Do Employers Really Want To Continue To Provide Healthcare For Their Employees?......

[global1]

Let's take a small business that say has 200 employees and is self-insured or has to deal with an insurance company to provide health care for their employees. Seems to me that they would jump at a chance to pass that ball on to someone else - and the government would be the most likely candidate. If that is so - why aren't we hearing from more owners of such companies.

Even if they had to pay some sort of tax per employee - it would still be cheaper than having to carry the full burden themselves. Wouldn't they be more profitable? Couldn't they pass any savings on to their employees in the form of a salary increase?

What about a big company like GM or Chrysler or Ford? Wouldn't they like not to have to worry about health insurance for their employees? Wouldn't they then be more competitive with the foreign auto makers that they compete with? Wouldn't the unions support this as well?

Why aren't these topics being raised in this health reform debate?

[Shagbark Hickory]

1. excellent question.

[samplegirl]

2. Walmart is all for it!!!!!!

Broke poor Glen Becks heart to announce that.

[stray cat]

3. No - they like the GOP idea - you get a little tax break to pay for your own

[jtrockville]

10. They also want to tax health insurance premiums. So where's the break?

[stray cat]

12. Only if your policy is over 40,000 - do you have a 40,000 per year policy?

[jtrockville]

17. I hadn't heard the $40k limit before.

But if you add what I'm paying to what my employer pays... it might be close. I'm not sure what my employer's contribution is.

Does the GOP tax-the-premium-plan apply to just the part of the premium that's over $40k, or to the whole policy once the annual premium is over $40k?

[Raven]

4. Having been a small businessperson, I would have loved a public

option. The costs of health insurance were killing us.

[DURHAM D]

5. Same here.

Would love to pay a tax instead of the premiums. Its a no brainer.

[Wapsie B]

6. Health insurance is a big burden for companies large and small.

This should be a key component of health reform debate.

[Skink]

7. Ironically the unions have given up so much.

but not this they must have there employer based insurance even in liu of better wages.

[bkkyosemite]

8. What is strange is that the companies are not saying anything about this.

[LuvNewcastle]

9. I think some companies use their insurance

as leverage in order to keep employees that might otherwise quit. I've heard so many employees say, "I'd quit if it weren't for the insurance." However, one would think that a company would rather lose the disgruntled employee and let them be covered by a public option, if available.

[Cleita]

11. It would be more of a business stimulus across the board if they didn't

have to. Sure they probably would have to pay a percentage of tax to cover it, but it wouldn't be per employee head but most likely from revenue and a P/R tax. Actually, this is what FDR and the labor unions wanted however he was shot down by the AMA, so the unions went for the second best, which was forcing employers to provide health benefits. It then became institutionalized, but it needs to go.

[stray cat]

13. Why do people want to pay for their own insurance ie taxes

if the employer will pay for it?

[Salviati]

16. Why?

- because then they won't get charged more just because they're using their health care

- because then there will be no chance of being dropped because they're too expensive to insure

- because then they won't have to worry about being uninsured if they end up losing their job

- because then they won't have to fight tooth and claw to make use of the health care that they've been paying all those premiums to get

- because then the focus of the health care may be to keep them healthy, not to minimize their cost

Those are a couple of the reasons why.

[Jane Austin]

14. I wish we didn't have to pay for it.

Of course, we don't have to, but we think it's the right thing to do.

It's very, very expensive and it covers less and less each year.

It would be great to have something other than for-profit private insurance to choose from.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

15. I wonder if Workers Compensation premiums would go down as well

Right now, premiums can run as high as 4% of payroll and can be a big burden to small business. I wouldn't expect that universal healthcare would replace all of the workers comp system, such as permanent disability claims or vocational rehabilition costs. But the medical treatment side and its high costs to the system might be completely done away with. Has this topic been mentioned in the healthcare debate?

[DURHAM D]

21. Workers comp for my employees is 18%.

The percentage of payroll is based on the type of work. Some types of work run 25% of the payroll amount.

The workers compensation requirements are state (not federal) regulated to a large extent. The fact that I pay group medical for my employees in no way changes the workers compensation rates. Although I think it should - the state does not.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

23. But I wonder if universal healthcare would pre-empt state law

requiring treatment for injured workers. Federal law in that case would have interceded on the issue of treatment. The system would continue to be state run and disability and rehabilitation claims would continue to be litigated by state administrative boards. But I'm wondering if the medical treatment aspect and its costs would be taken out of the equation and thus lead to (hopefully) lower premiums.

[DURHAM D]

24. Would it pre-empt state law - No.

Could it - Possibly yes.

Will it - No.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

25. Depending on how the federal law is written

there might be a very strong Supremacy Clause issue. If federal law is written with an intent to preempt the entire field regarding medical treatment, then it will.

[annabanana]

18. The Chamber of Commerce.. (you know, the guys who REALLY

run City Hall) told them not to.

[surrealAmerican]

19. The system as it stands favors large employers.

Small businesses are suffering, but larger companies benefit from "economies of scale", paying less per employee. It helps them retain their employees without costing as much as, say, giving raises or improving working conditions.

[B Calm]

20. My wages have been stagnant for 20+ years. This year our wages were

frozen. Our employer complains constantly about how much he is spending on employee health care. So I wonder how I much I would be making per hour if we had national health care.

[bertman]

22. My answer is NO!! HELL NO!! And it's not because we don't want them (and us) to have

good health insurance coverage. It's because it's EXPENSIVE and it drives up our cost of doing business because we have to charge our clients for it (in our product price) and we have to administer it and negotiate it every year.

Last year we went to renew with our insurance carrier and they told us our premiums were GOING UP 40+%. So we started talking to other companies and got prices from them. Then, when our carrier found out we were going to switch companies they called and told us that the 40+% rate hike was an error and that the rates would ONLY GO UP 18%. Unfortunately they were still the best and lowest-cost policy available at the time, so we renewed with them.

I'll gladly pay more in taxes to have my employees, my business partner and I, and all other Americans covered for all of their medical care needs.

And for all of the premiums we pay we still have a $5000 deductible, plus copays, etc. So, after two minor surgeries this policy year I am just about to pay out of pocket over $5000. I'm glad just to have coverage and to be able to afford to pay the deductibles, but most of our employees could not take a hit like that without suffering.

Our current "system" is a for-profit insurance company's wet dream. It's obscene and needs to be done away with in favor of a universal health care system--single payer. This tinkering around the edges is just an illusion of reform. And President Obama needs to stop acting like this is a good thing.

[TexasObserver]

26. No! Providing health care is the bane of small business.

It's a nightmare, because in a small business, there's a risk that an entire policy would be cancelled if one person on the coverage has a bad loss. Let's say the company has 40 employees, including the owners, and one of the persons covered has some major health issue develop. That's when the insurer starts looking for ways and reasons to increase premiums paid by the company, or get rid of them as an insured.

We need the system Canada has, and anything less merely continues the current system of health care going to the highest bidder, with those at the low end getting only minimal care.

People become indentured servants when they have a health problem develop and coverage through their employer. I know a man who has been stuck at the same company for years with no hope of moving, all because of the disease he discovered while employed there. Who is going to hire him away? How could he ever get adequate coverage if he left? The company he works for won't pay him more. They don't have to. They know he won't leave. He can't.