Of course the White House disputes this and has their own version of the truth.
While only 7% of employees will be forced to switch to subsidized-exchange programs, at least 30% of companies say they will “definitely or probably” stop offering employer-sponsored coverage, according to the study published in McKinsey Quarterly.
The survey of 1,300 employers says those who are keenly aware of the health-reform measure probably are more likely to consider an alternative to employer-sponsored plans, with 50% to 60% in this group expected to make a change. It also found that for some, it makes more sense to switch.
Wonder how many of these employees will qualify for Medicaid under the new, expanded qualification rules?
Medicaid is intended for the poor that cannot afford health insurance but there is nothing that says if your employer provides health insurance you have to take it. A few years ago Wal-Mart made headlines because a significant number of their employees were on Medicaid. I would expect many other "big" companies could find their employees following suit when the Medicaid floodgates are opened.
“At least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage, even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries,” the study says.
It goes on to add: “Contrary to what employers assume, more than 85% of employees would remain at their jobs even if their employers stopped offering [employer-sponsored insurance], although about 60% would expect increased compensation.”
Profit oriented companies are all about improving their bottom line while tax hungry governments exist solely to buy votes by giving away things paid for with money they don't have.
These two methods of thinking are diametrically opposed.
Insurers will have to adapt to new realities and look for ways to keep the policy holders they have, the study says, but that shouldn’t be difficult. “Our research shows that more than 70% of employees would stay with their insurer if it offers a seamless transition and appropriate products. Each payer also must understand how changing employer-benefit strategies will shift the risk profile of its membership and set prices appropriately.”
There may be some level of truth in this. In states where an Obamacrap model exists (carriers are not allowed to medically underwrite individual major medical) competition for employer group plans appears to be robust. But just the opposite is true in those same markets when viewing individual health insurance options.
In states like Vermont, Maine and New York private ownership of individual health insurance is almost non-existent primarily due to the excessively high premiums. The number of carriers offering health insurance is limited to usually Blue Cross and perhaps one or two other carriers.
Under Obamacrap the only real choice will be a partially funded employer plan or a taxpayer funded plan. Employees who qualify for free insurance under Medicaid will migrate to the taxpayer plan while those who have a choice between a taxpayer funded plan and an employer funded plan will often pick the plan with the richest benefit and lowest cost to them.
Why is this so difficult to grasp?
Posts
