According to a small story on
Has your company stopped offering healthcare
Answers
Wayne, this so weird because I've heard nothing but good things about healthcare costs and benefits lately. Everyone is paying less, seeing the doctor of their choice, and getting great coverage. Meanwhile, the economy is racking up huge gains by finally solving this vexing problem that has really burdened employees and employers alike.
Oh, sorry, I think I watched one too many political conventions.
1
I'm pretty sure I saw Elvis attending both conventions... I'm just surprised he wasn't on the entertainment bill...
One of the objectives of the ACA is exactly for this reason. So that employees can have a market of last resort (so to speak).
I think the more important analysis/question is the motivation (aside from $) or reasons why employers are letting this happen and are they even "reimbursing" (partial or full) the cost?
Emerson, I know lots of people who supported the ACA's objectives and who had good intentions. The real question is where is this road leading to that is paved with those good intentions?
On motivation of employers, you're looking at the weakest recovery since WWII*. That has kept the demand for labor low, stagnated wages, kept a lid on most companies top line, accelerated cost-cutting and driven down what employers have to offer to attract and retain qualified help. It's not surprising that some companies would cut back on benefits, including health insurance.
This is what happens when you have a perpetually weak economic environment... people suffer.
* http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/29/seven-years-later-recovery-remains-the-weakest-of-the-post-world-war-ii-era/
1
David,
US numbers may indeed be slow(er?) but with the economy going more and more global/interconnected, it should be taken in context.
From the same author.... http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/16/the-u-s-economy-is-in-great-shape-compared-to-its-peers/
I am in the camp that thinks that the slow(er) economy (global) and supply side economics (THINKING) are more of a factor. I am also in the camp that thinks INNOVATIVE BUSINESS MODELS is the key....and that is NOT the fault of employees.
We have taken the opposite approach and are now offering health to all full time employees, as well as doing away with most PT positions adding FT positions.
This is a reversal of what we did under RomneyCare.
[/pat.on.back]
Emerson, the economy "going more global" does not justify or make better a bad recovery.
In regard to the WSJ blog post about the U.S. being in great shape compared to it's peers, I think it's an example of "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." If the world were in a depression and we were in a deep recession, no one would be celebrating.
Finally, I don't think there is a camp that is blaming employees for you to not be part of. Quite the opposite. Employees are paying for the affect of forces beyond their control.
"....the economy "going more global" does not justify or make better a bad recovery." .... I disagree.
I do NOT use it as a justification however it puts context to the numbers and reflects the interdependence of country economies.
We agree that employees are paying for the effects of forces beyond their control. I should point out that company strategy (in adapting or surviving in a weak economy) are in the purview of executives like us and we should think of other solutions (including possible changes to business models as I said earlier) before enacting changes to employee/worker income/benefits.
As a small company, we have had to take on some of the insurance risk. To keep premiums manageable, we switched to a plan that would cost the employees more if they had a hospital stay. We figure that we could pay the hospital costs for the employees if x amount of employees had to use this portion of the plan and still come out ok in the end for our budget.
Filed Under:
Human Capital