Employers Rapidly Shifting Health Care Costs to Workers
As the year-long health care debate approaches its end game in Washington, opponents of reform are being buffeted by a double-whammy of bad news. Last week, a Goldman Sachs analysis documented insurance rates for individuals jumping by up to 50% in some markets. Now, a new survey of large employers found that 56% will hold workers responsible for a greater share of health care costs next year. Coming on the heels of studies showing companies dropping workplace coverage altogether, the data reveal a system of employer-provided health insurance teetering on the brink of collapse.
As the Washington Post reported, the study National Business Group on Health of 507 large companies with over 1,000 employees each found that:
Many say they may charge more to cover spouses, tighten eligibility standards for their health plans and dispense financial rewards or penalties based on the results of certain lab tests. At some companies, overweight employees could be excluded from the most desirable plans.
Meanwhile, employees at many companies can expect significantly higher premiums, deductibles and co-payments.
That cost-shifting will take a number of forms. Twenty-eight percent of employers plan to use spousal surcharges next year, up from 21 percent this year. Meanwhile, 12 percent of employers plan to offer only high-deductible coverage next year. And the percentage of firms considering employee biometric screening and health care appraisals to incentives for hitting weight, blood pressure and cholesterol targets is growing rapidly.
The NBGH survey is just the latest symptom of the rapidly deteriorating system of employer-provided health insurance coverage. A 2007 report from the Economic Policy Institute showed a dramatic decline in employer-provided health care. That drop-off from 64.2% of Americans covered through workplace insurance in 2000 to just 59.7% in 2006 alone added 2.3 million more people to those without coverage. Census data since showed workplace coverage dipped further in 2007, down to an alarming 59.3%. A recent Thomson Reuters survey put the figure for 2009 at a stunning 54.6%. (Data from the U.S. Census revealed that it was only the expansion of government programs including SCHIP and Medicaid which offset the erosion of employer coverage in 2008.)
As the Washington Post also detailed in September, another survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the grim outlook for employer-provided health insurance is growing more dismal still:
Forty percent of employers surveyed said they are likely to increase the amount their workers pay out of pocket for doctor visits. Almost as many said they are likely to raise annual deductibles and the amount workers pay for prescription drugs.
Nine percent said they plan to tighten eligibility for health benefits; 8 percent said they plan to drop coverage entirely. Forty-one percent of employers said they were "somewhat" or "very" likely to increase the amount employees pay in premiums -- though that would not necessarily mean employees are paying a higher percentage of the premiums. Employers could simply be passing along the same proportional share of the overall increase that they did in 2009.
To be sure, Americans' health care expenditures are spiraling out of control, expanding at triple the rate of wages. That annual tab now tops $12,000. Of that, a recent analysis by the Center for American Progress found that "8 percent of families' health care premiums--approximately $1,100 a year--is due to our broken system that fails to cover the uninsured."
And with successful Republican obstruction of Democratic health care initiatives, those jaw-dropping costs would only continue their steep climb. A report last year from the consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers forecast employers will face a 9% increase in health insurance costs in 2010. 42% of those business surveyed will pass at least some the new burden on to their workers. As PWC's Michael Thompson concluded in June:
"If the underlying costs go up by 9%, employees' costs actually go up by double digits," he said, noting that will have a "major, major impact" when many employers also are freezing or cutting pay.
Here's a snapshot of just how "major" that impact will be for American families. Pointing to data from the actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Center for American Progress warns that per capita medical costs are forecast to rise by 71% over the next decade. That would catapult the cost of the average family's insurance policy from $13,000 a year to over $22,000 by 2019.
As the Post detailed, business groups themselves are also ringing the alarm bell. A new report from the Business Roundtable concluded, "If current trends continue, annual health-care costs for employers will rise 166 percent over the next decade -- to $28,530 per employee." Antonio M. Perez, chief executive of Eastman Kodak and a leader of the Business Roundtable concluded:
"Maintaining the status quo is simply not an option. These costs are unsustainable and would put millions of workers at risk."
And not just workers, but for all Americans. With 50 million uninsured, another 25 million underinsured, 1 in 5 Americans already postponing treatment and medical costs fueling 62% of personal bankruptcies, the crisis of the employer-based system couldn't come at a worse time. But while Democrats are trying to get Americans the health care reform they so badly need, Republican leaders have another plan: go to the emergency room.
(This piece also appears at Perrspectives.)
.
Can someone please send this to Nancy Pelosi?
Maybe she will connect some dots about shifting costs to employers and how that will translate into expenditures being shifted to employees and consumers?
And maybe, while at it, she can explain as to why IF she's for a public option, so much so that the House did vote for it previously and the Senate eliminated it...
... How someone can swear to be FOR a "Public Option" that they won't reinstate it back into legislation? Or is it that the Senate winds blow the House boat around and she is an ineffective Leader who only follows the direction those winds take her?
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Save the World.
It has always been only a question of what excuse she would use in the end to drop the ball.
Take your same graph, and plot what the employer is PAYING for the insurance. Not just what the employee is paying.
You'll find the employer is shouldering 50-75% of the cost increases of insurance. In 2002 for my business the cost of insurance was $3275 single $9852 family per year. Currently the cost is $6480 single and $18512 family.
Your chart shows fairly accurately that the cost to the employee (employee share) has risen by about 50% in those 8 years. It likely has, because most employees pay a set portion of the total cost. But you fail to appreciate the cost to Employer has risen by 100% in that same period. The Employer in many cases is shouldering a bigger burden. It's not surprising in many marginal businesses, small business, restaurants and small shops, the owners cannot afford to pay the $1000-$2000 annual increases in cost per employee.
Employers are not the bad guys.
yet, the main lobbying groups for business interests vigorously oppose a single-payer system.
unfortunately small businesses are screwed. but that doesn't hold a candle to how badly people are screwed.
I'm not so sure Jon Perr is arguing that employers are the bad guys. I think he's noting that the problem just keeps getting worse, and "our" representatives aren't really doing anything about it. Republicans will obstruct reform even in the face of this data, and Democrats can't manage real reform anyway.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
WB1234,
As Karen suggests, this post is not meant to suggest that employers are bad guys. Employers of all sizes and their employees alike are under tremendous pressure from rising health costs which are rising at rates triple that of wages.
To get a better feel for how much companies large (>200 employees) and small (3 to 199 employees) are now paying, this chart of both worker contribution and total premiums from Kaiser captures it much better.
Thanks for the feedback,
Jon
"Employers shoulder majority of health care increases, shielding workers from full burden of insurance hikes"?
rather than "Employers Rapidly Shifting Health Care Costs to Workers"
Your chart belies headline. Employers are NOT shifting more than a fraction of the health care costs to employees. Employer costs are rising much faster than the portion paid by the workers.
I think the headline should stay the same because employers are moving the cost burden onto employees in ways not measured by increased premiums alone.
Consider:
- 69% of large companies offered coverage to workers in 2000, compared to 60% now. Among small companies, the figure dropped from 57% to 46%. (See this chart). That means millions more of Americans are now on their own for health insurance.
- Deductibles, co-pays and other out of pocket expenses have also increased for workers. These are not reflected in the premiums listed above.
Again, I don't by any means suggest that employers aren't getting clobbered by skyrocketing health insurance costs. And they have, as you suggested, maintained the employees' percentag of premiums over the last year. But workers are absorbing whole new category of costs and millions of others have lost their workplace coverage altogether.
they were.
This is not some terrible misreading of the data, but a slice of the data to represent one piece of the puzzle.
Workers can't afford the current system.
Employers can't afford the current system.
Let's make everybody buy into the current system.
FUCKING BRILLIANT.
m
However, it's irrelevant, because it is the employers, most notably the corporations, and the US Chamber of Commerce who present a unified lobbying front against any efforts to provide universal single-payer system, which could entirely free them from any healthcare costs whatsoever. They have stubbornly clung to the idea that they will be the gatekeepers to the promised land of access to healthcare. By maintaining that role, they have helped to establish de facto healthcare rationing in this country, by creating a sizable population of have nots. That, in turn, gives them more power over their employees than they could ever hope to otherwise exercise. The ability to say, "except for our grace, there goes you", makes for anobedient and compliant work force. They willingly make themselve less competitive in the global marketplace in order to retain grasp on the power and control. I've no sympathy for them or their alligator tears.
is how much insurance costs, Businesses are getting ripped off and so are individuals. What are the geniuses in charge of our government doing - proposing to mandate everyone purchase.
Except of course, for the aprox 15 to 20mm people who will still remain uncovered.
it implode on it's own. Couple more years of this and single payer is going to be looking pretty darned good to a majority of Americans.
People are paying twice that amount.
The text of the article has the correct numbers.
I didn't look at it that closely and I haven't had insurance for ten years. But, ten years ago I was paying double that for just my wife and I.
As you can imagine, no hourly employee can afford it.
But in 2000 my cost for my wife and I was aprox. 200 per month or 2,400. annualy and according to the chart it was $334? Man is that off.
Ferrofluid,
Just to clarify, the Kaiser chart shown above shows only the portion of health care premiums paid by workers.
To see how the total average annual premium (both individual and family) has increased, see this chart from Kaiser. These figures show total costs, not who is paying them (employer, worker or combination.
Jon
the sooner a single payer system will become inevitable. I don't know how many times I've tried to explain this to people but as long as health insurance was a hidden cost to them they could afford to be satisfied with a system that was gnawing away at the underpinnings of the economy. There won't be any hiding it now. To paraphrase Mark Twain soon you'll be able to say: ain't we got all the uninsured on our side. And ain't that a big enough majority in any town.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
The faster rates rise, the sooner we will be rid of the parasites.
and charging more from the remaining people.
that is why the insurers are fighting tooth and nail for mandates.
another thing:
one of the biggest problems with costs is that the insured are often charges more to cover for the indigent. hospitals do it all the time. if single payer were the system, no overcharging is necessary to compensate for anyone. I'd bet that costs go down overall as any overcharging is now unjustified.
Some stuff you can't make up!
but they wouldn't do them any real good because they are pretty much unenforceable and even if they could do that it wouldn't save them. It is a shame more people here do not understand how businesses run particularly the insurance companies. I've been running a business for twenty-five years and if I was facing the shit storm even the current relatively weak bill will cause for them I'd be looking to find another business. The main tragedy of not having a public option in the current bill is that there won't be one operating and ready when the private insurance model collapses. There will be much short term pain for a lot of people because of that.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
over the proposed plan? They will be further entrenched and harder to regulate. It's not like the option was "mandate for all and roll back your premiums to pre 1990 levels" - it's mandates for (most) all and keep your premiums in order. It's a rediculously profitable business, why would they change?
a ridiculously profitable business. Insurance companies, contrary to popular belief, are fiercely competitive. It's just that they compete to meet Wall Street's expectations and the expectations of investors and achieve that by minimizing medical losses. Many of the policies that allowed them to meet those expectations will no longer function. Caps gone. Rescission gone. Avoiding potential liabilities by using pre-existing conditions gone. They haven't many weapons left in the arsenal. They could try to reduce overhead and squeeze the actual providers but there isn't that much slack there to pick up. The only effective strategy they have is to raise rates or download costs to businesses who as we have seen are forced to increase the co-pays. Mandates won't do any good because there is a glaring hole in that maneuver. They want to add healthy people to their roles and they want the government to force it. I could start an insurance company tomorrow that would answer the mandate. You pay us a dollar a year and we'll cover the cost of a band aid. There you have health insurance. Shitty insurance but it's still insurance. What's going to happen inevitably is that they are going to squeeze all of their clients until they squeal or fail to pay their premiums. The government can mandate all the blood out of a stone they want but they're not going to get it. It's a shame their won't be a system to pick up the pieces went the collapse comes beyond expanding medicare. That a good idea by the way but it'll get swamped before things get put right.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
United Health Group (25) Wellpoint (33) and Aetna (85) are all in the Fortune 500 top 100. UHG posted profits of 2,977B for 2009, Wellpoint had profits of 2.7B for the last quarter of 2009, Aetna didn't meet investors expectations due to the financial crises and the only info I got on them was a profit of 1,384B in 2008 with a downward revised expectation of 5% increase in profits for 2009.
And interestingly Cigna (141) had profits of 435B in 2009 which was an increase of 346% over the previous year.
Looking at these numbers I suspect the number I have for UHG corresponds to a single quarter, not an annual amount. But, if you have a one stop source that lists the revenues, profits and precentages of the companies that comprise the healthcare industry in the U.S. I'll be glad to look at it.
After all, didn't some Jobbathehut looking CEO retire from one of these a few years ago with a 300 - 400m retirement package?
and they can kiss those days goodbye if this bill passes. The shareholders won't stand for those kinds of bonuses when the share prices go into free fall because none of them will be able to meet earnings expectations. You have to realize their options are extremely limited, mandates or not. They can go after the rich with Cadillac plans (which will be hit with an excise tax) and try to subsidize the less profitable demographics but at some point those customers will get tired of of subsidizing others and they'll buy minimalist plans and pay out of pocket for the rest. It'll probably be cheaper. They can try to cannibalize each other by going after low risk clients but that will drive down profits too. I wonder if many people here really understand what happened to GM which once held a similarly exalted corporate position.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
...sort of long-term political gambit by Obama? Seems to me that if what you're predicting is true, this "reform" will eventually reveal the insurers for what they are, and undercut the arguments against single payer.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
for what they are, which they do with every rate increase or co-pay increase it isn't really a gambit and I don't see how it can fail to undercut arguments against single payer. To be honest I can't see the US ever getting a Canadian style single payer system since the actual health care system you have ,as opposed to the insurers, is ill suited to that. It looks to me like you're heading for a hybrid system like the Germans and that isn't the worst thing in the world
Hasa Diga Eebowai
It is so obvious to anyone with a calculator that single payer saves money.
One big problem I have with the current reform is that it will perpetuate and exacerbate a class divide in health care. Oh sure, insurance will be available, and maybe even at an affordable price (for more but not all). But it will be lousy coverage and still bankrupt people by the tens of thousands. But on the bright side they will still be alive to go buy that rope.
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
.
Back in 1972 I got my first good job the "Health Insurance was cheap,cheap!! I payed $6.27 a pay day for FULL coverage... Years later when they did the new year sign up for health insurance you could "PICK" from serveral plans. The employer put about $300 into the plan. You could pick from 4 plans. the better the plan, the more it cost. the best plan would cost the $300 + you had to put money in. "Now here is the big deal. If you had insurance with your wife and did not need the insurance they had ! ! ! You would get the money, they would put in on your pay check. : )... serveral years the companie figured how to F over there employes. they got some judge to make a ruel that if over 1/2 of the employes picked the insurance the companie offered, they could "KEEP" all the money and no longer give you any money if you did not use the shit they offired. WTF. How times have changed.
This BS with Health Care reform is SHIT.. Some one has given Obama some real shit.. Obama should have called this "HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM"..... Some one made sure it was 'Not" called Health insurance reform. think about it. I don't know any one who likes there health insurance. All they want to is fuck you over on any thing they can...
today. My condolences to Keith and his family.
I don't mean to derail the thread, but he's been a great voice on this.
for universal healthcare. No stronger case has been made anywhere.
REST-IN-PEACE, MR. OLBERMANN
MY SINCERE CONDOLENCES, KEITH.
Some stuff you can't make up!
!
mark ames, matt taiibis' old partner
http://exiledonline.com/cat/class-war-for-idi...
this makes some kind of case for Universal Health Care or something.
Pfffttt....
We need to stop framing every issue as Democrat vs. Republican. This is the rich vs. the poor. The biggest issue in the country today isn't the environment or even the economy. It's class warfare. We wouldn't have all of the issues that we're plagued with today if there wasn't an extremely wealth upper class that embodies completely different interests than that of the majority of Americans. Nothing will ever change unless political and economic power shifts out of the hands of the billionaires, and into the hands of the general public. We desperately need to establish a participatory democracy in this country. We have the technology for it.
"We need to stop framing every issue as Democrat vs. Republican." How can you do that when the Democratic party as pathetic as they are ,is all the representation we ( the workers , the lower and middle classes ) have ? What we need to do is clean house in the Democratic party and vote the bad guys out . The Republicans are the upper class and the corporations , they represent no one else . They pretend to represent Christians but that too is a lie , they are only using donkey / stick and carrot ploy to sucker the Christians and get their support , they could not care less about "Christian values" .I agree the with you , a good percentage of the Dems are corrupt , self serving and not on our side but the Republicans are 100 % against us .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
I agree that Republicans only represent upper-class interests, while a small portion of Democrats might genuinely represent the interests of the general public, but remind yourself of each and every time that the Democrats have sided with the rich over the lower and middle class. How many more horrible decisions do they have to make before you convince yourself that this party does not represent your interests? By being slightly to the left of Republicans (while still being way to the right of the general public), Democrats will abuse the fact that they can always depend on liberals to vote for them. Democrats (including Obama) are a collection of moderates and conservatives who, like the Republicans, tend to put the interests of business ahead of the interests of people. I have millions of examples that prove this to be true.
Many working-class supporters of the Republican party may vend all of their frustration on the government, but I'm convinced that they do this primarily because they see the government as a manifestation of the ruling class. If we were to highlight the class war that is going on in this country right now, then an overwhelming majority of Americans would be on our side. We need to challenge all institutions of power, governments and corporations. If we continue to view everything through a partisan lens, then we will continue to isolate half of the country. Partisan politics are nothing more than sporting events for the rich. I suggest we stop fawning over the Democratic Party, and instead work on grassroots movements that will unite poor and working-class Americans together. Only then will we have the opportunity to create an alternative to our two-party, corporate-controlled system.
The bourgeoisie are happy campers , they are on a roll , dropping employees insurance ,laying off the more expensive senior employees , cutting back hours but demanding and getting the same production and paying lower wages to top it off . Love this wonderful G.D. capitalism ! When the workers just bury their heads in the sand and or are so stupid as to be supporting the wrong side ... sabotaging themselves , this is what happens .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
..so it was explained to me. I'm getting hit with higher deductibles, higher co-pays, and higher premium deductions. The Cadillac plan has been downgraded to a Toyota Prius with a stuck gas pedal.
Still, it's better than the President's plan, which I think requires 30% co-insurance with an unspecified maximum out-of-pocket cap.
But, the President's plan is better than the status quo. If I was without a plan, the President's plan could prevent my personal bankruptcy for medical reasons. The status quo isn't going to do that.
The senate bill specifies a max out of pocket cap of $10,000 for incomes UP TO 400% of the poverty level. What happens to those making MORE than 400%?
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
I *think* the level can not exceed the limit described in USC Title 26, § 223(c)(2)(A)(ii) (Health Savings Accounts)
Senate bill is here.
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/Health_Ca...
If I read it correctly, the maximum out-of-pocket is described in section 1302(c)(1) of the Senate bill and references the above mentioned Title 26, § 223(c)(2)(A)(ii). Section 1302 is referenced in other parts of the bill reducing the maximum out of pocket as you point out, depending where on the poverty level the person is.
I always have a bad taste for HSA's as it subsidizes more of the costs for people in higher income (tax) brackets, much like the mortgage deduction does. Way I see it, a person at 500% of the poverty level is going to pay more out of pocket than a person at 5000%, who is presumably in a higher tax bracket, and hence getting a greater subsidy.
This headline helped me make an important decision today.
I've been thinking about a rough problem this weekend. In my business we are getting increased sales. It's hard for me to increase staff, because of the expenses. So I've been seriously considering shifting a portion of my entry-level staff to outside service firms.
It's difficult to deal with entry level staff. They are often wildcards with regard to attendance, and personal issues, long term capabilities and career growth. Higher level technical staff is generally more stable, and also pulls more financial weight. It's the entry level where $18000 per year insurance premiums is balanced against a $10/hr worker that you see the greatest problems.
And as the headline shows, everyone just blames the Employer. Great way to show that bias here. Truth isn't important. Just post any inflammatory headline to get page views. What TV Channel does that?
Frankly, Employers get insulted by their own staff, by strangers, and by everyone else. You feel like you should be so proud to create career level jobs and pay a million dollars a year in payroll to families in your town. But no, it just gets you on everyone's crap list because they assume all small employers are Enron and out to cheat their workers, and give you "what you should be doing" without bothering to understand what you -are- doing.
It's clear, my road forward is NOT to be an employer. That way, no one is blaming me for higher costs or eroded value of home pay.
I can do that. I'll just shift our uptrending business to service companies who can handle our customers for a fee. Whether they provide insurance will be their issue, and not mine, because I won't be the Employer.
It certainly sounds like a win-win for me. Jon - thanks for the great guidance. I hope you agree that when I have fewer employees, there will be fewer people to blame me for passing on a small portion of the increase in health insurance premiums that we experience.
I'dve run out of insults long ago.
me-oww!
Because if those outsourced workers don't have insurance- and if you're going to get the best deal from the agency, you're going to get employees who don't have coverage- you'll end up paying their bills with your higher personal health insurance rates, and through the rates you still pay to cover your higher level employees.
Here's the elephant in the room: The expectations of profits by today's business community are unrealistic. You see Bill Gates and Paul Allen making billions of dollars a year and expect the same without taking into account the fundamental differences between traditional businesses and cutting edge businesses with much less overhead (because, really, what other than computers, brainpower and typing skills are required to write software) and brand new markets where there's high demand and absolutely no competition. So in a fit of jealousy, the business community cheats (Enron), colludes with their bought reps in DC (banking and insurance sectors), or just dickishly tosses aside the human beings in their employ (I'm looking at you, wb1234).
Here's a suggestion: The next time you think of sending your management to some motivational conference where the pervasive message is, "Do it now, apologize later," send them to an ethics class instead.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
I think your logic is a bit disingenuous. I don't think employers are being blamed here, the author is exposing another symptom in a health system that cost 50% more than costs in other industrial countries.
I think you already made up your mind to contract out, and are in search of rationalization.
I join miss_kitty in being glad I don't work for you.
WB1234,
Of course, you should do what you think best for both your business and peace of mind alike. I'm just sorry to hear that the headline of this blog post had any bearing one way or other on that process.
But this isn't a blame game. Stating that employers are shifting costs isn't a judgment about good or evil. It's simply a statement of fact. It is happening and the empirical data measures it. Doubtless, most employers who are moving more costs to employees or dropping their coverage altogether feel they have no economic alternative to doing so.
This is just reality. So, policy makers need to consider an environment in which fewer Americans are covered by workplace insurance even as employers struggle with increased costs for those they still provide for. That is why paths already taken off the table (single payer, Medicare buy-in starting at 55, public option which allowed companies and not just individuals to buy in) could have been such a boon to firms and those in the individual market alike.
Again this isn't about pointing fingers of blame at employers, but putting the data out there to show what the White House and Congress simply must address.
All of the best with your future business endeavors whatever approach you choose to take.
are just looking for excuses to do what you've already decided to do before you decided you needed an excuse.
americans love affair with capitalism will end when we reach third world status.
have a nice day in your gated communites the one per centers
the rest you wanted capitalism you got it
aint it grand.
the one per centers convinced you that your only choice was capitalism or communism or socialism and you knew not.
the capitalists are ten times smarter than you that is why they have 95% of the wealth.
even when they fail they win. ie wall street.
I have traveled the world and in 48 states and found only dumbed down americans.
take a trip to the south and see how that works out for ya. self righteous, pride, imperialistic, some even war mongering, and of course racists. and they love their capitalism, pick up trucks, trailers, and guns.
mega profits off the sick and needy says it all about american values. and then of course we have our wars for profits and our industrial military complex.
lets not forget our bought and paid for politicans. ie corp fascism.
and now our corp supreme court.
I am a capitalist. We all learned Econ 101.
What most didn't get was Econ 102 where they discuss monopolies, cartels, price fixing, corrupt politicians, earmarks, subsidies or the options market selling credit default swaps.
I used to own a small business. I soon learned that profit in my industry was consolidated and held by a small group. The rest of the supply chain lived on bread crumbs...enough to stay alive but not grow or profit.
Look at the oil industry. As soon as the economy gets even a moment to breath, the oil prices bump up due to speculators and overnight the economy plops back down.
Folks, get used to the bread crumbs.
As an ex united healthgroup employee I can tell you the insurance coverage was insufficient and expensive even while subsidized by UHG. Out of pocket expenses made coverage work only for high salaried employees or the very healthy. They implemented surcharges on everything from being overweight to smoking to high cholesterol to your kid having asthma (which was called a precondition and not covered). It came to pass that with any chronic or prolonged (greater than 3 weeks) On top of all the deductions from paychecks for coverage, copays for office visits and prescriptions,there was the deductible. The Deductible requires a large ($7-12,000) family payment of medical expenses before the company considered covering anything at all. The healthy never reach it. It's a huge scam and forces workers to stay employed for very low wages only to have some kind of coverage for a family member, but co-expenses eat up the remainder of the paycheck. Its not worth it, either too sick or too poor to work because it makes living impossible. I left my job and work at home for a higher wage and my kids are covered by schip. This has saved us. BTW, be cautious of the 'health surveys' these companies put out "to better provide for your health needs". UHG did this and then used the info to apply their surcharges or deny coverage. They also sell the info to other insurance companies- this voluntary release of medical info is NOT protected by HIPAA. Which senators do I send the ER bills to?
Of ER bills to Mitt Romney. There was a thread a week or so ago that was about him claiming all ER's are free. No. Seriously. I'm not joking.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
thanks for contributing to the discussion after the post.
It is refreshing addition to continue to hear from the person providing a point of view on the site.
Thanks for the kind words. They are much appreciated.
Often, it's hard to follow up in a timely way on comments. But this is a complicated topic. There's a lot more data in the various reports supporting both my original points and those who raised objections or questions to them in the comments.
Thanks again!
but I have seen that some people say the InsCos are raising premiums as they remove the undesirables from their books, shifting the burden of premiums to a smaller group.
They then say that when the premiums get too high, single payer will finally be on the table.
We can help the process along.
CANCEL YOUR POLICY NOW.
With apologies to those who live by the thread of insurance, we have control of this situation if we just flex our money muscles a bit.
has effectively ended healthcare for it's non-executive salaried employees(executives and hourly{those who can unionize}), through a combination of much higher deductibles, copays and refusals to cover a broad spectrum of services and drugs.
The executive we questioned said it was because they knew the job market was depressed, would remian so into the forseeable future and that in such an environment, it was unlikely that the salaried work force would be able to find work with other employers. He saw nothing wrong with that and when told that this policy amounted to cynical, opportunistic predation, he responded that "everybody's doing it". How principled. A sociopath's rationalizations.
I would not be surprised to find out that, because their action puts healthcare beyond affordability to employees with serious problems, they have also taken out dead peasant insurance policies in order to profit from the deaths of those employees who will inevitably die from lack of access to adequate healthcare. Anything for porfits.
They do not see it yet, but this company is in a irremedial death spiral. When it finally collapses, it's going to be a shock (well not for those at the very top who will by that point have been doing everything they can think to conceal the impending demise from all stakeholders and regulators).
The world will be a better place when it is gone.
1) Healthcare profits come after expenses, including all salaries. Bonus payments may or may not be declared prior to announcement of profits. So the net number is unknowable without discreet analysis.
2)Insurance companies used to operate with zero profit. They made their money on the investment side of the house. The daily cash balance in their accounts is staggering and they use the money to invest (stocks, bonds, treasuries, real estate, etc.)
The ratio of profit was downright fantastic if you could cut your expenses down to 96 or 94 percent.
That was the 1980s.
3) What you have is a massive expense generator, to justify higher premiums. Doctors must have malpractice insurance...who sells them those policies? Doctors need more tests run just to CYA. More $$.
Premimums always cover expenses. Otherwise the insurance companies would be cavitating and going out of business. The business end of insurance is a massive cash sucking machine that redistributes payments and clips a percentage.
4) Employers are incented to discard older employees. Insurance premimums for group coverage contain provisos that set costs according to average age of employees. Younger = cheaper.
It may be illegal and unconstitutional to fire or deny someone employment due to age, but if there's a financial incentive to do so, the employer will take a chance if the probability of his getting caught is low.
5) State Insurance commissions are under attack. State laws are one of the only remaining barriers left. Any discussion about open-border state policies opens the door to neutering the power of the states in regulating insurance.
I personally love capitalism.
we can make mega profits off the sick and needy.
we can make mega profits off our wars for profits.
we can make mega bonuses on wall street even when we fail.
we can break all the unions and eliminate workers rights.
we can have open borders for cheap labor a boon to small businesses.
we can make mega profits off our industrial military complex.
we can make mega profits by invading third world countries that have mega oil reserves.
we can buy congress, white house, and now the supreme court.
better yet now we can control the reelection process with mega corp money. this will be a boon to create a third world society in america and finally be able to hire people for third world wages.
as a member of the chamber of commerce I expect my income to double in a few years once we get the repubs back in office.
we can control the religious folks and they love to support or efforts for our wars for profits.
we can be an imperialist nation and convince americans it is for their freedom.
god bless america and capitalism truly we are god's chosen nation.
These are not health care costs. These are health insurance costs.
This bill is about getting everyone insured. It isn't about getting everyone decent health care.
Health insurance is not the same thing as health care.
The idea of relying on private insurance companies for our health care needs is so deeply embedded in the American psyche that apparently even the folks at C & L and supposedly liberal blogs can't expel it from theirs. This is odd: Many of these people have worked hard for years talking about how health insurance doesn't save you from high out-of-pocket expenses, should you become sick or injured. The rate of bankruptcies for people with insurance is startling - but not startling enough to keep these same reporters and bloggers who report on it from repeatedly equating health insurance with health care.
Great article,
It is very important for everyone to have health insurance.If you don't have insurance and you have to go to hospital, you'll have to pay over $20,000.That happened to a friend of mine.I know a site that offer the cheapest possible price for health insurance, free quotes and a lot of benefits.
http://www.NationalHealthInsurance.info
Comments are closed on this entry