Company Dumps Healthcare Plan

[Jarhead]

A friend of mine is the benefits manager for a small company (500 employees). He tells me as of 12/31 they will no longer offer health insurance. Why?
Well, currently they spend $4M/yr on health coverage for their employees. The employees kick in another 1.5M. By dropping coverage he pays the $1M penalty. But in return he can give each employee $350/mo towards their own coverage and still come out ahead. Some employees can get more even more if the company wants to keep them. The lower paid employees can qualify for gov't subsidies, which they couldnt before because the company offered a health plan. ANd between subsidies and employer contribution they can pick exactly the coverage they want, so better for them.
All in all it's a win win for employer and employee. But since this is a zero sum game the loser is of coure the taxpayer, who will be subsidizing all the lower paid employees who dont have coverage from their jobs.
This will of course drive up the cost of Obamacare astronomically.

Every company similiarly situated is doing exactly the same analysis and they will come to exactly the same concliusions: cheaper to kick employees off the plan and just pay them a little extra.

Therein ^^^ is this truth: Companies and corporations are amoral - some CEOs, CFOs, etc. are immoral; and the Government has a duty to be ethical. We can fire elected government officials, but not those in the private sector who are immoral. Strange, isn't it.

amoral?

Wait a minute...the government institutes a mandate that increases operating costs for a company.....and they offer the company an alternative....and choosing the least costly alternative is amoral?

So when your local merchant has a TV for $700......but on line from Indiana you can get the same TV for $250.....it is amoral to buy on line and not support the local merchant?

Sure...Bet you will say you would gladly spend the extra 450...

Sure you would.

 

[saveliberty]

If nothing else Obama is a self promoter, even the slightest positive aspect of Obamacare would be broadcast ad nauseum. We aren't getting that are we? Enough said.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Therein ^^^ is this truth: Companies and corporations are amoral - some CEOs, CFOs, etc. are immoral;

Companies exist to turn a profit, not provide people with health insurance.
Not sure why you'd think otherwise.

and the Government has a duty to be ethical.

No... the government has a duty to protect your rights.
The PEOPLE in government have a duty to be ethical.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A friend of mine is the benefits manager for a small company (500 employees). He tells me as of 12/31 they will no longer offer health insurance. Why?
Well, currently they spend $4M/yr on health coverage for their employees. The employees kick in another 1.5M. By dropping coverage he pays the $1M penalty. But in return he can give each employee $350/mo towards their own coverage and still come out ahead. Some employees can get more even more if the company wants to keep them. The lower paid employees can qualify for gov't subsidies, which they couldnt before because the company offered a health plan. ANd between subsidies and employer contribution they can pick exactly the coverage they want, so better for them.
All in all it's a win win for employer and employee. But since this is a zero sum game the loser is of coure the taxpayer, who will be subsidizing all the lower paid employees who dont have coverage from their jobs.
This will of course drive up the cost of Obamacare astronomically.

Every company similiarly situated is doing exactly the same analysis and they will come to exactly the same concliusions: cheaper to kick employees off the plan and just pay them a little extra.

So his current cost is 667 a month per employee and he's going to give them 350 a month cash instead?

lol, well of course he comes out ahead...

 

[RDD_1210]

All the more reason why healthcare shouldn't be tied to employment.

If this is a step towards single payer/universal healthcare then I applaud it. Anything that gets us closer to a healthcare system like every other industrialized nation is utilizing is a good thing.

 

[saveliberty]

Companies offered benefits as a means of keeping good employees. It also served to keep distractions such as large health care bills from worrying these same employees. Pensions rewarded those who stayed for significant service to the company.

When government interjects itself in that formula, it promotes dependency on government and not loyalty between employer and employee.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Companies offered benefits as a means of keeping good employees. It also served to keep distractions such as large health care bills from worrying these same employees. Pensions rewarded those who stayed for significant service to the company.

When government interjects itself in that formula, it promotes dependency on government and not loyalty between employer and employee.

Which is, of course, the plan.

 

[Kosh]

Well the far left did do some good with Obamacare as they put the final nail in the coffin for the existence of unions.

So the far left shoots themselves in the foot with Obmaacare..

 

[Jarhead]

All the more reason why healthcare shouldn't be tied to employment.

If this is a step towards single payer/universal healthcare then I applaud it. Anything that gets us closer to a healthcare system like every other industrialized nation is utilizing is a good thing.

After seeing how well our government handled the VA...

You sure it is such a great idea?

 

[GHook93]

A friend of mine is the benefits manager for a small company (500 employees). He tells me as of 12/31 they will no longer offer health insurance. Why?
Well, currently they spend $4M/yr on health coverage for their employees. The employees kick in another 1.5M. By dropping coverage he pays the $1M penalty. But in return he can give each employee $350/mo towards their own coverage and still come out ahead. Some employees can get more even more if the company wants to keep them. The lower paid employees can qualify for gov't subsidies, which they couldnt before because the company offered a health plan. ANd between subsidies and employer contribution they can pick exactly the coverage they want, so better for them.
All in all it's a win win for employer and employee. But since this is a zero sum game the loser is of coure the taxpayer, who will be subsidizing all the lower paid employees who dont have coverage from their jobs.
This will of course drive up the cost of Obamacare astronomically.

Every company similiarly situated is doing exactly the same analysis and they will come to exactly the same concliusions: cheaper to kick employees off the plan and just pay them a little extra.

If your only argument is that poor employees get government subsidies for their insurance is the only negative then you are losing the argument. Your narrative is really a positive spin.

 

[Jarhead]

A friend of mine is the benefits manager for a small company (500 employees). He tells me as of 12/31 they will no longer offer health insurance. Why?
Well, currently they spend $4M/yr on health coverage for their employees. The employees kick in another 1.5M. By dropping coverage he pays the $1M penalty. But in return he can give each employee $350/mo towards their own coverage and still come out ahead. Some employees can get more even more if the company wants to keep them. The lower paid employees can qualify for gov't subsidies, which they couldnt before because the company offered a health plan. ANd between subsidies and employer contribution they can pick exactly the coverage they want, so better for them.
All in all it's a win win for employer and employee. But since this is a zero sum game the loser is of coure the taxpayer, who will be subsidizing all the lower paid employees who dont have coverage from their jobs.
This will of course drive up the cost of Obamacare astronomically.

Every company similiarly situated is doing exactly the same analysis and they will come to exactly the same concliusions: cheaper to kick employees off the plan and just pay them a little extra.

So his current cost is 667 a month per employee and he's going to give them 350 a month cash instead?

lol, well of course he comes out ahead...

uh....and 1 million in fines.

Or did you miss that because you were so hell bent on criticizing someone for making some money?

 

[Howey]

A friend of mine is the benefits manager for a small company (500 employees). He tells me as of 12/31 they will no longer offer health insurance. Why?
Well, currently they spend $4M/yr on health coverage for their employees. The employees kick in another 1.5M. By dropping coverage he pays the $1M penalty. But in return he can give each employee $350/mo towards their own coverage and still come out ahead. Some employees can get more even more if the company wants to keep them. The lower paid employees can qualify for gov't subsidies, which they couldnt before because the company offered a health plan. ANd between subsidies and employer contribution they can pick exactly the coverage they want, so better for them.
All in all it's a win win for employer and employee. But since this is a zero sum game the loser is of coure the taxpayer, who will be subsidizing all the lower paid employees who dont have coverage from their jobs.
This will of course drive up the cost of Obamacare astronomically.

Every company similiarly situated is doing exactly the same analysis and they will come to exactly the same concliusions: cheaper to kick employees off the plan and just pay them a little extra.

A small company that pays 4m into health insurance per year? I don't believe you. What's the company?

 

[The Rabbi]

All the more reason why healthcare shouldn't be tied to employment.

If this is a step towards single payer/universal healthcare then I applaud it. Anything that gets us closer to a healthcare system like every other industrialized nation is utilizing is a good thing.

Because single payer has worked out so well in every western european country, right? Oh wait, every one of them is swamped with rising costs and clamping down on providing benefits and rationing care.
That's what you want. You dont care if poor people get shitty care, so long as rich people also get shitty care.

 

[The Rabbi]

A friend of mine is the benefits manager for a small company (500 employees). He tells me as of 12/31 they will no longer offer health insurance. Why?
Well, currently they spend $4M/yr on health coverage for their employees. The employees kick in another 1.5M. By dropping coverage he pays the $1M penalty. But in return he can give each employee $350/mo towards their own coverage and still come out ahead. Some employees can get more even more if the company wants to keep them. The lower paid employees can qualify for gov't subsidies, which they couldnt before because the company offered a health plan. ANd between subsidies and employer contribution they can pick exactly the coverage they want, so better for them.
All in all it's a win win for employer and employee. But since this is a zero sum game the loser is of coure the taxpayer, who will be subsidizing all the lower paid employees who dont have coverage from their jobs.
This will of course drive up the cost of Obamacare astronomically.

Every company similiarly situated is doing exactly the same analysis and they will come to exactly the same concliusions: cheaper to kick employees off the plan and just pay them a little extra.

A small company that pays 4m into health insurance per year? I don't believe you. What's the company?

With 500 employees? Yup. It's surprising to you because you've never worked for a company before so it's all strange to yo.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A friend of mine is the benefits manager for a small company (500 employees). He tells me as of 12/31 they will no longer offer health insurance. Why?
Well, currently they spend $4M/yr on health coverage for their employees. The employees kick in another 1.5M. By dropping coverage he pays the $1M penalty. But in return he can give each employee $350/mo towards their own coverage and still come out ahead. Some employees can get more even more if the company wants to keep them. The lower paid employees can qualify for gov't subsidies, which they couldnt before because the company offered a health plan. ANd between subsidies and employer contribution they can pick exactly the coverage they want, so better for them.
All in all it's a win win for employer and employee. But since this is a zero sum game the loser is of coure the taxpayer, who will be subsidizing all the lower paid employees who dont have coverage from their jobs.
This will of course drive up the cost of Obamacare astronomically.

Every company similiarly situated is doing exactly the same analysis and they will come to exactly the same concliusions: cheaper to kick employees off the plan and just pay them a little extra.

A small company that pays 4m into health insurance per year?

$8000/yr per employee, $666/mo.
Why would you question that?

 

[Jarhead]

A friend of mine is the benefits manager for a small company (500 employees). He tells me as of 12/31 they will no longer offer health insurance. Why?
Well, currently they spend $4M/yr on health coverage for their employees. The employees kick in another 1.5M. By dropping coverage he pays the $1M penalty. But in return he can give each employee $350/mo towards their own coverage and still come out ahead. Some employees can get more even more if the company wants to keep them. The lower paid employees can qualify for gov't subsidies, which they couldnt before because the company offered a health plan. ANd between subsidies and employer contribution they can pick exactly the coverage they want, so better for them.
All in all it's a win win for employer and employee. But since this is a zero sum game the loser is of coure the taxpayer, who will be subsidizing all the lower paid employees who dont have coverage from their jobs.
This will of course drive up the cost of Obamacare astronomically.

Every company similiarly situated is doing exactly the same analysis and they will come to exactly the same concliusions: cheaper to kick employees off the plan and just pay them a little extra.

A small company that pays 4m into health insurance per year? I don't believe you. What's the company?

500 employees at $8,000 an employee is unbelievable?

Why?

 

[The Rabbi]

A friend of mine is the benefits manager for a small company (500 employees). He tells me as of 12/31 they will no longer offer health insurance. Why?
Well, currently they spend $4M/yr on health coverage for their employees. The employees kick in another 1.5M. By dropping coverage he pays the $1M penalty. But in return he can give each employee $350/mo towards their own coverage and still come out ahead. Some employees can get more even more if the company wants to keep them. The lower paid employees can qualify for gov't subsidies, which they couldnt before because the company offered a health plan. ANd between subsidies and employer contribution they can pick exactly the coverage they want, so better for them.
All in all it's a win win for employer and employee. But since this is a zero sum game the loser is of coure the taxpayer, who will be subsidizing all the lower paid employees who dont have coverage from their jobs.
This will of course drive up the cost of Obamacare astronomically.

Every company similiarly situated is doing exactly the same analysis and they will come to exactly the same concliusions: cheaper to kick employees off the plan and just pay them a little extra.

So his current cost is 667 a month per employee and he's going to give them 350 a month cash instead?

lol, well of course he comes out ahead...

uh....and 1 million in fines.

Or did you miss that because you were so hell bent on criticizing someone for making some money?

And even with the fines they come out ahead. Somehow businesses making and keeping more money is anathema to the Left. Like everone should spend money needlessly

 

[Jarhead]

A friend of mine is the benefits manager for a small company (500 employees). He tells me as of 12/31 they will no longer offer health insurance. Why?
Well, currently they spend $4M/yr on health coverage for their employees. The employees kick in another 1.5M. By dropping coverage he pays the $1M penalty. But in return he can give each employee $350/mo towards their own coverage and still come out ahead. Some employees can get more even more if the company wants to keep them. The lower paid employees can qualify for gov't subsidies, which they couldnt before because the company offered a health plan. ANd between subsidies and employer contribution they can pick exactly the coverage they want, so better for them.
All in all it's a win win for employer and employee. But since this is a zero sum game the loser is of coure the taxpayer, who will be subsidizing all the lower paid employees who dont have coverage from their jobs.
This will of course drive up the cost of Obamacare astronomically.

Every company similiarly situated is doing exactly the same analysis and they will come to exactly the same concliusions: cheaper to kick employees off the plan and just pay them a little extra.

A small company that pays 4m into health insurance per year? I don't believe you. What's the company?

With 500 employees? Yup. It's surprising to you because you've never worked for a company before so it's all strange to yo.

nor has he ever purchased insurance or he would be aware that 8000 is not astronomical.

Likely a kid living at home doing nothing with his life.

 

[Jarhead]

So his current cost is 667 a month per employee and he's going to give them 350 a month cash instead?

lol, well of course he comes out ahead...

uh....and 1 million in fines.

Or did you miss that because you were so hell bent on criticizing someone for making some money?

And even with the fines they come out ahead. Somehow businesses making and keeping more money is anathema to the Left. Like everone should spend money needlessly

the government gave them the choice.....and they chose the least costly.

There is something wrong with that?

 

[LoneLaugher]

That will work until his best employees leave to join a company that doesn't cut their pay.