Public Healthcare plan would encourage employers to abandon plans

[Robert Maxwell]

At work, our health benefits are lowered every year because of costs. I used to have a really good plan, but now we're at the lowest plan that can be offered.

Same thing happened at my last job. Little by little (well, not so little, really), the premiums went up, what was covered got smaller and smaller, and the patient responsibility portions also increased.

I hear for 2010 they are switching to HSAs entirely. God help them.

 

[SeerSGB]

At work, our health benefits are lowered every year because of costs. I used to have a really good plan, but now we're at the lowest plan that can be offered.

Same thing happened at my last job. Little by little (well, not so little, really), the premiums went up, what was covered got smaller and smaller, and the patient responsibility portions also increased.

I hear for 2010 they are switching to HSAs entirely. God help them.

+1

This year that wife's premium when up about $40 (give or take) with an aiddtional hike coming in six months; if the hikes continue at this rate as they say the will till the "recession is over", we're looking at about 30% of my wife's pretax check going into just medical benefits. The benefits went WAAAAaaaY down. Even the co-pay has went up; from 80% ins. / 20% pat. to 65% ins / 35% pat. and anything but a GP visit is 60% ins. / 40% pat. and requires a preapproval before service, including normal yearly cancer and preventive screens by a OBGYN-- which is now classified as a "non critical specialist". And pregnancy has been classified as a preventable event that is subject o higher co-pays and deductibles.

 

[thumbtack]

Because here in Canada it's dirt cheap to offer an employee a paid benefit package that fill in the holes Medicare leaves behind. Even employers like McDonald's will cover 80-100% of your additional expenses like dental, eye care and prescription drugs for a small amount through a group plan. It has become an expectation of employment with a reputable, full-time employer in Canada.

I only pay about $17 on every $1000 I gross for full dental and medical benefits through my employer and it covers both my wife and me. She has a prescription that would cost us $80 a month if we were uninsured (more if we were American because the same drug in the US costs more), so even with this one small medical expense we come out ahead of the game. We get a yearly eye exam (eyeglasses up to $250 included.) and dental visit we always take advantage of as well, so even if nothing ever goes wrong with me I get my money's worth. I'm not ignorant of the fact that some of my taxes are also part of the "real" cost of health care to me, but they are to privately insured Americans too.

Now, there's no need to tell the truth in here. That's not what this thread is about. Say that you were forced to get a lobotomy against your will and maybe your post will not be so ignored.

 

[Mallory]

2) My company tells us to get that because it's cheaper. They'll keep their $1200/month and I'll get my $600/month in my paycheck. After taxes of course.

Actually, what would most likely happen in your case is that your employer would switch to the government option, keep you paying the same amount and they would pay the a substantially smaller amount and pocket the difference.

All I can say is that I congratulate you on your optimistic view of small company ownership. I believe mine is the more realistic assessment of what most company owners will do, but I certainly hope you're right and I'm wrong in that regard.

 

[ST-One]

Obama talks about insuring tens of thousands of people who are not currently insured...

So you would also have tens of thousands of people who are now actually paying for health insurance/care...

what doctors and hospitals are going to handle the influx of new people?

Treat them?
Do you think that they will all become sick all of a sudden just because they now have health insurance?

 

[Deckerd]

I've spoken to a number of small business owners who would almost instantly forfeit their employee's health plans were a public plan to gain popular support; this would effectively leave millions more without affordable or reliable healthcare.

So let me get this straight:

1) Government offers cheaper healthcare.
2) Small businesses tell their employees to get that because it's cheaper.
3) (something something)
4) Employees have no healthcare.

You, uhm, skipped step 3 in your post. Please explain.

Maybe I can offer an example. My health insurance costs $1800 a month. The company pays $1200 and I pay $600.

1) The government offers cheaper healthcare, say $900/month. That's a 50% reduction. Not very likely, but what the heck.

2) My company tells us to get that because it's cheaper. They'll keep their $1200/month and I'll get my $600/month in my paycheck. After taxes of course.

3) My new healthcare plan now costs me an additional $300+/month. So much for that car payment, saving for retirement or helping my last two kids get through college.

4) Some employees wouldn't be able to squeeze the difference out of their monthly income. Thus you end up with employees that have no health care.

This would be a good point except that you don't say what your monthly salary is. In this country people pay a percentage. You would have to be earning a helluva lot before the equivalent of $900 was coming out for health insurance.

 

[Shaw]

2) My company tells us to get that because it's cheaper. They'll keep their $1200/month and I'll get my $600/month in my paycheck. After taxes of course.

Actually, what would most likely happen in your case is that your employer would switch to the government option, keep you paying the same amount and they would pay the a substantially smaller amount and pocket the difference.

All I can say is that I congratulate you on your optimistic view of small company ownership. I believe mine is the more realistic assessment of what most company owners will do, but I certainly hope you're right and I'm wrong in that regard.

Fortunately it doesn't have anything to do with optimism... it has to do with motivations.

By your logic, you shouldn't have health care to begin with. After all, why in the world did they ever start offering you health care? The best way to have avoided providing you with health care was to not offer it to begin with.

If you believe that they are looking for an excuse to stop providing you with health care... then you seem to be forgetting that they don't need one.

The reason they offered you health care to begin with hasn't changed, and if they can do it while paying less then you have a better chance of keeping it. On the other hand, their out of pocket expense for your health care have been rising at many times the rate of inflation over the last ten years... so if nothing happens, they're most likely going to drop your health care anyways.

If you think they'll continue providing health care for you as the cost continue to increase, odds are you are the optimistic one here.

Weigh all the factors involved and see what you come up with if you don't believe me. But don't kid yourself on something this important.

 

[Squiggy]

Do you think that they will all become sick all of a sudden just because they now have health insurance?

Apparently America's superior health care industry is just a couple of thousand of patients away from implosion.

 

[Canadave]

what doctors and hospitals are going to handle the influx of new people?

Treat them?
Do you think that they will all become sick all of a sudden just because they now have health insurance?

Hospitals are rather like Wal-Mart. There second there's a sale on, everyone mobs the place, whether they need it or not. Right?

 

[Danoz]

Actually, what would most likely happen in your case is that your employer would switch to the government option, keep you paying the same amount and they would pay the a substantially smaller amount and pocket the difference.

All I can say is that I congratulate you on your optimistic view of small company ownership. I believe mine is the more realistic assessment of what most company owners will do, but I certainly hope you're right and I'm wrong in that regard.

Fortunately it doesn't have anything to do with optimism... it has to do with motivations.

By your logic, you shouldn't have health care to begin with. After all, why in the world did they ever start offering you health care? The best way to have avoided providing you with health care was to not offer it to begin with.

If you believe that they are looking for an excuse to stop providing you with health care... then you seem to be forgetting that they don't need one.

The reason they offered you health care to begin with hasn't changed, and if they can do it while paying less then you have a better chance of keeping it. On the other hand, their out of pocket expense for your health care have been rising at many times the rate of inflation over the last ten years... so if nothing happens, they're most likely going to drop your health care anyways.

If you think they'll continue providing health care for you as the cost continue to increase, odds are you are the optimistic one here.

Weigh all the factors involved and see what you come up with if you don't believe me. But don't kid yourself on something this important.

I personally think you are missing his point. They're not looking for an "excuse" to drop all their employees-- those that do offer health benefits to employees are happy to do so. The argument is that a public system actually incentivizes small business owners to drop their programs in order to stay competitive (as others will inevitably drop theirs, and this is no small change we're talking about). At many factories, employees aren't even eligible for healthcare until they have worked for at least a year. The only other option is to tell companies they can't abandon their healthcare or tax them heavily if they do... and I can't even imagine the mess that this would be.

Like I said before, I'm not against public healthcare, but I think people are being naive about the actual consequences/outcome of such a rapid transformation.

 

[Leroy]

The thing that gets me is that at these town hall meetings people are angry but they seem to be angry for the wrong reasons. How come nobody is mad that half a dozen Shriners hospitals are closing and that the leading cause of personal bankruptcy is due to medical bills?

 

[Lindley]

Apparently the USA is #1 in everything, except anything having to do with governing.

Which makes you wonder: If our govt. is so shitacular, then why are we so adverse to trading it in for a better version?

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
-Winston Churchill

 

[Rocketman]

The argument is that a public system actually incentivizes small business owners to drop their programs in order to stay competitive (as others will inevitably drop theirs, and this is no small change we're talking about). At many factories, employees aren't even eligible for healthcare until they have worked for at least a year. The only other option is to tell companies they can't abandon their healthcare or tax them heavily if they do... and I can't even imagine the mess that this would be.

Actually, it's rather easy to do. Employers benefit from having healthy employees, therefore they'll have to pay into the government health insurance plan if they don't otherwise provide plans for their employees.

Easily cross-referenced using social security numbers, and can be collected at the same time as payroll taxes.

 

[Cakes488]

The thing that gets me is that at these town hall meetings people are angry but they seem to be angry for the wrong reasons. How come nobody is mad that half a dozen Shriners hospitals are closing and that the leading cause of personal bankruptcy is due to medical bills?

PROPAGANDA!! The new word for liberal is socialist. It's the same old same old as far as republican tricks go....and it's the same bumkins delivering the "message".

I think most clear headed people with a smidge of education see right through this little charade that's being played out.

 

[Shaw]

I personally think you are missing his point. They're not looking for an "excuse" to drop all their employees-- those that do offer health benefits to employees are happy to do so. The argument is that a public system actually incentivizes small business owners to drop their programs in order to stay competitive (as others will inevitably drop theirs, and this is no small change we're talking about). At many factories, employees aren't even eligible for healthcare until they have worked for at least a year. The only other option is to tell companies they can't abandon their healthcare or tax them heavily if they do... and I can't even imagine the mess that this would be.

Like I said before, I'm not against public healthcare, but I think people are being naive about the actual consequences/outcome of such a rapid transformation.

Fewer and fewer employers are offering health care now. So what you are saying is that because some have already drop coverage for their employees, others will follow.

And that has nothing to do with a government option... that is the facts of life now.

Where is your link of any part of the government plan to what is already happening?

If the government offers a lower cost alternative for these small businesses, and as you said they are happy to provide health care to begin with... where is your problem.



Take this out of the health care debate and look at your logic by itself... lets use lunches for employees as an alternative.

A small business offers it's employees lunches (and is happy to do so). The companies that provide those lunches have been steadily increasing the price and there is currently no alternative. The government starts a non-profit lunch program for small businesses hoping that this will drive the cost of lunches back down to a reasonable rate again (helping even those businesses who stick with one of the private lunch companies).

Why in that scenario would a small business (who is happy to provide lunches to it's employees) stop offering them if the government lunch program became effective?

Either they want to provide this or not. There is no reasonable argument that them being able to do it for less would make them stop altogether. People don't stop buying something if the prices go down... usually, they might buy more (maybe even a sack lunch program for the employees kids).

Do you stop buying things when a less expensive version becomes available? What would cause you to do that?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

The thing that gets me is that at these town hall meetings people are angry but they seem to be angry for the wrong reasons. How come nobody is mad that half a dozen Shriners hospitals are closing and that the leading cause of personal bankruptcy is due to medical bills?

Hospitals closing? They must have been uncompetitive. They couldn't survive in a free market. Illegals drowned them in unpaid bills.

Bankruptcy due to medical bills? Your own personal choices must have caused that. Couldn't possibly have been anything out of your control. Why don't you go be a real American and live on crackers and water, putting away every penny, never having kids, never buying a new car, because you know you're just a $20,000 medical bill away from destitution!

That's why they don't say those things. It's what they think, certainly, but it makes a much better sound byte to scream "I WANT MY AMERICA BACK!" and rant about how the President is a Kenyan Muslim.

 

[farmkid]

What about $20,000? $100,000? Even with insurance, you can rack up things like that. Who does that really benefit? Not the consumer, I can tell you that...

That's the typical debt level of people who go bankrupt because of doctor bills they get creamed by co-pays, 20% doesn't sound like much until you have to pay 20% of a couple hundred thousand dollars.

That's the reason for the maximum out-of-pocket portion of the insurance plan. Every plan I've been on or looked at has a maximum out-of-pocket of something like $2000-$10,000 per year. In other words, once you pay that amount in a year, the insurance pays 100%. The only way to get a $100,000 bill is to go over the maximum lifetime benefit, which is usually $1 million to $5 million.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

What about $20,000? $100,000? Even with insurance, you can rack up things like that. Who does that really benefit? Not the consumer, I can tell you that...

That's the typical debt level of people who go bankrupt because of doctor bills they get creamed by co-pays, 20% doesn't sound like much until you have to pay 20% of a couple hundred thousand dollars.

That's the reason for the maximum out-of-pocket portion of the insurance plan. Every plan I've been on or looked at has a maximum out-of-pocket of something like $2000-$10,000 per year. In other words, once you pay that amount in a year, the insurance pays 100%. The only way to get a $100,000 bill is to go over the maximum lifetime benefit, which is usually $1 million to $5 million.

The maximum OOP amount doesn't work the same way with all carriers, though.

None of them count your premiums as going toward the OOP amount. Some count copays; others don't. Some count your deductible, and some don't. Many don't count prescription copays as contributing to your deductible or your maximum OOP at all. This is indicative of the whole problem: they are inconsistent, and what looks like a good deal on paper may actually be a shitty deal in practice.

 

[Scout101]

Farmkid, do you have $10k a year you could afford to pay if shit hit the fan for you? Bear in mind, you very likely CANNOT work extra hard to make up the money, because if you are racking up these bills, you're probably out of work, or severely limited?

 

[ST-One]

What about $20,000? $100,000? Even with insurance, you can rack up things like that. Who does that really benefit? Not the consumer, I can tell you that...

That's the typical debt level of people who go bankrupt because of doctor bills they get creamed by co-pays, 20% doesn't sound like much until you have to pay 20% of a couple hundred thousand dollars.

That's the reason for the maximum out-of-pocket portion of the insurance plan. Every plan I've been on or looked at has a maximum out-of-pocket of something like $2000-$10,000 per year. In other words, once you pay that amount in a year, the insurance pays 100%. The only way to get a $100,000 bill is to go over the maximum lifetime benefit, which is usually $1 million to $5 million.

That's a pretty shitty insurance then. Lifetime benefit?