Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Plus, in your quoted article, where does it address hospitals charging $16 for an Advil, or $65 for a box of gauze bandages?  How is it reducing those costs?

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 10/2/2013 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 10/2/2013 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 7:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 7:19:00 PM (view original):
The benefit of an enticement is diminished, because you don't need a job to get affordable health coverage. Why pay more to continue to provide a diminished enticement when there is a cheaper option (pay the penalty). That makes no sense.

What the ****???

Last year there was a cheaper option for employers...not providing health care. Up until the ACA was passed all employers were free to not provide health benefits. And, yet, a lot of employers did anyway.

Why would an employer choose to stop now that there is a penalty? Why not just continue to do what they have always done?

Last year, if an employer stopped providing healthcare, a large segment of their workforce would look to make a lateral move to another company in order to get the health care.  Would I have made a lateral move under those cirumstances, to get healthcare for my wife and three kids?  You bet I would.  That is not (nearly as much of) a factor anymore.  Would I make a lateral move to another company that possibly has a "last one in, first one out" policy, in a down market, for stronger healthcare and put my career (and ability to support my family) at risk?  I'm not sure that I would.  I know many who definitely would not.

That being the case, the next time our industry sniffs a downturn, why wouldn't the companies say "Look, we all know this is the time where layoffs typically occur.  But we love all of you, and we don't want to lay any of you off.  That being the case, we have decided to stop providing health care through the workplace.  We know that you and your families will all still be covered on the exchange, and we don't have to take away any of your livelihoods."

So you're saying that, because the exchanges are available, employees will be less likely to make risky moves, career-wise, and employers will be less likely to lay people off.

What exactly is your complaint?

Wrong.  Layoffs still occur down the line (only the first wave is skipped), then hiring is arrested when the market increases (you have a larger staff than you normally would under those circumstances, as you skipped a wave of layoffs) and the lack of health expenses is ultimately realized as profit for the company in the end.  Other companies see the strategy if they didn't take part right away, repeat ad nauseum.  There ends up being no choice of a lateral move, because no one is offering coverage.

What it does (besides eliminate choices), as I said 5 posts ago, is force me onto the exchange.

You know that's going to happen, because once a company gets into "expense savings" mode (as they ALL do periodically) and start looking at where they can cut costs, this is going to be low-hanging fruit too juicy to resist.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Plus, in your quoted article, where does it address hospitals charging $16 for an Advil, or $65 for a box of gauze bandages?  How is it reducing those costs?

So you want the federal government to step in and control/regulate how private hospitals price their goods and services?

Posted by examinerebb on 10/2/2013 2:12:00 PM (view original):
Because the ACA all but eliminates the downside for the companies.  Rather than taking away healthcare altogether (catastrohic in employees' minds), they are simply changing they terms by which their employees receive it.  Negatively, in almost all cases, but as companies follow suit there is no ramification.  There is no leverage for the employee when none of the other companies in their chosen field are offering healthcare.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Plus, in your quoted article, where does it address hospitals charging $16 for an Advil, or $65 for a box of gauze bandages?  How is it reducing those costs?

So you want the federal government to step in and control/regulate how private hospitals price their goods and services?

That should be an option on the table, yes.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 10/2/2013 2:12:00 PM (view original):
Because the ACA all but eliminates the downside for the companies.  Rather than taking away healthcare altogether (catastrohic in employees' minds), they are simply changing they terms by which their employees receive it.  Negatively, in almost all cases, but as companies follow suit there is no ramification.  There is no leverage for the employee when none of the other companies in their chosen field are offering healthcare.

Before the ACA, company-provided or company-subsidized healthcare insurance was a valued benefit.  But when you now have another avenue to get it at a discount outside of your employer, it's value as a benefit is greatly dimished.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Plus, in your quoted article, where does it address hospitals charging $16 for an Advil, or $65 for a box of gauze bandages?  How is it reducing those costs?

So you want the federal government to step in and control/regulate how private hospitals price their goods and services?

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 10/2/2013 2:12:00 PM (view original):
Because the ACA all but eliminates the downside for the companies.  Rather than taking away healthcare altogether (catastrohic in employees' minds), they are simply changing they terms by which their employees receive it.  Negatively, in almost all cases, but as companies follow suit there is no ramification.  There is no leverage for the employee when none of the other companies in their chosen field are offering healthcare.

Before the ACA, company-provided or company-subsidized healthcare insurance was a valued benefit.  But when you now have another avenue to get it at a discount outside of your employer, it's value as a benefit is greatly dimished.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 10/2/2013 2:12:00 PM (view original):
Because the ACA all but eliminates the downside for the companies.  Rather than taking away healthcare altogether (catastrohic in employees' minds), they are simply changing they terms by which their employees receive it.  Negatively, in almost all cases, but as companies follow suit there is no ramification.  There is no leverage for the employee when none of the other companies in their chosen field are offering healthcare.

Before the ACA, company-provided or company-subsidized healthcare insurance was a valued benefit.  But when you now have another avenue to get it at a discount outside of your employer, it's value as a benefit is greatly dimished.

"Before the ACA, company-provided or company-subsidized healthcare insurance was a valued benefit"

It's not now???

The exchanges aren't free. They aren't cheap either if you make more than the poverty line and they come with big deductibles.

Because they couldn't possibly sell it as benefitting their employees before.  Now they can say "We're doing it instead of layoffs.  You'll still have insurance, we just wanted to make sure you were all still employed as well."

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Plus, in your quoted article, where does it address hospitals charging $16 for an Advil, or $65 for a box of gauze bandages?  How is it reducing those costs?

So you want the federal government to step in and control/regulate how private hospitals price their goods and services?

That should be an option on the table, yes.

That's basically what it does through medicare.

Why not cut out the middle man and just go single payer? Government pays X for Y service. Hospitals have to find a way to make it work or go out of business.

Full disclosure, I'd be down for repealing the ACA if this was a realistic option. Judging by the "OMFG TEH DEATH PANELS!!1!!!" reaction to the ACA, I don't think it's realistic.

Posted by examinerebb on 10/2/2013 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 10/2/2013 2:12:00 PM (view original):
Because the ACA all but eliminates the downside for the companies.  Rather than taking away healthcare altogether (catastrohic in employees' minds), they are simply changing they terms by which their employees receive it.  Negatively, in almost all cases, but as companies follow suit there is no ramification.  There is no leverage for the employee when none of the other companies in their chosen field are offering healthcare.

Before the ACA, company-provided or company-subsidized healthcare insurance was a valued benefit.  But when you now have another avenue to get it at a discount outside of your employer, it's value as a benefit is greatly dimished.

"Before the ACA, company-provided or company-subsidized healthcare insurance was a valued benefit"

It's not now???

The exchanges aren't free. They aren't cheap either if you make more than the poverty line and they come with big deductibles.

Because they couldn't possibly sell it as benefitting their employees before.  Now they can say "We're doing it instead of layoffs.  You'll still have insurance, we just wanted to make sure you were all still employed as well."

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 2:28:00 PM (view original):
I think I'd rather just lose my benefits than be laid off and lose my job and my benefits with no option other than cobra.