Employers' 'plan B' if health reform is axed

[Chachma v'Oz]

"The Supreme Court is expected to rule later this month -- maybe as soon as Monday. Industry experts say the justices could uphold the law, overturn it completely or overturn just some provisions.

"Employers were banking on the individual mandate forcing more young healthy people to buy insurance, a trend that would help spread the risk for insurers and eventually bring down companies' health care costs.

"If the law is thrown out, these two provisions go out. Out goes two ways for employers to reduce their costs and companies will go to Plan B," said Keckley.

"And consumers will face more than just higher premiums. Employers will even more aggressively push high-deductible plans, defined contribution plans such as HSAs, and further narrow the choice of network providers for employees as other ways to offset their costs, Keckley said."

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/14/pf/h...source=cnn_bin

In other words, everybody loses if the PPACA is significantly crippled by the Supreme Court. America's employers will have to resume their role of bearing the burden of providing health insurance for workers and at the exorbitant cost to them, and our economy, that the PPACA relieves.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Why do you hate freedom, ChaCha?

[caddis]

"The Supreme Court is expected to rule later this month -- maybe as soon as Monday. Industry experts say the justices could uphold the law, overturn it completely or overturn just some provisions.

"Employers were banking on the individual mandate forcing more young healthy people to buy insurance, a trend that would help spread the risk for insurers and eventually bring down companies' health care costs.

"If the law is thrown out, these two provisions go out. Out goes two ways for employers to reduce their costs and companies will go to Plan B," said Keckley.

"And consumers will face more than just higher premiums. Employers will even more aggressively push high-deductible plans, defined contribution plans such as HSAs, and further narrow the choice of network providers for employees as other ways to offset their costs, Keckley said."

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/14/pf/h...source=cnn_bin

In other words, everybody loses if the PPACA is significantly crippled by the Supreme Court. America's employers will have to resume their role of bearing the burden of providing health insurance for workers and at the exorbitant cost to them, and our economy, that the PPACA relieves.

Be careful what you wish for.

The way I interpret this is that those of us with insurance are paying EXTREMELY high medical costs whenever we go to the doctor/hospital in order to cover for those that don't have insurance. In other words, they charge us more because we have a means to pay. By forcing more people to buy insurance, we may only get charged VERY high rates instead....Because, face it, 40% of the working population does not work, so they will still not have insurance and we will still be forced to pay for those freeloading sons-of-bitches.,

Obamacare did nothing to address rising healthcare costs other than to force more people to pay. Was the trivial savings (Assuming there is one) worth the loss of freedom?

[Chachma v'Oz]

That's up to the SC. They'll rule on whether the law is constitutional (or politically acceptable). This report is about the possible consequences of a negative decision.

Things were bad enough before we got the law. They're likely to get much worse if it's significantly neutered or overturned altogether. That's according to the business community that doesn't want to go back to bearing the burden of supporting our nation's health care system.

Maybe they have it all wrong. Let's not hope to see.

[86Dùde]

Fair point.

[garyd]

Except that they got everything wrong.

1st,If this is thrown out we will be back to where we were to begin with which in most regards is an improvement since under current law employers have to insure everyone who works for them in any case.

2nd obama care wasn't going to bring insurance coverage to everyone who doesn't already have it in any case. And the amount of new people forced into the system was never going to cover all of the associated cost in any case.

3rd please note there was inherent to the system an enormous gamble in that those without insurance would continue to have minimal interface with the system. That was never likely to be true.

[Chachma v'Oz]

1st,If this is thrown out we will be back to where we were to begin with which in most regards is an improvement since under current law employers have to insure everyone who works for them in any case.

Document that statement.

2nd obama care wasn't going to bring insurance coverage to everyone who doesn't already have it in any case. And the amount of new people forced into the system was never going to cover all of the associated cost in any case.

Wow. Document that.

3rd please note there was inherent to the system an enormous gamble in that those without insurance would continue to have minimal interface with the system. That was never likely to be true.

Explain.

[garyd]

!st what point of the first one do you want documented?

Obama, nancy and Harry have all already said as much.

You've just been forced to by a product are you not then going to use it simply because you have it?

A high percentage of those unisured were 20 somethings in good health with decent jobs. They had no reason to access the sytem or any desire to. After Obama care the rationale will become I've got this health insurance I might as well use it. And they will find lots of reasons to access the system.

[Chachma v'Oz]

1) "... under current law employers have to insure everyone who works for them." That allegation needs to be substantiated.

I'm not following the rest of that post. Please clarify what you're talking about. And be aware of the fact that the larger the insurance pool, the cheaper the cost of participation. That's how insurance works, and that's the basis for the insurance industry's demand that the PPACA include universal coverage.

[josephdphillips]

None of the people advocating "freedom" to be young and uninsured have ever been denied access to health care, as I have.

Insurance companies have to do what they have to do to stay in business, but the death spiral in that industry has already started.

Americans are a greedy, selfish bunch, used to getting a lot for nothing. In a global economy employers have to compete with companies whose employees get their health insurance from government, as they should.

In my lifetime, there will come a day when most employers offer little to nothing to their employees in the way of health plans. That outcome is unavoidable, and the sonner it happens, the better.