so why aren't employers backing a strong public health plan?

[unblock]

don't the vast majority of employers view employee health insurance benefits as an odious tax on employment labor?

wouldn't they rather employees got their medical coverage from the government so that more of their labor dollars go directly to benefit their employees?

:shrug:

[global1]

1. I Wondering The Same Thing......

didn't we hear that our auto manufacturers have a hard time competing because they have to pick up the cost of employee healthcare and those dollars make us non-competitive.

I don't know why more employers aren't coming out for this health reform and a strong public option. But then again - one of the things that the President keeps telling the American people - if you like your plan you can keep it. If employers deep six their health care benefits - it is contrary to what the administration wants to have the American people hear.

[Pryderi]

2. The Magistrate had an excellent answer to this question when

I asked it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6366758&mesg_id=6366982

Business and management types are pretty clear-eyed by now about the fact that the relation of employer to employee is a hostile one. To have the maximum advantage, they want their employees to be helpless as possible, and to have no place they can turn for help against the employer. Since the government is the natural resort of citizens for redress, they want people to think of the government as something somehow smaller than their immediate boss, that has neither the will nor the capacity to help them. Anything that will make their employees feel the government is doing well by them, cares about them, and is bigger than the boss, the businessman wants to discourage and prevent. If doctor visits for the kids, treatment of injury and illness, comes from the government, this will undermine the mental world the businessman wants his employees to function within. It would open up dread possibilities, like real enforcement of safety and labor laws, even actual anti-trust action, which the businessman wants to forestall at all costs.

[Nite Owl]

5. Agree totally

with business it's a matter of control of the employee. One of the reasons they so hated President Clinton was that the employment was low and jobs were good. Employeees had a choice of where to work much more than now when no one who has a job dares to quit for any reason, they will put up with all sorts of shit to keep that job now.

[BrklynLiberal]

7. excellent insight.

[OHdem10]

9. They want the money the government would use covering people

available to them when they screw up.

A large deficit means less money to lend to Business.

[Deja Q]

3. They'd rather get bailout money instead.

600% higher salaries isn't enough, and even after offshoring jobs, they lose profits and demand the government bail them out (like "corporate welfare" wasn't already enough)...

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/JustOneThing/story?id=8374739
Cash for Clunkers (for appliances, this time)

Don't forget, Whirlpool is axing 1000 jobs next year...

[Canuckistanian]

4. Hartmann wondered why city mayors aren't endorsing this

After all, they're paying $millions in insurance for their employees.

And city mayors don't have anything to lose politically by this, sicne thay don't control health care issues.

Where is Rocky Anderson, former mayor of Salt Lake City on this issue?

[patrice]

14. Mayors need to reveal if they are receiving free health care insurance for signing up the city emplo

yees.

[Canuckistanian]

21. Has this been proven?

Not that I'm doubting you, but is this a suspected practice?

[BrklynLiberal]

6. EXCELLENT question. If GM and Chrysler had put any effort at all into backing a universal health

health care plan..they might not have ended up in the situation they are in today.

Their big complaint was that their prices were high due to high cost of health coverage, and the foreign car makers did not have to deal with it since they all had universal health care. DUH!!!?????

:silly: :wtf: :crazy:

[kelly1mm]

8. Because lots of employees will put up with almost ANYTHING

to keep their insurance. If access to health care was not tied to employment I would think a good number of people would be leaving their soul sucking jobs quickly. Future employees would also be much less willing to put up with their crap as well.

[imdjh]

11. ding! ding! ding! If you don't have to play insurance games, you can cross the street for 25¢/hr

[Dumak]

10. Because they're still Republicans

and nothing pleases them more than to see others in pain, even if it costs them wads of money (Iraq).

[katanalori]

12. I will answer this with an opposite viewpoint to those above.

The House bill supposedly calls for the employer to pay an additional 8% in taxes IF the payroll exceeds $500,000. We own a small business and yes - our payroll is just above $500,000 a year. This does NOT mean we make profit - in fact, our firm has not made any profit for nearly 2 years. We currently (and happily) break even. If the 8% increase in our taxes (House bill) becomes reality, we would likely have to close our doors. I am trying not to worry - seems to me the tax increase should take into consideration our profits (and lack of) rather than just our payroll costs. BTW, we DO currently supplement our employees health insurance costs, but we do not (and cannot) pay for their entire policies. We DO pay all employees much higher than minimum wages, and if the 8% tax is implemented, we would likely have to lower wages (in order to stay in business).

If I am misunderstanding the 8% tax increase for those of us with high payrolls (over $500,000), I am open to hearing more.

[Habibi]

16. It is always good to hear

a small business person's perspective. Thank you.

[madville]

17. The owner of the company I work for is really interested how it turns out

The way I understood one of the plans was that the employer would have to pay an 8% "tax" based on payroll if they didn't provide health insurance for their employees. My boss likes that idea.

He was telling me the other day our payroll is around $1,000,000. He pays around $126,000 a year to cover 100% of the health insurance premiums on just the employees(we have around 20). So just say that is 12%. If he drops our health coverage and tells us all to go sign up for a public option if we want, he saves $40,000 a year by only having to pay the 8% penalty, or $80,000 in this case. He said he was all for that if it worked out that way.

[unblock]

18. so wouldn't you prefer the government take healthcare out of employers' hands?

let everyone participate in medicare, or get private insurance on their own.
let employers have nothing to do with healthcare, unless they really want to offer a private plan as a benefit.

other than on-the-job accidents, medical needs have little to do with employment status. getting employers out of the health insurance purchasing business would make a lot of the silliness in that industry go away.

[patrice]

13. Because many of them receive free health care insurance for signing up their employees. nt

[unblock]

15. huh? how's that work?

that's a new one on me.

[patrice]

19. Multiple insurance companies court employers for their business

There are pluses and minues to the various coverage packages that the companies offer, so, as far as coverage goes, it's more or less 6 of one half of a dozen of the other, one of the deal sweeteners, according to a Sprint HR person I partied with a couple of times, when I worked there about 8 years ago, is x number of free policies that the insurance companies offer as an inducement to get the employer to give the insurance company access to premiums from y employees.

[patrice]

20. Now, if you were an employer with a block of free health insurance policies, what would you do with

them? To whom would you give them? And what might happen, what might those to whom you gave the free insurance do, if you revealed these facts in the current environment.