Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The taxes they would pay on the excise would get passed off to you in either reduced pay, reduced benefits or higher premiums, etc. Depending on the size of your company, that could be millions in taxes. You also have to look at how often you would really spend that $4000 out of pocket. Unless you have a big surgery or maybe a baby, chances of meeting your out of pocket max is small. I am not in education any longer.
No Obamacare= no excise tax. Any money that I didn't have to pay for the out of pocket would go to savings, but no matter where it went, it is an increased cost to me.
Basically, my medical plan was turned into catostrophic coverage with no premium reduction. I was told by someone that if I liked my plan, I could keep it, but I guess that was just part of the sales pitch.
We'll see how this turns out. I believe it will be bad. Less care for more money and fewer people than ever receiving coverage.
I think everyone has to do something about insurrance. MNSURE is nothing but a place to research the offerings of businesses offering insurance. Like eBay or the like. Employers still give insurance as a fringe, so those people won't need MNSURE. But business owners, independent contractors, or anyone not offered employer-underwritten insurance will need to find out what they can get at what cost on this insurance exchange. I still think an option of becoming a member of a large group or buying club makes the most sense. Volume buying still is the cheapest way to get anything. Who knows? Costco members might get to get Costco insurance? Who can predict the future?
I think everyone has to do something about insurrance. MNSURE is nothing but a place to research the offerings of businesses offering insurance. Like eBay or the like. Employers still give insurance as a fringe, so those people won't need MNSURE. But business owners, independent contractors, or anyone not offered employer-underwritten insurance will need to find out what they can get at what cost on this insurance exchange. I still think an option of becoming a member of a large group or buying club makes the most sense. Volume buying still is the cheapest way to get anything. Who knows? Costco members might get to get Costco insurance? Who can predict the future?
They want people to be responsible consumers. They don't want people to run to the doctor every time they sneeze, but they also want a reasonable stop-gap if they are really sick or get hurt or whatever.
That sentiment isn't altogether bad, but Obamacare (aka MNSure) wasn't the answer.
Spin it however we want, the result will be more expensive costs and rationed care due to effective monopoly. It should be no surprise that RealClearPolitics aggregation of polls shows larger and larger percentages of Americans opposing Obamacare, and shouldn't be a surprise when Congress repeatedly exempts their friends from Obamacare. If it were good for the gander, it should be good for the goose. Obama and Co. find ways around it to show Americans his hypocrisy - a hypocrisy seemingly supported by the MN DFL and Dayton.
However, it passed and stays in place due to Democrat's insistence you are not smart enough to care for yourself and make your own healthcare decisions so "for the common good" government will decide what purchases you will make. Republicans really aren't much better as the party's tendency towards cronyism (not to be confused with true capitalism) seems ready to look the other way as long as lobbyists for Big Health contribute to campaign coffers nicely. After the posturing, both parties like their goodies from supporting/looking the other way from Big Government, Big Business and/or Big Labor.
The answer in Minnesota (and, for that matter, the country) would be threefold:
1) Transfer the tax credit situation from employer run to employee run so you controlled the tax credit or similar and purchased your own insurance independently. You make your own decision independent of your employer based on what you find in the market. Increasing competition is always better.
2) Reduce/eliminate the over-regulation mandating insurance policies in Minnesota must include various unneeded levels of insurance, i.e. it is ridiculous all insurance policies must carry coverage for illnesses suffered by scant minorities of people. Let people decide to purchase, on their own, either a basic "catastrophic coverage policy" for low cost that only covers major illness or injury if they wish. In that case, you have the sniffles? If you want to go to the doctor you pay the bill. Suddenly, you'll shop around for the best value of medical care just like you suddenly care about the value of any other good you purchase. Clinics will have to reduce costs and provide good care instead of running to the trough and charging whatever they want knowing their customer actually cares what the price tag says.
Conversely, if you want a high level of coverage so someone else pays for your potential sniffles visit, pay a higher premium.
If auto insurance companies in MN were required to pay for synthetic oil changes and premium windshield wipers other than a $5 "co-pay" - you wouldn't care what Jiffy Lube actually charged and it would be no surprise to see exorbitant car insurance premiums (beyond what they are now...)
3) Allow individuals to purchase from any provider wanting to offer services instead of basically mandating a purchase through a Minnesota company (which, in practice, happens due to onerous regulation in Minnesota). If Minnesotans could freely purchase insurance anywhere in the country, providers would find ways to reduce cost. That is why a book you want to buy is relatively inexpensive...Amazon knows they have to compete with Target.com, Walmart.com, bn.com, halfpricebooks.com, etc., etc., etc.
Again, this plan that would reduce costs doesn't benefit Big Health, Big Government, or Big Labor - hence why lobbyist bought lawmakers on both sides aren't talking about it...
That sentiment isn't altogether bad, but Obamacare (aka MNSure) wasn't the answer.
Spin it however we want, the result will be more expensive costs and rationed care due to effective monopoly. It should be no surprise that RealClearPolitics aggregation of polls shows larger and larger percentages of Americans opposing Obamacare, and shouldn't be a surprise when Congress repeatedly exempts their friends from Obamacare. If it were good for the gander, it should be good for the goose. Obama and Co. find ways around it to show Americans his hypocrisy - a hypocrisy seemingly supported by the MN DFL and Dayton.
However, it passed and stays in place due to Democrat's insistence you are not smart enough to care for yourself and make your own healthcare decisions so "for the common good" government will decide what purchases you will make. Republicans really aren't much better as the party's tendency towards cronyism (not to be confused with true capitalism) seems ready to look the other way as long as lobbyists for Big Health contribute to campaign coffers nicely. After the posturing, both parties like their goodies from supporting/looking the other way from Big Government, Big Business and/or Big Labor.
The answer in Minnesota (and, for that matter, the country) would be threefold:
1) Transfer the tax credit situation from employer run to employee run so you controlled the tax credit or similar and purchased your own insurance independently. You make your own decision independent of your employer based on what you find in the market. Increasing competition is always better.
2) Reduce/eliminate the over-regulation mandating insurance policies in Minnesota must include various unneeded levels of insurance, i.e. it is ridiculous all insurance policies must carry coverage for illnesses suffered by scant minorities of people. Let people decide to purchase, on their own, either a basic "catastrophic coverage policy" for low cost that only covers major illness or injury if they wish. In that case, you have the sniffles? If you want to go to the doctor you pay the bill. Suddenly, you'll shop around for the best value of medical care just like you suddenly care about the value of any other good you purchase. Clinics will have to reduce costs and provide good care instead of running to the trough and charging whatever they want knowing their customer actually cares what the price tag says.
Conversely, if you want a high level of coverage so someone else pays for your potential sniffles visit, pay a higher premium.
If auto insurance companies in MN were required to pay for synthetic oil changes and premium windshield wipers other than a $5 "co-pay" - you wouldn't care what Jiffy Lube actually charged and it would be no surprise to see exorbitant car insurance premiums (beyond what they are now...)
3) Allow individuals to purchase from any provider wanting to offer services instead of basically mandating a purchase through a Minnesota company (which, in practice, happens due to onerous regulation in Minnesota). If Minnesotans could freely purchase insurance anywhere in the country, providers would find ways to reduce cost. That is why a book you want to buy is relatively inexpensive...Amazon knows they have to compete with Target.com, Walmart.com, bn.com, halfpricebooks.com, etc., etc., etc.
Again, this plan that would reduce costs doesn't benefit Big Health, Big Government, or Big Labor - hence why lobbyist bought lawmakers on both sides aren't talking about it...
These are all good suggestions. The idea that health insurance is no longer insurance, in that it pays for scheduled and routine events and no just unexpected costs, is very important to understanding why health care costs have soared.
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,334 posts, read 26,096,346 times
Reputation: 3996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenfield
These are all good suggestions. The idea that health insurance is no longer insurance, in that it pays for scheduled and routine events and no just unexpected costs, is very important to understanding why health care costs have soared.
Salaries in the medical field are also a partial explanation.
1) Transfer the tax credit situation from employer run to employee run so you controlled the tax credit or similar and purchased your own insurance independently. You make your own decision independent of your employer based on what you find in the market. Increasing competition is always better.
From my understanding, this partially happens as part of the ACA. The subsidy you qualify for through MNsure is the tax credit (at least according to the executive director of MNsure when she was on MPR the other day. So for those on the exchange, it's decoupling it from your employer.
It's not complete, so I'd like to see it changed. If we are going to have a private-run health insurance system, we probably need to move further away from employer coverage and to purchasing our own policies. Not having employers cover insurance could hypothetically raise wages (as they wouldn't need to purchase your insurance) and does help to slightly undistort the market as you're more aware of the price of your policy.
From my understanding, this partially happens as part of the ACA. The subsidy you qualify for through MNsure is the tax credit (at least according to the executive director of MNsure when she was on MPR the other day. So for those on the exchange, it's decoupling it from your employer.
It's not complete, so I'd like to see it changed. If we are going to have a private-run health insurance system, we probably need to move further away from employer coverage and to purchasing our own policies. Not having employers cover insurance could hypothetically raise wages (as they wouldn't need to purchase your insurance) and does help to slightly undistort the market as you're more aware of the price of your policy.
Wages are determined by the supply and demand for a given skill set. Employers do not have a set amount of money that they feel compelled to spend on compensation. They spend as as little as possible in order to draw the workforce they want. If the government takes over providing some of that compensation for them in the form of a tax credit, the employer is more than happy to spend their money on something else, or add it to earnings.
Wages are determined by the supply and demand for a given skill set. Employers do not have a set amount of money that they feel compelled to spend on compensation. They spend as as little as possible in order to draw the workforce they want. If the government takes over providing some of that compensation for them in the form of a tax credit, the employer is more than happy to spend their money on something else, or add it to earnings.
I do see what your getting at, Glenfield, in regards to an employer spending as little as possible to draw the workforce they want, at least for the majority of companies. That said, if in theory employers did not provide insurance and did not have that expense, they would have to keep in mind other employers could also pay more for more attractive employees - and then make the decision do we want to match wages for quality employees, or keep on earnings (or spend it on widgets for the breakroom, or whatever...). Some employers would keep the earnings, but also suffer the consequences of attracting less desirable employees, which could be more costly to earnings than paying more for better employees - the whole "getting what you paid for" theory, or because the supply of quality employees is limited, the demand dictates a higher price.
I do see what your getting at, Glenfield, in regards to an employer spending as little as possible to draw the workforce they want, at least for the majority of companies. That said, if in theory employers did not provide insurance and did not have that expense, they would have to keep in mind other employers could also pay more for more attractive employees - and then make the decision do we want to match wages for quality employees, or keep on earnings (or spend it on widgets for the breakroom, or whatever...). Some employers would keep the earnings, but also suffer the consequences of attracting less desirable employees, which could be more costly to earnings than paying more for better employees - the whole "getting what you paid for" theory, or because the supply of quality employees is limited, the demand dictates a higher price.
With 8% of the work force unemployed and more than twice that number underemployed, there is no shortage of workers. Perhaps in a few areas, mining engineers for example, but that is where you see increasing wages and benefits, but generally, not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
