- 4,096
Yagent
You are still clueless!
What do you possibly know about group benefits?
You are still clueless!
What do you possibly know about group benefits?
Taxing Employer Benefits. About Time ...
- Thread starter Yagents
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #22
All I know is that it's an entitlement that has made american companies uncompetitive and out of business. What is it that makes you think group health is a necessity for employers besides "attracting talent"? BTW, all the good talent will be vacating to start their own venture in 2014 with GI exchanges. The one positive unintended consequence. Unleash the entrepeneur with health conditions!! In fact, it starts July 2012, when they can take Cobra for 18 months until the exchange is open.
- 4,096
Yagent
You know nothing about employee benefits.
You call it a "entitlement program" The money belong to us not the federal gov.
Group benefits are an investment into the employees.
They are are also used for attraction and retention of employees.
I work in the trenches of group benefits both small and large group. You are talking about this from a political stand point with know knowledge of real market conditions. When real market conditions meet a idea like this we have major fall out.
Major fall out from this idea would be hospitals shutting down all over the country unless taxes are raised on a state level to keep those hospitals open.
I really don't know why I am evening posting. There is no point in debating someone that has no clue.
You know nothing about employee benefits.
You call it a "entitlement program" The money belong to us not the federal gov.
Group benefits are an investment into the employees.
They are are also used for attraction and retention of employees.
I work in the trenches of group benefits both small and large group. You are talking about this from a political stand point with know knowledge of real market conditions. When real market conditions meet a idea like this we have major fall out.
Major fall out from this idea would be hospitals shutting down all over the country unless taxes are raised on a state level to keep those hospitals open.
I really don't know why I am evening posting. There is no point in debating someone that has no clue.
- Thread starter
- #24
We agree! If the money belongs to the employee, let them choose to take the higher salary (cash stipends already occur).
You still didn't give another reason besides "retention/attracting" employees.
I may have no clue, but I know, that no is spelled "NO". And even is not spelled "evening"
Your doomsday "fall out" scenario assumes everyone goes uninsured, quite the contrary, everyone will still be insured...Privately. And anyone who owns their own business, qualifies as living in the "real world" in my book, vs. being a zombie coporate employee
- 4,096
First off we don't agree!
Second attraction and retention is very very important for a company to be successful.
The more you post the more clueless you sound.
Let me school you on investment.
Employee benefits are an investment into employees. You take a way that investment that is a huge void to replace. You assume the company will raise pay because they are no longer investing into the employee......again you are clueless.
You think I am exaggerating about hospitals shutting down if you remove 40 million people from an employer sponsored health plan.
I can tell you are a newbie not just to insurance sales but to business in general.
Second attraction and retention is very very important for a company to be successful.
The more you post the more clueless you sound.
Let me school you on investment.
Employee benefits are an investment into employees. You take a way that investment that is a huge void to replace. You assume the company will raise pay because they are no longer investing into the employee......again you are clueless.
You think I am exaggerating about hospitals shutting down if you remove 40 million people from an employer sponsored health plan.
I can tell you are a newbie not just to insurance sales but to business in general.
Lets see.... US companies are not competitive because of the high cost of healthcare.... but, if they drop the coverage and give the money to the employee instead, they suddenly will be competitive???? No logic here.
Yagents - You seem to be trying to rationalize what you think would be good for you, and then making it good for everyone. Most of your suggestions are simply moving money around, not much of a real benefit. For instance, HSA's work well for some people, but truthfully, for many, they don't.
You also need to learn a bit about supply and demand. One of your premises seems to be that if more people shop thier insurance, then the premiums would go down. Because supply stays the same, demand goes up, premiums go up. Having more of a demand for something does NOT make the price go down, unless supply increases. Decreasing demand does tend to make the price go down, at least for a while.
You think people would spend a pay increase on health insurance. Won't happen. People will rationalize this to death. Oh, as soon as I pay off my car, I'll get health insurance, but, ooops, I need a new car now, type of logic will apply.
Dan
Yagents - You seem to be trying to rationalize what you think would be good for you, and then making it good for everyone. Most of your suggestions are simply moving money around, not much of a real benefit. For instance, HSA's work well for some people, but truthfully, for many, they don't.
You also need to learn a bit about supply and demand. One of your premises seems to be that if more people shop thier insurance, then the premiums would go down. Because supply stays the same, demand goes up, premiums go up. Having more of a demand for something does NOT make the price go down, unless supply increases. Decreasing demand does tend to make the price go down, at least for a while.
You think people would spend a pay increase on health insurance. Won't happen. People will rationalize this to death. Oh, as soon as I pay off my car, I'll get health insurance, but, ooops, I need a new car now, type of logic will apply.
Dan
It's no longer an investment into the employees when the new law requires benefits to be offered or force the employer to pay a fine.
I think you are simply viewing things through the eyes of a person who would see their business vanish if the employer health system was de-linked, not from the standpoint of your average person. In theory, a competitive marketplace would require a raise in salary to offset the value loss of a group health plan.
Would all employees of every business see a raise? Of course not, but there are many business dropping health benefits already without giving a raise because they just can't afford it. Again, taking your average job, there would have to be additional compensation of some kind when taking away a $5-10k/year benefit from most people. Otherwise employees would try to move to companies either still offering the benefit or a higher pay.
Why should the employees who opt out of the health plan not get the same dollar benefit that those who opt in do? I sell individual health and have a lot of families that can't afford the group plan at $800+ per month, but at the same time, do not get the $5-10k subsidy the rest of the employees receive. If they were able to get even half of that subsidy, many could have their individual market plan paid for in full.
If I were the owner of a small business, I'd want to retain my employees, but not with an ever-increasing, volatile, unpredictable cost like health insurance.
This post will be 10 pages soon enough, I'd bet.
Last edited:
- 15,041
I know of one employer a few years ago that dropped his health insurance. It was the biggest hassle dealing with the employees and ever increasing costs. He gave everyone a quarter an hour raise, only one person complained. The rest were happier than a pig in slop. Do you honestly believe it only cost him a quarter an hour to offer health insurance?
Now he just buys a policy for himself and his daughters if the husband doesn't have a job that provides health insurance.
- 1,271
Yagent, I believe you are a SOCIALIST LIBERTARIAN. I'm trying to say that (I think) I understand what you're saying.
- Thread starter
- #30
Kafka: No, just trying to shake the foundation of the entitlement society.
DJS:
Group insurance is purely a mis-allocation of resources.
Insurance has an unlimited supply with a stroke of a pen, so your supply/demand theory has a hole. Access to providers is the supply/demand problem, and HSA consumers would create pricing competition to bring down the cost, bringing down the cost of the insurance, and supply will equal demand. 3rd party payor systems (employers and insurance companies) are the heart of the problem. Remove them, and you have a thriving market like lasik eye surgery with better quality, lower prices, and supply meets demand.
Yes, employers are not hiring because of healthcare and projections of it going higher with PPACA. Pay attention to the SBA comments once in a while
I have plenty of clients now who want insurance, and are not mandated to buy it now. If only 50% take the stipend and buys insurance, all us IM agents win
DJS:
Group insurance is purely a mis-allocation of resources.
Insurance has an unlimited supply with a stroke of a pen, so your supply/demand theory has a hole. Access to providers is the supply/demand problem, and HSA consumers would create pricing competition to bring down the cost, bringing down the cost of the insurance, and supply will equal demand. 3rd party payor systems (employers and insurance companies) are the heart of the problem. Remove them, and you have a thriving market like lasik eye surgery with better quality, lower prices, and supply meets demand.
Yes, employers are not hiring because of healthcare and projections of it going higher with PPACA. Pay attention to the SBA comments once in a while
I have plenty of clients now who want insurance, and are not mandated to buy it now. If only 50% take the stipend and buys insurance, all us IM agents win
Similar threads
