Will you be a 'socialist' on the day that 'earning' your health insurance is not enough?

[mawilson 2,133]

Terminating coverage: If health-care costs were to rise 10 percent above current levels, 14 percent of firms said they would drop health coverage. If costs rose 15 percent higher, 27 percent would do so. If costs rose 25 percent, four in 10 employers said they would stop providing coverage.

If, if, if. Health insurance companies have access to the same data and they simply won't let that happen.

They don't want to lose you as a customer any more than you want to keep your coverage.

Think about it: if 27 percent of firms drop health coverage, that's a 27% loss for the insurance industry.

Would they raise costs 15% for a 27% loss? I don't think so.

But its occurring already before our very eyes.

Most people (with health insurance) either get it through work or are able to pay for it.

Those who get it through work don't really see the rising costs because their health care is

basically paid for by "the company." Insurance companies know it and keep squeezing the

employers year after year for as much as they can.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Terminating coverage: If health-care costs were to rise 10 percent above current levels, 14 percent of firms said they would drop health coverage. If costs rose 15 percent higher, 27 percent would do so. If costs rose 25 percent, four in 10 employers said they would stop providing coverage.

If, if, if. Health insurance companies have access to the same data and they simply won't let that happen.

They don't want to lose you as a customer any more than you want to keep your coverage.

Think about it: if 27 percent of firms drop health coverage, that's a 27% loss for the insurance industry.

Would they raise costs 15% for a 27% loss? I don't think so.

But its occurring already before our very eyes.

Most people (with health insurance) either get it through work or are able to pay for it.

Those who get it through work don't really see the rising costs because their health care is

basically paid for by "the company." Insurance companies know it and keep squeezing the

employers year after year for as much as they can.

What I was saying is that statistically less people are paying into private insurance since 1984 per the CDC. That is the current trend and if we continue at the rate we are going, less people contribute per the above.

Edited August 18, 2009 by lancer1655

[mawilson 2,133]

What I was saying is that statistically less people are paying into private insurance since 1984 per the CDC. That is the current trend and if we continue at the rate we are going, less people contribute per the above.

Not true - less in percentage terms, not in absolute numbers.

Private health insurance coverage obtained through the workplace among persons under 65 years of age:

1984: 141.8 million (60.13% of 235,824,902 - US population in 1984)

2006: 157.6 million (52.81% of 298,444,215 - US population in 2006)

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus08.pdf

[rebeccajo 14]

Terminating coverage: If health-care costs were to rise 10 percent above current levels, 14 percent of firms said they would drop health coverage. If costs rose 15 percent higher, 27 percent would do so. If costs rose 25 percent, four in 10 employers said they would stop providing coverage.

If, if, if. Health insurance companies have access to the same data and they simply won't let that happen.

They don't want to lose you as a customer any more than you want to keep your coverage.

Think about it: if 27 percent of firms drop health coverage, that's a 27% loss for the insurance industry.

Would they raise costs 15% for a 27% loss? I don't think so.

But its occurring already before our very eyes.

Most people (with health insurance) either get it through work or are able to pay for it.

Those who get it through work don't really see the rising costs because their health care is

basically paid for by "the company." Insurance companies know it and keep squeezing the

employers year after year for as much as they can.

Mark -

When I first went out into the working world in 1977, I worked for a local bank. Not a big institution but very solvent. My husband (now the ex) also worked for a local bank - small but solvent.

We were each insured and pay absolutely nothing for it. We had no co-pays or deductibles - didn't even know what the word meant. We were on each other's policies so we were doubly covered.

It must have been affordable for our employers to cover us because they did. They weren't financial powerhouses or huge corporations either. Pretty much everybody I knew in town had a similar situation - if you had a job you had coverage and it didn't cost you a penny.

*side note* There were few prescription plans at that time and so we didn't have a drug plan. But it also didn't cost your weekly grocery budget to get a few tablets.

Fast forward thirty years to the present situation. I don't think I need to draw anybody a map.

Edited August 18, 2009 by rebeccajo

[rebeccajo 14]

If, if, if. Health insurance companies have access to the same data and they simply won't let that happen.

They don't want to lose you as a customer any more than you want to keep your coverage.

Think about it: if 27 percent of firms drop health coverage, that's a 27% loss for the insurance industry.

Would they raise costs 15% for a 27% loss? I don't think so.

But how high will they let the percentage get before they stop the spiral?

How many people will be 'cut loose'? What will those people do? What will their opinion be of "the system we have now" when that happens to them?

Besides that, why wouldn't they raise costs 15%? By your own statistics above you show there are more PEOPLE insured today than before, even though the percentage of the population covered is far lower. The insurance companies have more CUSTOMERS now than before. They are not concerned with those who aren't customers.

Edited August 18, 2009 by rebeccajo

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Terminating coverage: If health-care costs were to rise 10 percent above current levels, 14 percent of firms said they would drop health coverage. If costs rose 15 percent higher, 27 percent would do so. If costs rose 25 percent, four in 10 employers said they would stop providing coverage.

If, if, if. Health insurance companies have access to the same data and they simply won't let that happen.

They don't want to lose you as a customer any more than you want to keep your coverage.

Think about it: if 27 percent of firms drop health coverage, that's a 27% loss for the insurance industry.

Would they raise costs 15% for a 27% loss? I don't think so.

But its occurring already before our very eyes.

Most people (with health insurance) either get it through work or are able to pay for it.

Those who get it through work don't really see the rising costs because their health care is

basically paid for by "the company." Insurance companies know it and keep squeezing the

employers year after year for as much as they can.

Mark -

When I first went out into the working world in 1977, I worked for a local bank. Not a big institution but very solvent. My husband (now the ex) also worked for a local bank - small but solvent.

We were each insured and pay absolutely nothing for it. We had no co-pays or deductibles - didn't even know what the word meant. We were on each other's policies so we were doubly covered.

It must have been affordable for our employers to cover us because they did. They weren't financial powerhouses or huge corporations either. Pretty much everybody I knew in town had a similar situation - if you had a job you had coverage and it didn't cost you a penny.

*side note* There were few prescription plans at that time and so we didn't have a drug plan. But it also didn't cost your weekly grocery budget to get a few tablets.

Fast forward thirty years to the present situation. I don't think I need to draw anybody a map.

Both my ex-wife and I were working for the same grocery retail chain in the early 90's and also had double coverage with no premiums (BC/BS of Arizona). I left grocery retail in '96 so I'm not up to speed on what they offer now, but I remember a few years back, the union workers went on strike here in CA over the retail chains cutting back on their benefits. Something's got to give and for most workers who have no union to negotiate for them, they are left out in the cold.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

..and yes I am refering to the percentages.

[mawilson 2,133]

But how high will they let the percentage get before they stop the spiral?

How many people will be 'cut loose'? What will those people do? What will their opinion be of "the system we have now" when that happens to them?

Besides that, why wouldn't they raise costs 15%? By your own statistics above you show there are more PEOPLE insured today than before, even though the percentage of the population covered is far lower. The insurance companies have more CUSTOMERS now than before. They are not concerned with those who aren't customers.

All good questions. I think there's still room for premiums to go higher; 15% - certainly,

but they wouldn't dare raise them to a point where employers start dumping people en masse.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Employer Health Care Mandates: Taxing Low-Income Workers to Pay for Health Care

by James Sherk and Robert A. Book, Ph.D.

WebMemo #2552

Congressional advocates of the latest health care reform proposal claim that it will not cost ordinary Americans more--the costs will be borne by "the rich" and by employers. After all, both the House and the Senate versions require employers who do not provide health benefits to pay higher taxes.

But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently reported what economists have long known: Regardless of who is formally required to pay, the burden of these taxes and costs will ultimately fall primarily on employees through lower wages. An employer mandate does not give workers without health insurance something for nothing but rather forces them to purchase it out of their wages whether they like it or not--and no matter how low those wages are. Congressional rhetoric to the contrary, much of the burden of paying for an employer mandate will fall on ordinary Americans, and lower-income workers will be hit the hardest.

Employer Mandates

Both the House and Senate drafts of health care reform include so-called "employer mandates" or "pay or play" provisions. These mandates require employers to pay higher taxes if (a) they do not offer health insurance, or (B) they offer it but have employees who decline it and instead use the government system.

The Senate version requires employers to pay $750 a year for each full-time employee without health coverage. The House version goes further, requiring most employers who do not provide health benefits (or whose employees decline it) to pay a penalty of 8 percent of their payroll. It has even been proposed that employers whose employees enroll in Medicaid may be required to pay this tax.

The ostensible purpose of such a tax penalty is to discourage employers from dropping workers onto the taxpayer-subsidized government plan. The tax will pay a portion of the public's costs when employees use the new government system instead of employer-sponsored insurance. However, the actual result will be lower pay and job losses, especially for low-income workers.

Costs Paid by Employees, Not Employers

Advocates of an employer mandate claim that employers and "the rich" will bear the burden of health coverage. However, the CBO recently reported that ordinary workers--not their employers--will ultimately bear the full cost of any reforms that make health insurance more expensive for employers.[1]

Although workers do not physically write a check for their health benefits, their employers write a smaller check to them every payday. Workers pay for health benefits through lower wages. As the CBO explains:

Although employers directly pay most of the costs of their workers' health insurance, the available evidence indicates that active workers--as a group--ultimately bear those costs. Employers' payments for health insurance are one form of compensation, along with wages, pension contributions, and other benefits. Firms decide how much labor to employ on the basis of the total cost of compensation and choose the composition of that compensation on the basis of what their workers generally prefer. Employers who offer to pay for health insurance thus pay less in wages and other forms of compensation than they otherwise would, keeping total compensation about the same. ...

f employers who did not offer insurance were required to pay a fee, employees' wages and other forms of compensation would generally decline by the amount of that fee from what they would otherwise have been.[2]

Employers do not have limitless funds to dole out according to their own generosity. They must pay for all benefits and wages out of revenue received from customers; therefore they must decide how many employees to hire, and what to pay, based on the total cost of having that employee (and that employee's productivity). It does not matter from the employer's point of view how compensation is divided between wages, benefits, and payroll or other taxes.

If Congress makes health coverage more expensive for employers, or requires new payroll taxes, employers will be forced to cut wages to make up the difference. Even if the law stated (as the House bill does[3]) that employers could not cut pay directly to make up for the cost of health care, they will ultimately, somehow have to do just that.

For example, they could give smaller raises (too small to keep pace with inflation), less frequent promotions, lower starting pay to new employees, and/or wage cuts due to "the recession" until their total costs of employing a worker had fallen by nearly the same amount as the employer mandate imposed by Congress.[4]

No Free Lunch

An employer mandate does not give workers without health coverage a "free lunch": They will not be able to keep their current wages and benefits and have health care added to it at their employers' expense. Instead, the proposed laws would effectively force them to purchase health insurance and therefore spend less on other goods. Some workers will prefer this arrangement, but many others will not. In essence, the Congress would be telling the poor: "If you now have to choose between food and health insurance, you no longer have that choice--from now on you have to buy the health insurance."

Wage Cuts for Low-Income Workers

These wage reductions will most seriously affect low-income workers. Most higher-income earners already have health benefits and so will not experience any wage cuts as long as their health insurance meets the new federal requirements.

The employer mandate's burden would primarily fall on lower-income and less-skilled workers who do not currently have health coverage. The House version would force these workers to take the equivalent of an 8 percent pay cut--amounting to $1,600 a year for a full-time worker earning $10 an hour.

Job Losses for Low-Income Workers

On July 24, the federal minimum wage will rise to $7.25 an hour. Employers cannot legally take the full cost of the employer mandate penalty out of the paychecks of anyone earning close to this minimum. Thus, paying $7.25 an hour plus the health care tax will make unskilled workers even more expensive to hire. So, as the CBO points out, their employers will respond by laying them off or hiring fewer of them in the first place:

[A] play-or-pay provision would reduce the hiring of low-wage workers, whose wages could not fall by the full cost of health insurance or a substantial play-or-pay fee if they were close to the minimum wage.[5]

Health care reform is supposed to help vulnerable workers. But the House's approach to health care reform will cost many of them their jobs.

Tax Increases on Ordinary Workers

President Obama promised not to raise taxes on workers earning less than $250,000 a year, and supporters of an employer mandate claim that they will not make low- and middle-income workers bear the burden of paying for it. The focus on the surcharge on those earning over a million dollars a year reinforces this impression.

However, low-income workers will bear much of the cost, paying higher taxes indirectly through reduced wages. The House bill imposes what is effectively an 8 percent surtax that applies only to workers who do not already have health insurance, most of whom are already in the lower-income strata and can least afford to pay higher taxes.

James Sherk is Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy and Robert A. Book, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow in Health Economics in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2552.cfm

[rebeccajo 14]

luckytxn -

I'm sure my employer would rather pay the penalty and pass it on to me.

If the penalty on my wages were to go into effect, I could purchase health insurance coverage for myself and my husband from the new public plan for about $100 less per pay period than what my employer offers to me now.

I'd be thrilled with that.

Edited August 19, 2009 by rebeccajo

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

luckytxn -

I'm sure my employer would rather pay the penalty and pass it on to me.

If the penalty on my wages were to go into effect, I could purchase health insurance coverage for myself and my husband from the new public plan for about $100 less per pay period than what my employer offers to me now.

I'd be thrilled with that.

Public plan?

[rebeccajo 14]

luckytxn -

I'm sure my employer would rather pay the penalty and pass it on to me.

If the penalty on my wages were to go into effect, I could purchase health insurance coverage for myself and my husband from the new public plan for about $100 less per pay period than what my employer offers to me now.

I'd be thrilled with that.

Public plan?

Whatever you want to call it.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

luckytxn -

I'm sure my employer would rather pay the penalty and pass it on to me.

If the penalty on my wages were to go into effect, I could purchase health insurance coverage for myself and my husband from the new public plan for about $100 less per pay period than what my employer offers to me now.

I'd be thrilled with that.

Public plan?

Whatever you want to call it.

Right now, there is no public plan. Co-ops, maybe, but even that is not looking likely. The Progressives just shifted in to high gear over the single payer issue, that probably doesn't have the votes, although, IMO, it is the best legislation that will be offered when the bill finally comes up for debate the last week of October.

[rebeccajo 14]

luckytxn -

I'm sure my employer would rather pay the penalty and pass it on to me.

If the penalty on my wages were to go into effect, I could purchase health insurance coverage for myself and my husband from the new public plan for about $100 less per pay period than what my employer offers to me now.

I'd be thrilled with that.

Public plan?

Whatever you want to call it.

Right now, there is no public plan. Co-ops, maybe, but even that is not looking likely. The Progressives just shifted in to high gear over the single payer issue, that probably doesn't have the votes, although, IMO, it is the best legislation that will be offered when the bill finally comes up for debate the last week of October.

Well since the link luckytxn put up was about the 'what if' plan, I did the math in the 'what if' sense.

It appears luckytxn would rather deal with any 'what if' other than the one I posed in my original post.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

luckytxn -

I'm sure my employer would rather pay the penalty and pass it on to me.

If the penalty on my wages were to go into effect, I could purchase health insurance coverage for myself and my husband from the new public plan for about $100 less per pay period than what my employer offers to me now.

I'd be thrilled with that.

Public plan?

Whatever you want to call it.

Right now, there is no public plan. Co-ops, maybe, but even that is not looking likely. The Progressives just shifted in to high gear over the single payer issue, that probably doesn't have the votes, although, IMO, it is the best legislation that will be offered when the bill finally comes up for debate the last week of October.

Well since the link luckytxn put up was about the 'what if' plan, I did the math in the 'what if' sense.

It appears luckytxn would rather deal with any 'what if' other than the one I posed in my original post.

Okay, my fault. I didn't know there were hypotheticals. It's hard to hit a moving target. I think Weiner and the rest of the Progressives are just as frustrated as the American people, and stepping out on their own. I watched him on Hardball earlier today, he looks like a man with a mission. I think the Progressives are going to start to push the agenda now, since Obama has stripped away their entire platform, and "Co-ops" just won't be enough to get their votes.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Mister_Bill