Small Businesses Dropping Healhplans: A Win/Win?

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by wgbgator, Dec 12, 2013.

  1. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,145
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,326
    More pay, more choice, lower costs. Seems like there are more winners than losers in these type of scenarios created by the ACA:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/b...r-small-employers.html?ref=smallbusiness&_r=0

  2. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,932
    Likes Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,449
    Don't worry. Somebody will find a reason why win-win is a terrible thing.
  3. gatorman_07732
    Online

    gatorman_07732 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    29,840
    Likes Received:
    2,130
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    The Irish Riviera
    Ratings Received:
    +3,646
    Wrong, they're not going to get an individual plan on the exchange cheaper than being in a group plan. This employer is looking out for his own pocket, not that there is anything wrong with that. Oh yeah, right, subsidies. We're going to find out that the give always are not all what they're cracked up to be.
  4. OklahomaGator
    Offline

    OklahomaGator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,247
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Miami, OK
    Ratings Received:
    +1,911
    So small employers dropping their insurance is a good thing? We are taking people off of privately financed health insurance programs and putting them on plans through the exchanges. Some of them probably qualify for subsidies so for every person who gets a subsidy we (the country) went from not costing us anything to supporting their health insurance through government subsidies. In what way do you see this as a good thing?
    It seems to me the left is getting desperate to sell Obamacare that they twist every news story into something positive.
  5. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,145
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,326
    http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.o...ato-handbook-policymakers/2009/9/hb111-14.pdf

    Well, the revenue loss to the government in 2007 was $147 billion on the tax exclusion for employer provided care. Its the biggest break in the tax code. Moreover, this cost comes out of employees wages. Cato explains:

    Sorry for the formating. Put it this way pre-ACA, many conservatives and libertarians found this objectionable that employer provided care was treated favorably vs. stuff on the individual market, even if they werent advocating an ACA style reform, they werent exactly thrilled with the tax treatment of healthcare.
  6. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,748
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    I think if anything, it is a losing proposition for both sides. It is a win for the employer because he has an "out" for this horrible legislation who is backing him into a corner. It is a big time loss for employees as you do realize that anyone going into the exchanges is going to face larger deductables and likely will not be able to keep their doc nor will they have many choices for hospitals?
  7. GT Gator
    Offline

    GT Gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +185
    Are you guys really trying to spin the fact that small employers are dropping healthcare coverage as a positive? Really? Really?

    Wasn't the primary purpose of the ACA to reduce the number of uninsured in the U.S.? Weren't we all going to save money when the vast uninsured masses suddenly shifted their reliance on the emergency room to primary care providers? Weren't we all going to save money as all the uninsured started receiving preventative care, chronic disease management and free contraception?

    The Left and the MSM media can try to spin the fact that so many small employers are dropping coverage, but that's just silly -- really silly. Let's consider some real facts:

    1. While the wonderful employers in the fluff piece may be passing the savings of not offering healthcare to the employee through the paychecks, the vast majority will not (at least not the full cost). Most people will just lose their healthcare coverage and keep getting the exact same pay.

    2. In the rare cases where the employer does pass the savings on to the employees, the are very real tax implications for the employee. While the employer still gets the exact same tax deduction, the employer must now pay taxes (including FICA) on the additional payments whereas before their healthcare was a pre-tax benefit. These additions payment may actually move employees beyond the limits for things like SNAP, EITC, and Section 8.

    3. In the article, they say, "When I did the subsidy calculator, I realized many of them would actually be better off if we didn’t offer coverage." Who the F' do you think is paying for the F'ing subsidy? The taxpayers of course. In other words, this is causing a shift from private funding of healthcare to public funding (while we have a $17 Trillion debt).

    4. Better coverage? Yeah, right. Sure the ACA-approved plans do cover more than most older plans (they're statutorily required to), but so may people completely ignore that most ACA plans have HUGE deductibles and copays.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. GT Gator
    Offline

    GT Gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +185
    So, let me get this straight.... You really think that it's a good thing when employers drop coverage for their employees? Really? WTF?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,145
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,326
    What is the rationale for employers being the primary providers of healthcare, other than that they already are? Its a strange anomoly that exists almost nowhere else in the world.
  10. tegator80
    Offline

    tegator80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    4,911
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Ratings Received:
    +1,780
    Just remember, ACA is about healthcare reform and affordability as the Patriot Act was about National Security. Both are all about using a "crisis" to develop a way to get government where it doesn't - and shouldn't - belong. Finding nuggets of good in both doesn't hide all of the really bad that is transpiring.
  11. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,145
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,326
    People complaining about the government being where it doesnt belong should really read the Cato paper I posted.
  12. malligator
    Offline

    malligator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,230
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ahwatukee
    Ratings Received:
    +264
    As we discussed yesterday the government has stockpiles of money available to ensure Obamacare works. They'll subsidize the individual market making it artificially cheap while delaying the employer market to get people off employer plans. Hell, once everyone is in the individual market they may just scrap the employer market altogether. One step closer to single payer.
  13. OklahomaGator
    Offline

    OklahomaGator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,247
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Miami, OK
    Ratings Received:
    +1,911
    The tax break that for employer sponsored health care benefits the EMPLOYEES. Most of the cost of current health care is pretax income to the employee. Taking this away will be one of the largest tax increases to the lower income people in history. Why the left is happy about this is beyond me?

    As an employer if I am paying $300 a month per employee for the health care premium and cancel the policy and add $280 to their pay the employer is coming out even after paying the employer portion of their fica taxes. Now the employee has to pay income tax, fica tax, and other state or local income taxes on that $280. Then they have to buy their health insurance. No way do they come out ahead.

    All in the name of selling Obamacare, the kool-aid must be pretty good.
  14. mocgator
    Offline

    mocgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,294
    Likes Received:
    272
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The ATL
    Ratings Received:
    +501
    This is all another big money grab by the government. The business tax deduction is what they are after.
  15. ufdocco
    Offline

    ufdocco Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Greeley, CO
    Ratings Received:
    +295
    It started when the government imposed wage and price controls, so offering health insurance was one of the few ways that employers could attract and keep decent employees and distinguish themselves from their competitors.
  16. GT Gator
    Offline

    GT Gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +185
    What the hell does the Cato paper have to do with your original post?

    The Cato paper wants the Feds to remove the preferential tax treatment of healthcare consumption (along with tax preference for HSAs). Cato wants move the tax incentives for healthcare from consumption to savings -- a great and noble idea. Furthermore, it removes government from the whole healthcare equation.

    On the other, the NYT propaganda piece in your post basically advocates moving people from privately-funded healthcare to publicly-funded healthcare.

    The Cato paper and the NYT piece couldn't be more opposite.
  17. cjgator76
    Offline

    cjgator76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    17,026
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +293
    Employers win in that they get out from under the administrative burden and the risk of future premium increases.

    The government may win if the taxes on the additional compensation paid to employees in lieu of premiums exceed the subsidies for employees who qualify for same.

    I doubt that most employees - other than maybe those who get subsidies - will win, even if their employers pay them the dollars that now go to premiums.

Share This Page