Unforeseen Consequences: One result of Obamacare

[richard_daily]

Why don't I have this mouth breather on ignore?

Wait, he's a "mod"?

What dummy gave that moron any sort of responsibility and/or power?

 

[Boxlicker101]

It's just another rerun of the same tired manufactured hype on employers dropping health insurance. AJ and Rightfield spent a whole year spamming that same sketchy McKinsey study.




The company who did the research even came out and said that their report isn't a prediction. But dishonest conservatives and organizations such as Newsmax, well they're spinning it into a prediction anyway, accidentally on-purpose forgetting to state exactly what the KcKinsey research really is.

This thing has been out there for a whole year but Newsmax wants to keep drumming up conservative outrage since they're seeing opposition to the ACA steadily declining as time goes on.

Who is this McKinsey of whom you write? The article I included cited work done by Mercer Consulting Firm.

 

[mercury14]

2. Obamacare Survey: Firms Will Drop Health Coverage ...
A 2011 survey by consulting firm McKinsey found that 30 percent of employers would “definitely or probably” drop coverage after 2014.

Who is this McKinsey of whom you write? The article I included cited work done by Mercer Consulting Firm.

Your article is completely based on the McKinsey survey and can't stand without it.

 

[mercury14]

Box, here's your Mercer study. Newsmax really didn't want you to read it but they went ahead and mined an out-of-context data point to help them lie better.

Few employers planning to drop health plans after reform is in place, survey finds

While employers are encouraged to offer coverage under the new health care reform rules, they can choose not to and (starting in 2014) pay a penalty that may be less than what they currently spend on health benefits.

In a survey released today by consulting firm Mercer, employers were asked how likely they are to get out of the business of providing health care once state-run insurance exchanges become operational in 2014 and make it easier for individuals to buy coverage. For the great majority, the answer was “not likely.”

Survey responses vary by employer size. Large employers remain committed to their role of health plan sponsor. Just 6% of all employers with 500 or more employees – and just 3% of those with 10,000 or more – say they are likely to terminate their health plans and have employees seek coverage in the individual market after 2014 (Fig. 1)... [more]

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, here's your Mercer study. Newsmax really didn't want you to read it but they went ahead and mined an out-of-context data point to help them lie better.

Few employers planning to drop health plans after reform is in place, survey finds

While employers are encouraged to offer coverage under the new health care reform rules, they can choose not to and (starting in 2014) pay a penalty that may be less than what they currently spend on health benefits.

In a survey released today by consulting firm Mercer, employers were asked how likely they are to get out of the business of providing health care once state-run insurance exchanges become operational in 2014 and make it easier for individuals to buy coverage. For the great majority, the answer was “not likely.”

Survey responses vary by employer size. Large employers remain committed to their role of health plan sponsor. Just 6% of all employers with 500 or more employees – and just 3% of those with 10,000 or more – say they are likely to terminate their health plans and have employees seek coverage in the individual market after 2014 (Fig. 1)... [more]

I didn't lie and neither did Newsmax. If you read the OP, you will see McKinsey predicted 20% of employers and Mercer said it was more likely to be about 10%

However, if you look further at the link you provided, you will see that about 20% of smaller employers will also be dropping coverage. Additionally, the 6% and 3% figures you cite are likely. It could very well be more.


On the other hand, a fifth of small employers (those with 10–499 employees) say they are likely to terminate their health plans, especially those with low-paid workers and high turnover, like retailers. These small employers generally offer fully insured health plans and, with small risk pools and little purchasing power, are vulnerable to large rate increases.

I don't know what the totals well be, because I don't know how many employers or employees would be included in the three strata mentioned. However, I do know there will be a large number of employees losing their employer-paid health insurance because of Obamacare.

 

[mercury14]

I didn't lie and neither did Newsmax. If you read the OP, you will see McKinsey predicted 20% of employers and Mercer said it was more likely to be about 10%

However, if you look further at the link you provided, you will see that about 20% of smaller employers will also be dropping coverage. Additionally, the 6% and 3% figures you cite are likely. It could very well be more.


On the other hand, a fifth of small employers (those with 10–499 employees) say they are likely to terminate their health plans, especially those with low-paid workers and high turnover, like retailers. These small employers generally offer fully insured health plans and, with small risk pools and little purchasing power, are vulnerable to large rate increases.

I don't know what the totals well be, because I don't know how many employers or employees would be included in the three strata mentioned. However, I do know there will be a large number of employees losing their employer-paid health insurance because of Obamacare.

McKinsey said 30%, not 20%. But their study is completely bogus.

The Mercer study is far lower at 10% but it still doesn't take into account the fact that small employers weren't yet informed that the new law allows them to band together in groups to bargain for insurance plans at large business rates. Basically these studies are asking the opinions of uninformed people and assuming that they will act the same way once they're informed. Given that, the Mercer study is very close to the CBO estimate which Obamacare is budgeted on. So your entire premise is moot.

Newsmax lied because they mined the Mercer study for an out-of-context data point while concealing the study's conclusion.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

There is also the new thirty hour work week which is giving the impression of job growth for the President via the vehicle of the minimum-wage job...





... so now he's trying to reach out to all those stupid voters with the idea of a "raise."

You can't make this sit up unless you're an AmeriKant...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And you get to keep your doctor too!


And your premiums will actually go down along with the deficit!




It's a win-win-win-win-win-win-WIN!


:kbate:

 

[mercury14]

There is also the new thirty hour work week which is giving the impression of job growth for the President via the vehicle of the minimum-wage job...





... so now he's trying to reach out to all those stupid voters with the idea of a "raise."

You can't make this sit up unless you're an AmeriKant...

Yes, part-time employees will be having 30 hour work weeks. We've been through this and everyone recognized you for the stupidity of that comment. Are you looking for a reminder?

 

[mercury14]

And you get to keep your doctor too!

You do get to keep your doctor. However your employer may choose to switch insurers just like they've been doing for decades to save them and you money, and that may change which doctors are in your network.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I wonder where Obama is going to get the money for his exchanges...




I'm guessing like all other forms of taxfine-ation, the Middle Class.

He really hates the suburbs and the Bourgeoisie.

In college, he learned to say...

"Middle Class Benefits."

First time in history the Middle Class has been in need of benefits. I think that word is kinda like his fine-tax, it means loosely, I'll promise you benefits, but in actuality, all you will do is pay for them and we will waste the money on rewarding our actual voters.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I didn't get to keep my doctor.


He quit to raise horses.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Maybe he'll go into the European hamburger business...

 

[mercury14]

I wonder where Obama is going to get the money for his exchanges...




I'm guessing like all other forms of taxfine-ation, the Middle Class.

He really hates the suburbs and the Bourgeoisie.

In college, he learned to say...

"Middle Class Benefits."

First time in history the Middle Class has been in need of benefits. I think that word is kinda like his fine-tax, it means loosely, I'll promise you benefits, but in actuality, all you will do is pay for them and we will waste the money on rewarding our actual voters.

It's 2013 and you still haven't learned how the ACA is funded?

For something you hate so much, you sure don't know anything about it.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Peace/2012/Russia/russian-soldiers.jpg?w=420?w=420
Да камрад! Мы с вами!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What will the Chicago Way do for Health Care?

Let us examine what it managed to do for the urban youth of Obama's political crucible and home to a lot of his mentors from the NAMBLA member "Uncle Frank" to Saul David Alinsky to the Rev'rund Wright...

Gangsterville
Kevin D. Williamson, NRO
February 5, 2013

Chicago – Hey, man. Hey, man. What you need?” The question is part solicitation, part challenge, and the challenge part is worth paying attention to in a city with more than 500 murders a year. The question comes from a young, light-skinned black guy with freckles. We’re in the shadow of what used to be the infamous Cabrini-Green housing projects, only a 15-minute walk from the Hermès and Prada boutiques and the $32 brunch at Fred’s that identify Chicago’s Gold Coast as highly desirable urban real estate, a delightful assemblage of Stuff White People Like. Just down Division Street from the boutique hotels and the more-artisanal-than-thou Goddess and Grocer, Cabrini-Green is still in the early stages of gentrification, though it does have that universal identifier of urban reclamation: a Starbucks within view of another Starbucks.

All that remains of Cabrini-Green is sad stories and the original section of row houses around which the projects grew up. Those row houses are being renovated as part of the foundations-up effort to rebuild the neighborhood. Even the name “Cabrini-Green” is being scrubbed from memory: The new mixed-income development on the site of the old Cabrini-Green Extension heaves under the unbearably pretentious name “Parkside of Old Town.” But some of the old commerce remains, and Freckles is pretty clearly an entrepreneur of the street. “You buying?” I ask what he’s selling, and he explains in reasonably civil terms that he is not in the habit of setting himself up for entrapment on a narcotics charge.

Cabrini-Green has had its share of tourists — in 1999, the film Whiteboyz found a group of Wonder Bread–colored hip-hop fans from Iowa visiting the site. But real estate and the scarcity thereof is the ruling fact of urban life, and once downtown Chicago began to evolve from a place in which people worked in factories and warehouses into a place in which people work in litigation offices and university classrooms, Chicago’s near north began to fill up with the sort of people who prefer urban lofts to suburban picket fences, public transit to car commutes, and $32 Sunday brunches to church, all of them living in the orbit of Cabrini-Green. Chicago is a very liberal place, but it’s a very liberal place in which about half of the very liberal public-school teachers preach the virtues of the city’s very liberal public schools while sending their own kids to private schools. Chicago may vote for the party of housing projects, but nobody wants to live next to one, or even drive past one on the way to Trader Joe’s. One local tells of the extraordinary measures he used to take to avoid driving by Cabrini-Green, where children would pelt his car with bottles and trash whenever he stopped. And eventually, he learned not to stop at all, blowing through red lights on the theory that it was better to risk a moving violation than risk what the locals might do to him.

So they tore down Cabrini-Green. And they tore down the Robert Taylor Homes and the Henry Horner Homes and practically every other infamous housing project in the city. And in doing so, Chicago inadvertently exacerbated the crime wave that now has the city suffering more than twice as many murders every year as does Los Angeles County or Houston.

 

[Boxlicker101]

McKinsey said 30%, not 20%. But their study is completely bogus.

The Mercer study is far lower at 10% but it still doesn't take into account the fact that small employers weren't yet informed that the new law allows them to band together in groups to bargain for insurance plans at large business rates. Basically these studies are asking the opinions of uninformed people and assuming that they will act the same way once they're informed. Given that, the Mercer study is very close to the CBO estimate which Obamacare is budgeted on. So your entire premise is moot.

Newsmax lied because they mined the Mercer study for an out-of-context data point while concealing the study's conclusion.

Bottom Line: My OP said about 10% of employers expect to stop offering health insurance to their employees, preferring to pay the fines that will be levied against them. We don't know exactly what the final percentage will be, but it looks as if it will be not far from that 10% figure, and might be even more.

Do you honestly believe those employers are unaware of the possibility of banding together to negotiate better rates? Some of them have been doing it all along.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Even within my garage workshop I'm constantly contrasting and comparing the costs of automation vs manual labor. And so it seems to me that ObamaCare can only kill no-skill and low-skill labor. Machines have no need of medical care.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

What better way to sell single-payer than to shove one of the worst ideas that the Heritage Foundation ever had down our throats?

It seems that someone out there is awake.

 

[RobDownSouth]

What will the Chicago Way do for Health Care?

Let us examine what it managed to do for the urban youth of Obama's political crucible and home to a lot of his mentors from the NAMBLA member "Uncle Frank" to Saul David Alinsky to the Rev'rund Wright...

Gangsterville
Kevin D. Williamson, NRO
February 5, 2013

Oh look at what the Chief rolled in this morning!

A big steaming pile of "Let's equate medical care with public housing".

 

[mercury14]

Oh look at what the Chief rolled in this morning!

A big steaming pile of "Let's equate medical care with public housing".

Considering that last week he was equating medical care with loading Jews into box cars, I think we should let it slide.

 

[mercury14]

Bottom Line: My OP said about 10% of employers expect to stop offering health insurance to their employees, preferring to pay the fines that will be levied against them. We don't know exactly what the final percentage will be, but it looks as if it will be not far from that 10% figure, and might be even more.

Your OP references a study that says less than ten percent. That's not the same as "about 10% and maybe more".

Do you honestly believe those employers are unaware of the possibility of banding together to negotiate better rates? Some of them have been doing it all along.

Yes I think it's certain that lots of respondents weren't aware of all of the features of the ACA. Consider also that the research was done in mid-2010, just a few months after the law was passed, so yeah I guarantee you that a lot of participants weren't familiar with it.

So the CBO said 7% and the Mercer study said less than 10%, a small difference and probably within the margin of error. One point on accuracy though, the CBO updates its projections quarterly and the Mercer study was a one-time thing done almost 2.5 years ago. Which do you think is more valid in that way?

I'm really not sure what your point is in all this. If employers drop coverage and opt for defined distribution plans, that increases certainty in the private sector which is good. They pay the penalty which increases funding for the ACA which is good. And since employer contributions to health care are tax deductible, the businesses which drop coverage are going to pay a ton more in taxes which increases funding in a second way. And that's the reason why the percentage of businesses planning on dropping coverage is likely to be in the single digits: they'd be giving up massive tax breaks by cutting out coverage, plus paying the fine/fee, plus paying out the defined distribution. There are just a lot of good financial reasons to keep covering employees like always.

 

[ksmybuttons]

Newsmax die not say it was unforeseen. I did, and I would be willing to bet the people running Obamacare did not foresee how much of a new problem would result. Remember, this is ore US working people paying much more for health insurance that is no better than they received before Obamacare.

I don't cnsider Newmax to be 100% reliable, but I do consider it to be better than the Huffington Postor some other sources that are cited.

For what it's worth, the plan I now have as a supplement to Medicare now costs me more than twice as much as it did before Obamacare.

I don't think it's an unintended consequence. I think it was planned. What will actually save business is universal health care. And I do believe it will happen - maybe not in my lifetime, but it will happen.

A person also needs to be astute regarding the type of health coverage they have. I would never have a for-profit health care plan if I had a choice. No United Health Care products and, depending on what part of the country you are in, no Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

Luckily, I live in a state without for profit hospital systems and I wouldn't have a health plan that uses a for profit hospital.

And, I'm sure your Medicare supplement would have cost you twice as much even without ObamaCare.

 

[SeaDaddy1]

McKinsey said 30%, not 20%. But their study is completely bogus.

The Mercer study is far lower at 10% but it still doesn't take into account the fact that small employers weren't yet informed that the new law allows them to band together in groups to bargain for insurance plans at large business rates. Basically these studies are asking the opinions of uninformed people and assuming that they will act the same way once they're informed. Given that, the Mercer study is very close to the CBO estimate which Obamacare is budgeted on. So your entire premise is moot.

Newsmax lied because they mined the Mercer study for an out-of-context data point while concealing the study's conclusion.

I see you actually did read post #25. My recent experience in the workforce says Newsmax is actually in the ballpark on that

"study"[unquote]. In fact, I think their figures are a little conservative. When the reality of Obamacare does kick in in reality, the shit is really going to hit the fan for the uninformed. It's going to be one big ass rude motherfuckin' awakening for those thinking our government can manage health/medical care for us.

Yes, part-time employees will be having 30 hour work weeks. We've been through this and everyone recognized you for the stupidity of that comment. Are you looking for a reminder?

Will be? We've been heading in that direction for the past 2 or 3 decades. It will become a reality for most of us peons when Obamacare is in full force.

You do get to keep your doctor. However your employer may choose to switch insurers just like they've been doing for decades to save them and you money, and that may change which doctors are in your network.

You don't know how that really works if you are laid off, switch employers, or are fired do you? If you choose to keep the doctor your current provider pays for, your insurance payments double when your employer is no longer contributing.(I experienced this less than 2 years ago when I became unemployed for the 1st time in my life). If you change employers or loose your job, you're the one who has to pay whatever your employer was paying in addition to whatever you're already paying. Same thing happens if your employer switches insurers and your doctor is not on the list in the new network IF you choose to keep the same doctor.

Some married couples are blessed enough for each to have a job. One of those jobs is mostly to pay for the insurance coverage of their family, the other one pays for everything else.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

So here is some reality: In all probability my company will drop medical insurance because the fines will be less expensive than the employer share and other costs.

I will admit I am not in HR or benefits so I don't know all the details but we are sort of like a Mc Donald's in that we have a large FTE population that is in the min wage to min wage +$6 range (~85% of total headcount) and then a tier of management/salaried and a gap in between. We currently offer a Mini-Med Health Plan but since FOX and http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mini-med-health-plans-useless-consumers/story?id=15522939 shit on them and the ACA discontinues them, that option is going away and putting that population on a HMO style plan is costly. The new law says you can't differentiate plans by capping benefits so companies are confronted with just doing the math.

I believe that most companies structured with populations like ours are waiting for what the Mc Donalds, Wallmarts, etc are going to do and then just follow suit.

So a big part of this will be how the White House is able to react if they start falling out like dominoes. I think it is a 2014 budget issue so decision will be made this fall as companies get their budgets together.