I am paying attention. So you agree that it would cost much more and you still think that an employer should be required to provide it. You are the one who is "douchey". Man up and have some personal responsibility and buy your own. Do you think employers should provide you with food also? I mean, after all, it is a basic human right to eat, right?
So now I am wrong when you say I am wrong? Nice try Supa. Employers only cede their negotiating power when they elect not to provide a health plan for their employees. You do realize that the employer doesn't have to pay for 100% of the coverage in order to avoid the fines, don't you? An employer must only pay 60% of a health care plan to avoid the fines altogether.
No friend. The way it should be is that an EE and an ER work out a compensation package that is mutually agreeable. When government forces costs on the ER both parties have a diminished ability to structure the compensation packages.
I'm not going to step into the argument about whether companies should provide benefits, rather I'll tell you what I do for my employees. We are quickly approaching 200 EEs. We just switched from BCBS to United because BCBS raised our renewal by >15% in anticipation of additional costs under Obamacare. We offer health insurance to all FT EEs, and we pay for 60% of the health insurance premium. Our family policy runs $1200 per month in our group for an 80/20 PPO, and we decreased this down from a 90/10 to hold the premium at a modest increase of 5%. Here's the problem coming up with the exchange. As we understand it, even if we offer insurance to our employees, they can still opt to go to the exchange for a less expensive policy. For every employee that does this, we can be fined $2000, despite the fact that we offer insurance. Much is still unknown about the exchange. We were given guidance that it is up to the employee to indicate whether their employer offers insurance when they hit the exchange. If they say no, we will be fined and have to defend ourselves to prove we did offer the insurance to have the fine dismissed. For every EE that opts out of my plan, my group shrinks and my insurance costs go up. I will now have an added expense to defend my company from fraudulent filings at the exchange because people are unethical. Every place I look, I have increased costs, whether its my premiums, fines, or the additional EE I hired to deal with these issues under this POS law that got passed. This is just one small business owners' case study, but I can assure you that there are many more just like me out there.
You say you're paying attention, and then in the very next breath ask me why I think something that I never even said. I honestly don't know how I can be any more clear about this. Whether or not the government mandates employers to provide it is not what I am discussing. How many times does this need to be repeated for your ladies? I'm starting to see just how far up your own ass your head is, friend. The cost of non-group plans (esp. for families) is out of control, and many people simply cannot afford them. That was kinda the whole point of the Affordable Healthcare Act. Did you see that first word? Affordable? Do you know what that means? I've already entertained your childish comparisons earlier in the thread. I would encourage you to review.
I've already said this earlier. As you know, group plans allow for substantially lower premiums to those covered. Someone on their own could never even come close to what they would pay under group coverage, thus making it affordable to many individuals who otherwise may not be able to provide it for themselves. That is why I think employers should provide this benefit to their employees. I've asked you close to 100 fuckin times by now to find where in this thread I'm making such a claim. I can see why you don't want to answer.
Premiums are about to increase drastically for small groups and individuals. Just like every expert said they would during the debates over healthcare reform. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...4761054496682.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
So instead of coersive regulations why not allow ease up on the regulatory environment and let individuals pool together in collectives? But fuck we can't have that. Freemarkets can't solve problems. Only government can. Except that government regulation is the exact reason indvidual policies are so fuckingly expensive. You clearly favor it whether you explicitly have stated it or not. Do you think it is a good idea for the governement to take sides in a negotiation between two parties? The correct answer is it isn't.
So Chaos, if it is groups that you are after, why does the employer need to be the group? Why not just make it so that individuals can join "pools" or groups on their own? Why make the employer do it? Just because it is convenient to force employers to do it is not a valid reason.
