E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFor some American workers, picking the right health insurance is becoming more like hunting for the perfect business suit: It takes some shopping around to find a good fit and avoid sticker shock.
In a major shift in employer-sponsored health insurance coverage, companies such as Sears Holdings Corp. and Darden Restaurants Inc. are giving employees a fixed amount of money and allowing them to choose their own coverage based on their individual needs.
The approach, called defined contribution health insurance, contrasts to the decades-old practice by most U.S. employers of offering workers a one-size-fits-all plan with benefits they may not want. It also means American workers who have grown accustomed to having their benefits chosen for them could wind up with bigger bills and inadequate coverage if they don’t choose wisely.
“It’s a big, big change in the nature of what it means to have health insurance,” says David Cutler, a Harvard University economist.
Until now, defined contribution health insurance plans have been largely limited to small businesses and retirees. But more employers are considering them as a way to control their rising health care costs. After all, the average annual premium — or cost for insurance coverage — for an employer-sponsored family health plan has almost doubled in the past decade to nearly $16,000, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. And companies generally foot at least 70 percent of that bill.
But now the plans are catching on. Benefits consultant Mercer found that 45 percent of the 2,809 employers it surveyed earlier this year are either using or are considering a defined contribution approach.
As a result, insurers and benefits companies are rolling out online exchanges where workers can buy insurance coverage roughly similar to how they buy plane tickets on travel websites. The private sites are similar to the public online exchanges that will enable people to buy insurance starting late next year as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.
Aon Hewitt, a benefits consulting giant, expects 200,000 people to enroll this fall in coverage offered through its online exchange. Darden, which operates the Red Lobster and Olive Garden chains, and Sears are offering their defined contribution plans through Aon’s exchange site.
WellPoint Inc., the nation’s second-largest health insurer that runs Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in several states, plans to debut its exchange next year. The insurer has an ownership stake in Bloom Health, a Minnesota company that expects the number of people covered by plans through its exchange to more than triple to about 100,000 people next year.
MORE CHOICES
Defined contribution health programs can differ greatly from the typical coverage offered by U.S. employers. Most coverage that companies currently offer gives employees the option of one plan or maybe two.
With defined contribution plans, the company gives the employee a set contribution toward coverage, and the worker then picks the plan. That may involve choosing from among a few plans the employer offers or using an exchange to sort through dozens of choices offered by several insurers.
The employer’s contribution may cover the entire premium or a smaller slice of it, depending on the coverage that the worker choses. A young, healthy, single worker, for instance, may pick a plan that balances a smaller premium with a higher deductible, which is the annual out-of-pocket amount a patient pays before most of his or her coverage kicks in.
The plans are an attractive option for companies that want more predictable health care costs or more choices for their workers.
Neither Sears nor Darden would say how much they’re planning to give employees so that they can buy health insurance. Sears said 90,000 of its employees will be eligible for its new approach, and they will have 15 choices for health insurance instead of about four.
Darden, which has 45,000 full-time employees, said its workers will be able to go online and pick from five medical plans, four dental plans and three that provide vision coverage. The Orlando, Fla., company had previously just offered one health insurance plan.
The company said that the sum Darden will give workers to cover costs for their insurance will rise as health care costs climb. Ultimately, it said workers will have about the same out-of-pocket costs that they currently have for about the same level of coverage — but they’ll have more flexibility.
“One of the things (employees) asked for was more choice in their health care,” says Ron DeFeo, a spokesman for Darden. “As we looked for a way to do it, this was the best option.”
The plans can be a good option for smaller businesses as well. Dick Bernstein owns Security Auto Loans Inc., a New Hope, Minn., subprime auto loan provider with about 40 employees. He wanted to offer health insurance to attract and keep workers. But other small business owners warned him that premiums in more traditional plans could soar as high as 20 percent annually.
So in January, Bernstein began offering his employees a defined contribution plan through Bloom Health. Bernstein’s company gave each worker $3,000 and sent them to a secure website run by Bloom to pick a plan. On the site, workers are asked about 35 questions to pin down their health needs, financial situation and comfort with risk.
For example, the website offers a hypothetical scenario: A total of $1,500 in medical bills due in 60 days arrives. It then asks if the worker has the money to pay for it. The question is intended to determine whether a high-deductible plan would make sense for that employee.
Bernstein says the program is good for his business because he can contribute a fixed amount every year, making his costs predictable. Plus, Bernstein doesn’t have to devote staff to finding the right insurance plan to offer.
“That was another key point for me — I didn’t have to be part of this decision-making process,” he says. “I didn’t have to figure out what’s best for my employees.”
Heather Lockman, who works as a loan processor at Security Auto Loans, was skeptical at first about the new plan. But she changed her mind after she wound up with 20 different plans — eight pages of options — to choose from after she answered the questions on the Bloom website.
A TAILORED FIT
In the end, the 36-year-old picked a low-cost option that came with a $3,000 annual deductible. She chose maternity coverage but declined the mental health benefit. The $3,000 that Security Auto Loans gave her covered her annual premium, so Lockman will have few out-of-pocket expenses if she stays healthy.
“It gives me more control over my health coverage,” Lockman says. “It makes it fit my lifestyle.”
Proponents of the defined contribution approach say it forces people to pay more attention to details like costs, and that could force insurers to compete more on price and quality. That could ultimately lead to lower health care costs overall.
“In every consumer marketplace when you have real competition, prices go down, and we have seen those competitive juices flowing as we have gotten rates from participating insurers (for exchange business),” said Ken Sperling, Aon’s national health care exchange strategy leader.
But critics argue that such an approach can stick customers with bigger bills if the employer’s set contribution doesn’t rise over the years to match growing health insurance costs. And that could mean that employees would be forced to switch to cheaper plans that offer less coverage over time, says Cutler, the Harvard economist who advised the 2008 Obama campaign on health care.
“That’s a very big risk,” he says.
And workers may find educating themselves about health insurance daunting. “I think people are going to have to spend more time understanding their options,” says Paul Fronstin, an economist with the Employee Benefit Research Institute. “There are all kinds of dimensions of information you’ll be provided, potentially.”
Mark Pauly, a University of Pennsylvania health economist, agrees. He says there’s an “enormous amount of inertia” among consumers when it comes to shopping for the right insurance plan.
“Life’s too short to spend all your time worrying about health insurance,” he says.
Despite the possible downsides, insurers say defined contribution plans are becoming more common. WellPoint Chief Financial Officer Wayne DeVeydt says he expects interest in the plans to pick up in the coming years.
“Right now employers are really trying to understand what the health care landscape will look like,” he says.
Related stories:
Leave a Comment:
“Life’s too short to spend all your time worrying about health insurance.”
But without health insurance, your life would likely be considerably shorter. Oh, the irony of it all.
"If you like your plan, you can keep it." Big lie #1.
Our small company offers as much health insurance as we can afford to assist employees. THe policy does have a pretty high deductible but covers 100% of hospital stays and 100% of once a year physicals and childhood well baby visits. Now the government wants to fine us close $2 million dollars because we can't offer more. If we covered every single person at the minimum coverage the government wants it will cost us an additional 5 million dollars.
Instead of cutting everyone to part time ( which is what a lot of other businesses in our shoes are doing) we are paying the fine. I won't get a raise this year, neither will anyone else. We will not be hiring anyone new.
We were just getting going again and now we will have to deal with an upcoming 2 million dollar fine....its a wonder every small business doesn't move to China.
Of course every citizen in the U.S deserves good basic health care. Yes, we all want every single child covered but instead of squeezing the small business owners why not go after the whole medical system and lower costs. When I was in the hospital it was $12 per tylenol pill. SERIOUSLY?
I would think cutting costs in the hospital , pharmaceutical and health insurance arenas would be more effective than fining small businesses. Pretty soon we are going to have a whole country of part-time employees.
Good post, Kallie, and I agree with you 100%. Healthcare and health insurance are two completely different things, and providing everyone with health insurance provides little incentive for providers to lower costs. It just creates another layer of "winners and losers". Take AARP. They supported healthcare reform, even though the VAST VAST majority of their members were against it and it cut benefits for seniors. Why did they endorse it? Because this "non profit" company stands to make over a BILLION dollars by selling gap insurance coverage to their members. Maybe the government should just run government sponsored clinics for those with no coverage, where charges are bases on ability to pay. We confused universal care with universal insurance, and in the process just created another mess to be dealt with in the future. (Today's problems are caused by yesterday's solutions!)
Expect to see more of this BEFORE ObamaCare kicks in.
My health insurance plan is Smith & Wesson Ltd. If I get too sick or in too much pain... I open the side drawer to my bed and and pull the trigger.
I was laid off at 60 and no job or insurance. I took early Social Security but Medicare won't kick in for another 4 years.
I have been advocating this type of idea for years and am now glad that some people are starting to put it into effect. It DOES allow you to keep your own plan if you like it (and your employer keeps on contributing the same as they have done in the past); so that is no lie (Bruce). If your employer cheats you out of pocket on your current plan, blame the employer and not the government. (Why do so many people blame government for crap that they couldn't possibly control? Go figure!)
Life may be a little shorter for some of my former coworkers than me... when they see the cost of family premiums. Woo-hoo, all those years when I - a single man - was paid the same as my "buddy"... only he had a family of 4+ plan. He got thousands of dollars in benefits more than I did. I really like this defined contribution part. Yo, Dude - your wife and kids don't work for the company. Pay up if you want them on the policy, or convince the boss to pay me extra.
Did anyone notice that they did not mention ACA as, at least, ONE of the causes for businesses switching there plans?.... This ACA (Obamacare) is a fiasco that just keeps on giving... some body... any body please stop this monster before it's too late... Oh... I know... lets get the SCOTUS.. to.... oh yea.. allready tried... too late.... WE"RE DOOOOOOOOMMMMMEEDDD!!!!!
And just how much of the American Public understand Risk? Probably a very low percentage I would guess. It's not like asking the American Public if they understand fear. Risk is like floods. If you live on high ground, your chance of being flooded out gets smaller than your low lying neighbors. If the flood gets high enough, you may loose your entire community, your job and all, but have a house spared of flood water damage, which then is worthless as well because all the surrounding property is devalued. So then you start thinking about your employer's height of elevation on the flood plane, because if you're not getting a paycheck due to flooding, you can't pay your own deductibles in the first place.
Savings is more important than what many might give it credence. If you have a $3000 deductible, have $3000 in the bank in savings for that deductible, because it's going to be spent first before insurance kicks in. Then buy the plan that costs $3000 bucks that the employer contributes. If you stay healthy you won't spend your own money, and the employer's money will provide your insurance costs. If you don't stay healthy, you better hope you're healthy in a year, because your own $3000 will be gone to deductibles, and your employer paid insurance will end as well. Then what? Well the insurance company will have raised your $3000 deductible to $5000 deductible for you to be insured, and if you're not that healthy to provide your employer justification... well you're out of luck in the job market too.
The best thing to do is lower the range of what constitutes health care coverage, as we've assumed it to be in the recent past, where expensive technologies used in medical diagnostics have burdened insurance costs. Who pays for the costs of you being able to find out the sex of your unborn? All f the people who pay into that insurance company. Who cares about the sex of your unborn? Maybe 6, two sets of grandparents, and two parents. The question is a cold one, " What is more important to society, affordable health care coverage for the many, or expensive health care coverage for the few at the cost of the many?" The RISK is the economic viability of the entire community, just like the flood issue at the start of this comment. If you save your home and the community is lost... you loose too because you have nothing of value left, even though you were spared the catastrophe everyone else suffered.
No one believes that this kind of defined insurance contribution will be a benefit to employees. If you think employers are offering this kind of coverage just to support your need for choice, then you are gullible. Bean counters in the back room determined that this option would actually decrease health insurance costs for the employers by putting more of the financial risk and burden on you.
In all honesty, I don't think people should have to depend on employers for health insurance coverage. As we have seen all too often, people get fired, lose their health insurance and then their ability to provide affordable health care for their families. No one can afford to pay medical bills without insurance...unless you are a billionaire, and even then, you wouldn't be a billionaire for long if you got really sick with a chronic illness.
We should have done what every other country in the western world has done--universal health care, single payer. And for all those people who would rather pay thousands and thousands of dollars every year for insurance & medical care, well, you have the choice to continue that practice.
Kallie
how is that?
SavvyShopper,that's what my sister and I used to complain about.We were single at Pac Bell,no children and yet our co-workers ended up having more money paid for their insurance.One guy married a lady who was very ill so she could get on his blue Cross paid for ala Pac Bell. i think that singlel people should have been paid the difference in what it cost to cover an entire family versus me the single person with no children. at the end of the year.
I think since employers soon won't offer any health insurance coverage for their employees due to the ACA,that the minimum wage should be raised.The employer will save money,the CEO's of big corps will get more money as will the stockholders.Nobody cares about the people doing the work which creates the company a profit.
And what this article does not point out is that you will get some employees who will decide to pocket the premium contribution and get no health insurance. Then every time they get sick they will go clog up an emergency room somewhere, since the ERs have to treat them by law, and stick the hospital - in other words those who end up paying higher bills - with the costs. This is one of the unintended consequences that we are going to see more of with Obamacare. Under Obamacare the government is dictating the minimum coverages that employer plans must offer to avoid paying penalties. If the company can not afford to offer a plan that meets those minimums they are likely to simply stop offering coverage altogether and pay the fine as it will be cheaper for them. Either that or the companies are going to pass the higher premium costs for the government mandated minimum plan on to employees who will see their take home pay shrink as more and more is eaten up by the health care premium contribution. The government had no business dictating the minimum coverage a plan should provide, that should be between employers, their employees, and the health insurers. Let the companies and their employees decide how much coverage they want and what premiums they can afford to pay. Obamacare is an ill thought out disaster that is going to leave more people with higher premiums and higher medical bills then they had before.
Yes, now we have Exchanges!
By law, these are referred to as "Markets".
The feds love markets, because they are taxable.
Insurance isn't taxable.
And, the medical industry at one time was non-profit.
So, now medicine is our new industry
Funny how companies oppose to the death every President that wants to change medical care and then they imitate it. Clintons plan failed to pass but companies then offered the " cafeteria " style plans that he advocated. Now they are offering the defined contribution style plans, imitating the insurance exchanges of Obamas plan. Some things would never change if the government didn't show the way.
JS
You offered no real proof or data for your statement. Without Obama Cares we would have a worse situation. For those who have health insurance before this law takes full effect nothing will change. For those who can't afford it they will be helped according to their means. The intent is to get people proactive medical care before it becomes a medical emergency. The intent is to make it easy for people to purchase HI in a competitive market.
Nothing is ever perfet the first time but doing nothing was not an option. In time we can make it better.
Years ago, we were in a cafeteria style program. We thought it worked well.
@Kallie
First, this company doesn't sound very small if they are looking at fines that large. Second, you probably are believing the bs from your companies owners as an excuse to cut benefits and slam Obama. Third when you say the policy has pretty high deductibles, well there's the rub. I'd guess those deductibles are so high that your health insurance is more like catastrophe insurance than health insurance. If the deductibles were reasonable your company probably wouldn't be facing any fines.
Kallie, if what you are saying is true, yours is not a small business. Many people aren't getting a raise this year. I haven't had a raise in 3 years. Health care is should be viewed as part of your employees compensation.
All you really need to know about insurance, like anything else the government gets involved in, is that it's going to cost you more and you'll get less for your money. Of course, the idea of Obamacare is to get rid of insurance so that everyone will scream for the government to cover them. The dems even admitted this was the plan. That's why it will be cheaper for companies to drop coverage altogether and pay the penalty rather than provide the coverage. That's why thousands of waivers were granted by Obama before the election, so you wouldn't know the real impact of the law until after the election. Now, since it after elections, there won't be any more waivers granted. So, get prepared and bend over and grab on to your boots.
This really does work. The place that I worked has been doing this for years (more than 30 years) and I didn't even realize it. We were provided $X amount for insurance coverage, if we chose one that cost less than our allocation we got the excess amount in our pay checks. If you had dependents or more expensive plan you paid the premium difference. We had great coverage and even in retirement they allow us health care coverage with pay assistance based on years of service.
So don't knock it unless you have actually been involved with it. It is good for the company and the employee.
Listen...Your employer doesn't want to provide health insurance in the first place. If they could get away with it, and many do, they wouldn't offer any health insurance benefit at all. It's too expensive & getting more expensive every day. That's the whole point.
So what do you do when health insurance and medical care is out of reach for both businesses and individuals? You go to universal health care like England, France, Germany etc. If you lose your job and your kid gets cancer, your kid isn't going to get treatment for that cancer in the ER. You'll be billed for treatment...if you get it. You'll quickly see bills increasing to $1 million dollars. You can't run bake sales for those bills. You'll declare bankruptcy...or you'll let your kid die. Your choice.
Kallie, my company is experiencing the exact same scenario. We are paying the fine. No raises. No hiring. Projects that we under consideration to be undertaken are now being scraped! We are set beginning January 1 to move 10% of our full-time employees to part-time. It is a trend that the company has also said may continue into the next quarter.
We have employees as mad as hell. All I can tell them is that this is the direction the country wants to go. We just have to comply with what the federal government has mandated! If you don't like it let the federal goverment know about it. Write your congressmen and the Whitehouse. Our hands are tied!
@Oh_no
Which is exactly how they're "helped" now...by the taxpayer.
Another byproduct of obamacare. By dramatically raising employer's business costs, this result should have been anticipated. As Obama's anti-business regulations and increased taxes take effect, this will only get worse.
This is but one more of obama's unanticipated consequences of Obamacare that will contribute to increasing its annual cost far beyond what he claimed causing him to demand more taxes from everyone. This will in turn cause business to contract even further, a downward spiral. See the pattern?
Bruce,
What proof do you have that the majority of the AARP members are against the Affordable Care Act? What proof do you have that they will make “over a billion” by sellig gap insurance coverage? According to Reuters on June 24, 2012, “Most Americans oppose President Barack Obama's healthcare reform even though they strongly support most of its provisions, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed.” According to another poll, 85 percent support the provision covering those with pre-existing conditions from losing coverage/having to pay a lot for their status if they can't find work right away (ABC News).
Also, your idea of a clinic—how would people receive specialist treatment, and who would pay for it? How would this truly be any better than the Affordable Health Care Act?
Let's see a show of hands for those of you whose health insurance costs have gone down. None, I'd guess.
In just months after Obamacare was passed, my wife's employer provided health insurance skyrocketed to the point where I, as a senior, had to drop off of her policy and go to Medicare to be another burden to the taxpayers. And the following year my wife's insurance deductible went from zero to $4,000 per year on everything including meds.
Finally, the big surprise coming is the burden thrown upon the individual states when the feds pull out their extra financial support provided for Obamacare's break in period. This "affordable" (and laughable) healthcare program will threaten to bankrupt individual states in the end.
That's already started. In your calculations, you fail to incorporate the cost of medical technology and research. Medicine will ALWAYS be expensive as long as we rely on medical advances. Researchers and the equipment they use to development means to save lives don't come free or cheap.
Beginning 2013, that new 2.3% tax on medical equipment won't help either.
I seriously doubt the physical therapy, radiology, pharmacy, medical billing staff and others will take sizable pay cuts lying down.
Medicine is a huge complex. Going after doctors and pharmaceutical companies ain't but the tip of the iceberg.
Kallie, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Beangrinder, the fact the insurer raised rates so high isn't due to the Health Care reforms, but simple greed on their part. Most parts of the reform are only starting to take effect now, and won't all be in place for a few more years. Insurers simply, like Papa Johns and others of their ilk, used the law to make more money and screw the average citizen. In fact, the law was a gift to insurers, since a single payer system would have put them out of business (and thus is one of my biggest gripes with the President - he should have gone single payer).
Don't mistake the hype and propaganda of the Gobbles like Faux "News" and Reich Wing. The law isn't to blame, but the greed of corporations are 100% at fault. There was no reason to raise rates at all. In fact, according to Keynesian Free Market thought, prices should have (and still be) going down as the risk pool is getting larger. The fact that it is moving in the opposite direction means these "Capitalists" are merely allowing greed to set the rates and not the free market. Every GOP/Teabagger that sides with insurance companies or claims that the law is at fault and not greed is either brainwashed, or willfully ignorant of the fact. Economics 101 is all that is needed to see that the market behavior is acting contrary to the actual market forces. Insurance companies are and will continue to, get more insured, but are raising prices despite this, even as their risks (as more young, healthy people get insurance) drops. Plainly put, their profits would already be higher than before the law, but they want even higher profits. To achieve this greedy scheme, they need to screw the average citizen in order to make profits way in excess of the already high (and rising) profits they are seeing. So much for good Corporate Citizenship. Blame the President for what is his fault, not getting a single Medicare for all plan, but don't blame him for the greed of companies that are already benefiting from this law.
Keysnian is a theory. A theory which mind you has never been shown in practice to work! Until there is an example of a country who has tried it and maintained prosperity under it then is should be looked upon as one of the many failed ideas of mankind! (like communism and fascism)
CelticPagan..........
I'm sure you're happy to put forth the idea that big business and insurance companies are the bad guys, but as the Bible says the tree is known by its fruit. We had a great healthcare system where even poor people had access to medical treatment while most of us working stiffs had insurance plans that were great or adequate. The fruit we will shortly be seeing on our national healthcare tree will be sparse and bitter tasting. Some of us know what's coming. Others like the blind apostles of the Ignorant One in the White House will be in for a big surprise. Collapse of the healthcare system and collapse of our economy.
Dawg pound 1.31
You are somewhat incorrect. Keynesian economics is not a theory, it is a fantasy.
Beangrinder
get your facts straight before posting.
Let's see a show of hand for those whose insurance have gone down in the last 10 years ... most likely none. Gee do you think they knew back then Obama Cares was coming.
In many cases health insurance have doubled in the last decade ... news flash Obama Cares is just now starting to kick in.
Part of the reason this legislation got through was because B.O. told the insurance companies that they would get new enrollments because of the mandate. "Make no mistake", (my favorite LOL statement from B.O.), more people will become insured. So the insurance companies are really the winnners here. Despite some new restrictions the insurance companies face, now they get a bigger pool of consumers as "REQUIRED" by the POTOS. No doubt that the medical insurance companies will continue to raise these rates every year since the administration didn't do it's job in trying to regulate these companies rates.
To clarify, I am not a REPUBLICAN or a DEMOCRAT. Yet I think the only winners in B.O.care are the insurance companies.
Just wait all those that take a high deductible plan and then don't save any money will be screaming how unfair it is when they get sick. They will scream my poor children are not getting proper treatment give me some money. These plans should not be offered to anyone who cannot prove they have the deductible saved. Hmmm sounds just like all the adjustable rate mortgages idiots signed up for because all they look at was the month costs.
I have always had high deductible plans and when we have had major surgeries, I have always been able to pay in installments with the hospital. When I was younger, it was sometimes only $50 a month but I always paid my bill. I think most people don't realize that is an option when they have large medical bills. Hospitals, the doctor, they appreciate you calling and setting up payment plans instead of just ignoring the bill.
Tia that is what my family does out deductible is 1k we have 500 stashed and pay the rest in installments. Most medical offices and hospitals will work with you.
I just finished paying off my kid's 17-day hospital stay in a specialized unit, it took nearly three years to pay that off. BC/BS found out that we had made arrangements with the hospital two years into the payment plan and sent us nasty-grams ordering us to pay up at once. We just ignored them, since we were into the home stretch. Since the bills were from the hospital directly, it never occured to us that the insurance company would have issues with paying back the hospitals in increments.
BTW, ambulance companies will allow you to pay in installments, too. BC/BS does not cover ambulance service in our area (ALL ambulances here are "non-participating", and you don't get a choice when someone calls 9-1-1), and a five-mile ambulance run was $650 four years ago out-of-pocket, it's got to be more than that now.
Healthcare Mafia remains in control of cost and levels of care.
I work and just get by as it is, I can't pay for health insuance. But people who do not work get free health insurance?
If you just get by as it is soon you will be helped.
I assume you mean people who can't afford health insurance get free health insurance. So what should we do, let them die?
Wait... you mean that employers are dumping people and accepting the fine rather than continuing to provide ANY health insurance? You mean that doctors are refusing MORE patients because they lose money treating them? You mean that this is a massive tax increase - and is STILL going to cost the government trillions of dollars over the next ten years? You mean the regulatory committee in charge actually CAN deny treatments based on how cost-effective they are?
You mean that EXACTLY what the Republicans said was going to happen, is happening?
Thank you....
If that's what happens, Info, then the PUBLIC option will need to be adopted, if the market fails. The find-your-own-health-insurance is like the failed 401K retirement plans: a way for greedy business owners and management to stiff their employees. If employers won't provide adequate health coverage for their loyal, productive workers, then government action is sure to follow. Of course, for right-wing nuts who actually believe market forces are the magic cure-all solution to every problem in this world, that's a hard fact to accept.
We do not have a free market in the health care system.
As a guy who has been a controller for small companies (those job creating guys).... here is what happens... we get our employees as little as possible... but the owner?.... yup... he gets all he can in health care... and great plans... and also his "executives"....
Kevin, your description is exactly what the polititians do, they pass Obamacare for everyone but themselves.
My husband and I own a small business with 9 other employees. We have the exact same health insurance they have. Our company pays 100% of the bill for the employee and dependents. Please don't make blanket comments about business owners taking more than they give to the employees. In fact, we have to pay taxes on the health insurance benefits we receive simply because we are the owners while out employees do not. Because of our S-corp status, we also have to claim the company revenue as our own and pay the taxes on it, putting us in a tax bracket of which we don't actually enjoy the benefits. Last time I checked, though, we've got 9 people employed who might not have jobs otherwise.
Our for profit health insurance system is such an obvious con job. Some 30% of our health insurance premiums do not go toward providing healthcare, but to fund administration and over compensated health insurance company execs. We are the only industrialized "first world" country on Earth without some kind of national healthcare. Our healthcare is next to none if you have the money, but will leave you destitute if your policy does not adequately cover your unexpected illness. The ACA is a small step in the right direction, but this country needs national healthcare, the public option.
Lisa,
I know what you say is true!
I worked for an S-corp that was family owned for 23 years. When they sold, they cashed out my pension and handed it to me with a full accounting.
The only reason that happened was that there was mutual respect and regard for each other. Today, this will not be found very easily.
Such is........ America today!
Only problem: the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to do such a thing. The federal govt can PROVIDE for the common defense and only "promote" the general welfare.
If the states want to do it, that's another story.
"Greedy" is officially as tired as "racist."
Until you can prove greed is present, you're just a cry-baby with no substantive argument.
All in favor of nixing the tired cliche "greedy", say Aye !!!!!
Liberal name-calling and whining is getting to be so tired! Got no real argument, call somebody a name.
Liberals have the political acumen of 3rd graders on a playground.
I don't want "more options" nor a "tailored fit" and I absolutely do not have time to babysit my health coverage, reading and more reading and more studying trying to figure out if maybe I can touch this toe I can have that option but only if I have at least $3 stuffed in a sock in a safe deposit box and it has been appropriately taxed and filed under a medically exempt prostrate exam that was performed before the passage of bill 6738 part B2 which was examined by a qualified non-smoking doctor who has been paid less that $200 a year by the association of exempt medically exonerated specialists at the Berkley Center for health comparisons which is sponsored by the non-drinkers group for skinny people and....WOW this is FUN!
I just need to be covered when I go to the doctor or the hospital for any reason. Is that so hard?
Sure is difficult to think and make decisions.
Stupid answer...... with buying a car.. you are making a decision which you "know"... when you are buying health care... you are making a "what if?"..... ever have a large health bill?.... try $110,000 in 1997 for my son's benign brain tumor... then take to me about "making" decisions... thank god that was the days when you had good health care... not crap!
Oh and don't forget that you have to do all that on your own time. Essentially doing a job that they discontinued. I did mine on company time. They have everyone doing payroll and tracking paid time off as it is. You do all this and then you have to work overtime to get your work done.
"I want... I want... I don't want...." It's amazing how people who are not footing the bulk of the bill complain a lot.
Anyone who doesn't "want" to spend time to understand their coverage and how it works probably doesn't deserve it. Everyone of us should be grateful enough to at least put time and effort into it.
Have we become that lazy and ungrateful?
And do you apply the same logic to the food you put in your mouth? Do you understand how that works and how it got to your table? Or would you just like to go the big building with fresh fruits, vegetables, meats, breads, etc.. and bring it home with you? Do you really enjoy putting that much thought into everything? So put me down for a NO. I am NOT grateful for Ocrappacare and the amount of tax dollars that went into it and the mess it is causing during a very bad time in our country.
Everyone should be covered for everything by their employer & it should only cost maybe $100 a month. The problem is GREED! Insurance companies & even doctors just want too much.
As for being charged $12 for a Tylenol when hospitalized I'd just bring my own. It'd be cheaper!
You can refuse the little non-slip sockies too as long as your own are non-lip. Same with the grooming things they " give" you.
Greedy is expecting everybody to foot the bill for the bulk of YOUR health care and YOUR health insurance, then having the audacity to get mad because others won't fork over their savings and earnings to take care of you- an adult.
Oh, the horror of asking an able-bodied adult to pay his/her own way through life- imagine that!!!
Obamacare be free so why worry.
Along with cell phones, housing, food, etc.
Next political season promises of "free" dental care will be the hot topic.
Only thing free in this world is the air you breathe. And that's because the government hasn't figured out a way to tax it yet.
Not here in Cali -- cap and trade for Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6).Perfluocarbons (PFCs), Nitrogen Trifluoride (NF3), Other fluorinated greenhouse gases not to mention restrictions on VOC's. And, if you don't think we pay for all of this -- think again.
But I guess I like simple fixes so I'm still trying to figure out why they just didn't fix Medicare and change and expand the coverage.
For the small company I work for, this will be a better option. With only 12 employees, the government fines won't apply (50 & under are exempt). With the health exchanges starting late next year, I might actually be able to afford insurance for both myself and my husband. Currently we have one choice - that of the employer.
Yeah right. Folks can't be trusted to use good judgment about their own lives. The Federal Government better step in to make the decisions for these folks. Get the President on the line. We have folks here who need to be taken care of.
We gots that obamacare now so wes better off. And its free !
Not to worry, obummercare will fix it all. Oh wait, it won't. Over the next year is when the general public is going to start realized they've been fleeced and the con is on them. It will be too late for buyer's remorse though, just as intended (that's why many of the obummercare tenets didn't kick in until 2013 and 2014).
Thanks idiot voters.
Obamacare was designed to fail. this was the long term plan by Obama and the other marxists to force a single payer govt controlled health care program on us once Obamacare is announced as a failure due to "evil corporations and the rich".
Medicare for all was, and is the only sensible answer!
Red baiting went out with McCarthyism - but try telling that to Romney's cult followers! lol :P :)
Do you realize that Obama did NOT come up with "obamacare" that this plan was created by the Heritage Foundation which is a very CONSERVATIVE organization? "Obamacare" is exactly the same plan and it's also the same as what Romney's plan was that he enacted in MA. Oh and BTW the Heritage Foundation is against Obamacare and has changed their plan from what it was, because Obama used it, you will no longer find it on their site but you can find it.
You "marxist", "socialist", or whateverist people need to stop with the mindless banter because you have no clue as to what Socialism and Marxism is. Fox and Rush just tell you to say it so you repeat it. Like I recently heard, the republican party has gotten away from the intelligent leaders and given the party to the talking heads like Rush and Fox.
Larry -
I have to give you credit for one thing, you are persistent in selling your swill. Writing to us form South America some place or have you not left the country yet. You are a hateful miserable person.
Yup! They also knew companies would start dumping like this too. It was meant to set the stage for both the single payer system AND cardcheck to usher in unions into more and more companies.
What an insidious incentive: if a company hires all union employees, they don't have to pay the fine, because unions are exempt from Obamacare. Hmmmm.....
There's a reason why Obama and the far-left apparatus met at the WH last week. A plan is afoot.
The single payer system will NEVER work for one huge reason: there are too many allied health and medical professionals getting paid AND liability insurance premiums are too high.
Until tort reform is implemented- the very issue they refuse to address- the single payer system won't work- without laying off MILLIONS of ancillary staff.
oy-vay
You do know that law suites are only responsible for 1.5% of health care cost don't you?
The thing that's failing here is that we've made great strides in getting people insured (whether we agree with the idea or not), but have done ZERO towards controlling the basic cost of services, and in particular we haven't addressed the cost of malpractice insurance which is a spiraling cost driver in what your bill ulitmately is.
In Brazil, Private (you buy it yourself) 80/20 health insurance similar to what is offered here costs $170/month. (Unimed - www.unimed.com.br) Out of pocket lab work typically is $40 to $60 for routine blood work vs. $200+ for the same thing here. A woman's OBGYN series costs $200 vs $1200 here.
Until we figure out how to let the air out of the cost side of the equation, there is going to be a natural and inevitable decline in the number of people who are decently insured because the economics behind even a stubbed toe have become prohibitive in this country.
It's called tort reform. As long as people can sue providers and manufacturers for any reason without consequence, defensive medicine and defensive pricing will continue.
The price of potentially being sued is an extra-added cost in research, manufacture and delivery of health care.
al
malpractice cost only accounts for 1 to 1.5% of health care cost, not a big hitter.
Larry is correct.
Obama care will never work and it is well known.
For example, just wait till the government tires to collect the fines for the people who refuse it.
Can you imagine how the job sector in "collections" will grow.
And who pays for that bill?
We do.
And that is just one example.
If you cannot figure out the rest, you probably voted for Obama.
Larry does not know s$%t. He said Romney would win, he said he would leave the country if Obama won, neither has happened.
no facts, nothing of substance just a lot of mindless predictions and negative thinking.
OH NO!!!
Mindlessness is what got us Obamacare AND Obama in the first place.
Viewer
I agree, intelligent people who voted for Mr. Obama both times saw the mindlessness in the opposition and said they wanted no part of that.
If my party, the Republican party does not clean house and place the middle class and poor ahead of the dictates of business, and the rich, if they don't get rid of the extremists religious nuts and bigots they will lose in 2014 & 2016
Larry, your ahead of yourself.
The insurance companies wrote Obamacare. They cover everybody as long as everybody pays. Ballooning their profits, but providing the same amount of care.
The next step is single payer, but not like UK or Canada. The system will be like the so called Federal Reserve, instead a private cartel of insurance companies. Banking system = healthcare system model.
Stop the lie! Insurance companies CAN'T get rich because the ACA limits how much they can charge above administrative costs.
If anything, insurance companies will likely go broke because they will not make enough profit to pay out toward the ever-increasing costs of the advances in medical technology and research.
But Obama, Pelosi and Reid knew that when they wrote this bill. They're just hoping that people will be so desperate for affordable healthcare after ACA does its damage that people will flock to a single payer system in irrational, emotional desperation.
America is being played like a fiddle and most of us can't even see it. Please read how Bernadette Djorn and far-left groups successfully bankrupted New York City in the 1970s by enticing the poor to flock to welfare and Medicaid programs. I
t actually happened. These are Obama's and the far-left's blue print for "fundamental change."
Do your homework- for real- I beg of you!
oy-vay the idea is to bankrupt america which is the same goal as acorn had when it was founded to turn america into a socialist,marxist or communistic goverenment control the socialist idea is good untll you relize someone has to pay so it falls to the people and that seems to be working so well in europe they are rioting in the streets they be so happy
okie
The US has never been a pure capitalistic (Lassiez Fair) country and we generally do better when we are a bit more socialist. Quite a number of European countries, not to mention Canada are more socialist than US and they are doing just fine. Don't confuse mismanagement of government with the workings of socialism.
Maybe if more employers allowed for sick leave their health costs would go down. One person calls in sick, 8 hours labor lost. Sick person comes to work and infects other employees, multiple days lost. The math is simple.
Hope and change at work ...we all going to be on the streets in 4 years if we last that long and the Republicans tried to tell ever one but most wants it free and thats not going to happen ....Obama don't need no one anymore.
Bruce-308647
"If you like your plan, you can keep it." Big lie #1
You can keep it, but the health insurance company is also free to raise premiums, thus forcing people to drop it. The problem is greedy ceos not health care reform.
Bruce-308647
Good post, Kallie, and I agree with you 100%. Healthcare and health insurance are two completely different things, and providing everyone with health insurance provides little incentive for providers to lower costs. It just creates another layer of "winners and losers". Take AARP. They supported healthcare reform, even though the VAST VAST majority of their members were against it and it cut benefits for seniors. Why did they endorse it? Because this "non profit" company stands to make over a BILLION dollars by selling gap insurance coverage to their members. Maybe the government should just run government sponsored clinics for those with no coverage, where charges are bases on ability to pay. We confused universal care with universal insurance, and in the process just created another mess to be dealt with in the future. (Today's problems are caused by yesterday's solutions!)
Umm have you ever tried to get health care with no health insurance? I have and i know from personal experience it is flat out impossible with the exception of the ER of course. Universal care is worthless without universal insurance since no doctor will not even talk to you unless you have health insurance. Our system is designed around having access to health care through for profit health insurance companies, how the hell can you not understand that fundamental problem? If you need to see one or more specialist doctors for a specific injury or health problem, just try to be seen by one, let alone actually get any medical care from one. Try to schedule a surgery for an injury you have suffered without health insurance, it is one thousand percent impossible.
JUST ANOTHER STORE WHO SELLS CHINESE GOODS!! JUST LIKE WALL-MART!!
BUY AMERICAN!! PUT AMERICA TO WORK!!!!
The Rich have abandoned the American worker!!! "GET YOUR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE"
The only way to get affordable health insurance in a GROUP PLAN!!!
Sears will not benefit from this "GET YOUR OWN INSURANCE"
Calm down, no need to get hysterical!
You can hide in the closet, you'll be safe there. We'll tell you when it's OK to come out of the closet.
Employers are Nasty, Mean,and Greedy plus they are the Bunch that HATE President Obama They Hate the Color Black and are so nasty that our President got re-elected. The Hatred in this Country has become the name of the game for The GOP,The Lying Republicans,the Republicans are so Racist..This is just what they are made of..
Remember to say that to your employer's face when they hand you your pay stub. Get yourself a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" and you'll see what nasty looks like.
BTW, the average American is nasty, mean and greedy. Most of us are get-over artists who take what we can as fast as we can get. Many of us can tell the tale of the parking space we waited with blinkers on, only to have some idiot swoop and steal it in front of our face.
The middle class and poor are no nicer, no less mean and no less greedy than the rich.
Single Payer, like the rest of the world. Most of these problems would be gone, the greed/profit aspect is taken out of the equation. You can argue all you want with all the rhetoric you want to repeat but if you do the research yourself you will find that single payer works. Our healthcare system is so F*%#ed up. It was NEVER intended to be tied to jobs. That was the worst decision ever. Look how many people wont leave a job because the need health insurance. It stifles competition between jobs AND insurers. This is so totally dysfunctional. And I love the Obamacare haters...they act like we have this perfect system and don't mess with it. We have a perfect system and 40 million are uninsured. And you guys think that they are all lazy losers. It doesn't dawn on any of you that you could be in the same situation. Got news for you. I work 60 to 70 hours a week and cannot afford private insurance for most of my family. You think I'm the problem or the system is the problem?
The whole rest of the world doesn't have it- some do. Some are good. Many are not.
In fact, citizens in most of these countries still must buy private insurance because the gov't doesn't pay or render timely offering of certain medical treatments.
If our system was so bad, then why do so many people come from other countries to get treated here. The grass ain't always greener.
It is actually the wealthy that come here because of the doctors. Those people don't have to deal with the US health insurance system.
I live in the UK. I am very happy with our system and do not know anyone with private health insurance or who gone abroad for treatment
I agree that single payer system is the only way to save our health care system. As long as big $$$ are involved through insurance companies and providers, few Americans are going to be able to pay for it. I hear others speaking of just going to a clinic or hospital in other modern countries without leaving bankrupt. Insurance premiums are called "affordable" when they can consume 25 % or more of monthly income.
We need to end this foolishness of making health care a for-profit system. The entire system will collapse when only a few can pay.
Canadians and South Koreans supplement govt health insurance with private insurance.
As someone who worked at 3 major medical centers, I assure you it's not just the rich coming to our country to get healthcare.
Even if it was only the rich, that would be an indication that what we have is good enough to hop a plane for.
Call or write nurses' unions and let them know that for-profit healthcare is foolishness. Wonder how many would be eager to forego a job in for-profit medicine for one in govt run medicine with caps on reimbursement?!
LOL!
Did anyone notice that this is the Ryan voucher plan.
No I didn't. But thank you for bringing that up.
Yep, we'll get to see how the Ryan voucher plan plays out. Luckily it won't be me who experiments with it.