Will employers continue to offer medical insurance if workers are mandated to buy it?

[leftstreet]

[Orangepeel]

1. Why do they offer it now?

Employers who offer it now because they need to in order to get the workers they want will still offer it. Employers who offer it because they care about their employees will still offer it.

If they don't have to offer it now but do anyway, why would they stop?

[leftstreet]

3. Employers don't have to offer food vouchers or utility pymts to get workers

Workers are expected to purchase those things on their own

How will this be any different?

[Orangepeel]

6. well, because workers are expected to purchase those things on their own

It's different because many employers currently offer health insurance as a benefit. They don't currently offer the other things. I don't see how whatever factors are making them offer health insurance as a benefit will change because of this bill.

It seems to me that an employer that is likely to tell employees that they are on their own because they are now required to buy insurance* would have already told them they are on their own. Post bill, I think they'll get additional tax credits for offering it, so they may be less likely to drop it (although I'm not sure about that)

*if the premiums would be less than 8% of their income because they'll be exempt from the mandate if it is more

[harkadog]

24. When there is a mandate workers will be expected to get

insurance on their own -- just like food and housing.

[recoveringrepublican]

11. That's what I say. Why would this make them want to stop? There was nothing forcing them to in

the first place.

[eridani]

27. Because expensive plans would be taxed

Even if those plans are expensive not because the bennies are so good but because their employees are older or involved in dangerous occupations.

[yodoobo]

2. Employers offer it for one reason only

So that they can give it to their executives.

If executives get health insurance, laws in place now require that all full time employees get it to.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.

If ever there were a class of people able to pay for their own health care, it's executives. Employers offer their employees (especially trained employees) health care because having sick employees fucking sucks.

[yodoobo]

7. yes. the corporations just love their employees

disagree all you want. but the law I mentioned is in fact real.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. Ah, yet another person...

...who thinks that giant corporations are the only employers in the US.

[yodoobo]

17. and who would that be?

certainly nothing in my message that suggests anything of the sort

[Fumesucker]

8. And if there was ever a class of people that will pay for absolutely nothing they don't have to..

It's executives..

That's why they get planes provided for their use complete with pilot and all of the myriad other "perks"..

They also don't need "golden parachutes" but it's so common as to be totally unremarkable and has been for decades.. I had a book at least fifteen years ago called "What Color Is Your Parachute"..

[Mojambo]

4. Of course not. And they're not going to be raising wages with the money they save either.

Gonna be some big fat corporate dividend checks rolling out though.

[Individualist]

9. K&R

[Yo_Mama]

10. The top reason

Why small employers offer benefits now to their workers is that they get their OWN medical benefits that way. If they can buy on the insurance exchange, and if their workers get better subsidies on the insurance exchange, it might help them attract workers to not offer insurance but more pay.

For lower-paid workers this might be a huge advantage. The issue I had with the original CBO scoring is that it didn't take into account how many people would lose their employer coverage and shift to the exchange.

I immediately thought of several small businesses with which I am familiar in which both employees and the owner would benefit by doing this. It is not necessarily going to be people who don't care about their workers who drop coverage. And a huge number of persons work in small businesses.

[inna]

12. K&R, and I posted about this today, too:

One HUGE but rarely mentioned problem with HCR - weakening/eroding employer-sponsored coverage and shifting financial burden to individuals/families

[WorseBeforeBetter]

15. Continuation of Bush's "Ownership Society."

I didn't expect revolution with Obama, but I didn't expect this either...

[ProSense]

21. And in response

How many large employers who now offer coverage to employees are waiting to drop that benefit when premiums go down? They can drop coverage now and not be subjected to a penalty, why would they suddenly opt to pay a penalty? How will they remain competitive if they don't offer health care?

Isn't this the fastest way to a government-run/single payer plan?

This entire notion is absurd.

[TheWebHead]

13. well they'd get fined if they don't

and employers don't offer insurance to employees for some altriustic reasoning that they'd have uninsured workers otherwise... they do because unions and state/local governments offer it and companies offer it to be competitive to retain workers.

that said, workers are mandated to buy insurance if their employers offer it anyways.. it's a cost of business that most people factor in their decision to take a job. one of the ways to reduce healthcare costs in the system is to put the insurance purchasing power in the hands of the individual, rather than as an entitlement provided to you by your employer where costs are ignored since you're spending someone else's money.

[amborin]

14. K&R

[Incitatus]

18. Don't some offer it as an incentive to stay with the company?

Why would that change with this bill? They don't have to offer 401Ks, but many do.

[ProSense]

20. Because

anything makes sense when desperation kicks in.

[scentopine]

19. Maybe employers can sell it at the company store - just like the old days -nt

[420inTN]

22. Without a doubt they will

Any expense companies can eliminate, they will.

[timeforpeace]

23. Odd that it took this long for someone to think it through and ask this question. Poll results are

accurate prediction of what will happen. Oops! Unintended consequence Number 1. Many more to follow, stay tuned.

[Bluebear]

25. kick

[quaker bill]

26. Yes, a great many will

Having been an employer, we offered insurance to attract and retain the best workers. It had nothing to do with law, as it was perfectly legal for us to not offer it. However, in a market that was competitive for the best talent, the only way you could get the best people was by offering a competitive benefits package, profit sharing and insurance were essential parts of our business model.

How do I know this? Because I was running the company and attempting to recruit experienced folks to bolster our company resume and better compete for big contracts. At the time I took over, we were a very small firm that did not offer benefits, and used a number of young independent contractors to reduce overhead. As good as they were, the independent contractors did not contribute to our corporate CV. We then attempted to recruit more qualified and experienced associates before adding the benefits, and failed. I talked to the folks who did not accept the offers and discovered that they had families, and that our lack of health benefits was a critical factor in their decision not to join us.

We went out, secured the benefits and began offering defined profit-sharing. I was then able to recruit the folks I needed to grow the company. It worked, I more than doubled the size of the company in 18 months, brought on the independent contractors as full time staff with benefits and hired experienced project managers. We increased our contracts considerably more than enough to cover the additional expense and my share of the profits went up 4 fold, even with the new policy of giving everyone a slice.

This had nothing to do with law, it was simply good business decisions.