing a $2000.00 per employee tax on businesses in such a way that business will embrace it. There is no cost to the government since by law all people must purchase insurance. Any incidental cost does not matter since the government can either print the money or borrow it. Either way the pain will happen later when it is somebody else’s problem.
Apr '11
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
Well said Troy.
May '10
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
Tommy De Seno
My question though is, at the end of the day, the employee will have less disposable income, true? · 55 minutes ago
I don't know the intricacies of the program well-enough to know the answer Tommy. I just know that you can't make the judgement simply by seeing the employer-paid amount as a lost benefit.
You also have to factor in the employee reaction. If there is a prospective loss of benefit to me from being forced onto government insurance, that amounts to a pay cut and my employers won't risk that without risking my continued employment. So low-skilled workers might suffer that fate, but highly-skills workers may not.
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
Trace Urdan
Tommy De Seno
You also have to factor in the employee reaction. If there is a prospective loss of benefit to me from being forced onto government insurance, that amounts to a pay cut and my employers won't risk that without risking my continued employment. So low-skilled workers might suffer that fate, but highly-skills workers may not.
Yes that's what I'm talking about. $2,000 per year is far cheaper than any employer is paying for his employee's health insurance (if insurance were that cheap the nation would have no problems). I saw a stat that said the average cost of insurance is $12,000 a year. So the employer saves $10,000.00 by paying the $2,000 penalty instead.
Now the employee has to go out and buy the $12,000.00 insurance that he was getting free form his employer.
Employers will save $10,000 and the employee will loose $12,000.00.
Am I doing something wrong there?
Oct '10
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
"Points to the president for honesty."
Ahh, where I come from the word isn't "honesty." It's "duplicitousness."
No points for honesty. It's a character trait with which he is utterly unfamiliar.
Oct '10
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
Yes that's what I'm talking about. $2,000 per year is far cheaper than any employer is paying for his employee's health insurance (if insurance were that cheap the nation would have no problems). I saw a stat that said the average cost of insurance is $12,000 a year. So the employer saves $10,000.00 by paying the $2,000 penalty instead.
Now the employee has to go out and buy the $12,000.00 insurance that he was getting free form his employer.
Employers will save $10,000 and the employee will loose $12,000.00.
Am I doing something wrong there? · 5 minutes ago
But who's going to buy insurance ahead of time if they can just buy it when they need it (e.g. no pre-existing condition restrictions)? Can't wait 'til this applies to auto insurance - I'll just wait 'til I wreck, then call up that white-clad Goth chick on TV. And life insurance. I'll just wait 'til...um, no, that won't work.
May '10
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
Tommy De Seno
Yes that's what I'm talking about. $2,000 per year is far cheaper than any employer is paying for his employee's health insurance (if insurance were that cheap the nation would have no problems). I saw a stat that said the average cost of insurance is $12,000 a year. So the employer saves $10,000.00 by paying the $2,000 penalty instead.
Now the employee has to go out and buy the $12,000.00 insurance that he was getting free form his employer.
Employers will save $10,000 and the employee will loose $12,000.00.
Am I doing something wrong there? · 1 hour ago
Strictly from the perspective of the dumped employee, the subsidy provided under the government plan might exceed the employer subsidy. After all, as a self-serving political device, I can't really see the government charging a premium greater than what the employee paid under his employer. As a corrupting, intransigent entitlement program, that formula would not work.
Re: Is Anyone -- Anyone -- Surprised by This?
Trace Urdan
Tommy De Seno
Yes that's what I'm talking about. $2,000 per year is far cheaper than any employer is paying for his employee's health insurance (if insurance were that cheap the nation would have no problems). I saw a stat that said the average cost of insurance is $12,000 a year. So the employer saves $10,000.00 by paying the $2,000 penalty instead.
Now the employee has to go out and buy the $12,000.00 insurance that he was getting free form his employer.
Employers will save $10,000 and the employee will loose $12,000.00.
Am I doing something wrong there? · 1 hour ago
Strictly from the perspective of the dumped employee, the subsidy provided under the government plan might exceed the employer subsidy. After all, as a self-serving political device, I can't really see the government charging a premium greater than what the employee paid under his employer. As a corrupting, intransigent entitlement program, that formula would not work. · 1 hour ago
You keep changing my hypo to an employee who chips in. Many don't.