June 12, 200917 yr Why would any company maintain health insurance for their employees if there was an option not to? 1. Attracting quality employees. 2. A healthy workforce is a productive workforce. To be fair, however, there is a point of diminishing returns.
June 12, 200917 yr Before I retired last year, I paid 50% of the cost of the plan. Well you paid a lot. If the value of the health plan is so important it seems your company may not attract the best employees. I have found that 28-35% is what most employees can expect in a good plan. Now, again, if every company in the US had the opportunity to drop this huge expense and turn everyone over to a gov't plan, why would they not do that? I know how much my co. pays in insurance premiums and I would expect them to make a good business decision and wipe that enormous figure of the ledger if that was an option.
June 12, 200917 yr Well you paid a lot. If the value of the health plan is so important it seems your company may not attract the best employees. I have found that 28-35% is what most employees can expect in a good plan. Now, again, if every company in the US had the opportunity to drop this huge expense and turn everyone over to a gov't plan, why would they not do that? I know how much my co. pays in insurance premiums and I would expect them to make a good business decision and wipe that enormous figure of the ledger if that was an option. I need to explain further. Employees with single plans paid 30%. Those with employee/spouse, employee/children or family plans paid 50%. I had an employee/child plan.
June 12, 200917 yr I misunderstood it then. My answer still stands however not as a blanket statement. Some industries don't have to worry about the benefits they offer. I think you're talking about a small percentage of industries. Sure if you work for a company that is doing well and is hiring college graduates all the time, but what if you work for McDonalds? WalMart? White Castle? And those companies are huge. What if you work for K&W plumbing or other local companies that pick up part of the tab?
June 12, 200917 yr I need to explain further. Employees with single plans paid 30%. Those with employee/spouse, employee/children or family plans paid 50%. I had an employee/child plan. That is still a lot.
June 12, 200917 yr As you know, your cost HAS gone up in the form of copayments and deductibles. Oh, yes...I know. Sorry if my post implied otherwise.
June 12, 200917 yr 38% That's pretty much in line. Now take a big corporation that employs thousands, and covers at least 62% of the cost for health insurance premiums. You think it would be a good business decision to maintain that type of cost if another alternative ( Universal Health Care ) was made available to everyone?
June 12, 200917 yr That's pretty much in line. Now take a big corporation that employs thousands, and covers at least 62% of the cost for health insurance premiums. You think it would be a good business decision to maintain that type of cost if another alternative ( Universal Health Care ) was made available to everyone? Its a fair question. If we assume though that the govt plan will not be as strong as the private insurers' the employer will then run the risk of alienating employees. As I said previously, that's not an issue in some industries but to many it could cause them to lose key employees. Maybe Frank Luntz can add "universal health care" to his talking points memo for Rs to say when talking about the reform package. http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/frank-luntz-the-language-of-healthcare-20091.pdf
June 12, 200917 yr My former employer offered a "gold" and a "silver" plan a few years back; the gold plan being richer and more costly (to employer AND employee). Approximately 4 employees chose the silver plan. Approximately 98 employees chose the gold plan.
June 12, 200917 yr Its a fair question. If we assume though that the govt plan will not be as strong as the private insurers' the employer will then run the risk of alienating employees. As I said previously, that's not an issue in some industries but to many it could cause them to lose key employees. Maybe Frank Luntz can add "universal health care" to his talking points memo for Rs to say when talking about the reform package. http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/frank-luntz-the-language-of-healthcare-20091.pdf I don't think that you can assume this. I listened to John Yarmuth the other night and he said that the house plan would have a government package based on what members of congress now have. I strongly doubt they are hurting for health care benefits. He also flatly said that it would be base on the Medicare model. You know that program, the one that is running at a defecit and that reimburses providers with an eye dropper. His words didn't exactly cause me comfort. He also flatly said that if private insurers can't compete with the government plan they should go under.
June 12, 200917 yr I don't think that you can assume this. I listened to John Yarmuth the other night and he said that the house plan would have a government package based on what members of congress now have. I strongly doubt they are hurting for health care benefits. He also flatly said that it would be base on the Medicare model. You know that program, the one that is running at a defecit and that reimburses providers with an eye dropper. His words didn't exactly cause me comfort. He also flatly said that if private insurers can't compete with the government plan they should go under. Interesting. I don't believe anyone has a firm grasp on what will ultimately be proposed much less what will ultimately get the votes. I've read that they may put wording in that the public option is only for those uninsured today or self-employed. We'll have to wait and see.
June 12, 200917 yr http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqLNecbH0dcg As you probably know the first draft is often different from the final product. It will be an interesting and contentious process.
June 12, 200917 yr Some will remember this thread about the concept of Reconciliation which would be used to get Health Care passed with only 51 votes. http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showthread.php?t=182001&highlight=reconciliation Sen Conrad from ND says that Reconcilation cannot be used. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/has_kent_conrad_solved_the_pub.html
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.