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."
ya but ppl have to be stupid to believe a line of BS that says health insurance is being cut instead of layoffs benefits them.
lets face it 99% of companies do not give two ***** about their employees except for what the employee can provide to them. if a company really cared, instead of cuts to health insurance, the big earners at the company would take pay cuts to prevent layoffs. can't have that tho the big earners got to make their big bucks even if someone else no longer has a job.