4 ms·

Yep, and what people don't always realize is that because employer health plans get more expensive every year for employers, it negatively impacts wage growth.

• throwaway_law 7y ago
  But the individual policies on the exchange have increased year over year as well, and a lot of those insurers on the exchange went out of business/disappeared after 2-3 years anyway. (from 2017-2018 for example insurance on the exchange increased 32% for silver plans and 20% for Gold plans)
  • tempsy 7y ago
    I don't understand what that has to do my comment. I never mentioned anything about the exchanges. Health insurance policies generally get more expensive year over year for everyone, whether an employer is paying for it or you as an individual.
    • throwaway_law 7y ago
      You seem to be highlighting employer provided insurance costs increase (which they do), but historically they increase at a lower rate than individual plans (i.e. the alternative).
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  • lotsofpulp 7y ago
    What does that have to do with what tempsy wrote?
    • throwaway_law 7y ago
      The articles is about employer health plans getting more expensive, the comment was about employer health plans getting more expensive...whats the alternative to an employer provided health plan? An individual private plan, I thought it seemed relevant those are increasing in cost too (at a much higher rate).
      • triceratops 7y ago
        > whats the alternative to an employer provided health plan? There are a number of alternatives: 1. Government health plan at the state level (i.e. the Canada model) 2. Compulsory private insurance (i.e. the Switzerland model). But employers don't provide it and insurers have to insure everyone who pays. Single, larger, and more diverse risk pool instead of 3 separate pools - one with working age people and children, one with old people, one with everyone else 3. Government-owned and -operated hospitals and clinics, free at the point of use (i.e. the UK model) 4. Government health plan at the federal level (i.e. the France model) All four have been found to cost less per patient for similar or better outcomes.
        • throwaway_law 7y ago
          Yes, it would be great if US employees had those options, but they don't hence they aren't alternatives. The main alternative in the US to an employer based group insurance policy is an individual plan. One day the US may catch up to the rest of the world, but unfortunately, the US seems content with millions of uninsured, healthcare related bankruptcies, and milking those who can afford coverage more every year in exchange for less.
        • rayiner 7y ago
          Doesn’t the fact that vastly different systems perform better than the US possibly suggest that our problem is something other than the payor model? What is the theoretical reason why US costs would be higher than Switzerland? Premiums for private insurance should be much lower in the US, given that Medicare takes high cost people out of the private pool.
          • 7y ago
• basseq 7y ago
  This is really important. Pulled from the underlying study[1], employers cover 82%/70% (individual/family) of the cost of healthcare. Those numbers are down just slightly from 86%/73% in 2019. Or, put another way, employers have borne 69%/80% of the cost of healthcare increases. You complain because your individual plan has gone up by $986 in 20 years? Your employer's cost has gone up $4,005. Oh, and that's with cutting the underlying coverage ("skimpier"). It negatively impacts wage growth because that extra $4k is a bottom-line benefit (or cost of employment, if you want to think about it that way). Finally, note the disparity between individual and family plans. Employers are offering 2.5x more benefit—nearly $9,000 more—to workers with families. ----- [1] http://files.kff.org/attachment/Report-Employer-Health-Benefits-Annual-Survey-2019 http://files.kff.org/attachment/Report-Employer-Health-Benef... Fig. 1.10 shows premiums increasing from $2,196/$5,791 in 2019 to $7,188/$20,576. (Note also that 72% of that is attributed to premium increases vs. inflation and worker earnings, per Fig. 1.14.) Fig 6.1 shows % of premium paid by workers going from 14%/27% to 18%/30%.
  • AJ007 7y ago
    The benefit for employers is there are a lot of workers who are there now solely for their family health insurance coverage. I have a feeling this has prevented earlier action by employers, but now it’s past the tipping point.
  • kevindong 7y ago
    > Finally, note the disparity between individual and family plans. Employers are offering 2.5x more benefit—nearly $9,000 more—to workers with families. Interestingly, my employer discloses the full premium that they pay to the health insurer every year. As an employee without a partner/dependents (I just graduated college/started my career), my employer spends ~$17k/year less on my health/dental/vision benefits than employees with a partner/dependents. That effective pay difference makes me mildly salty.
    • basseq 7y ago
      It's an interesting topic, particularly as it relates to employers being women/family-friendly. How do you feel about parental leave, for instance? Of course, this is a benefit that's within your control: just get a partner/dependent! And the flip side is that even individual employees might value knowing that the company "has your back" as your family situation changes. Or, more bluntly, your company has to offer disparate benefits, because other employers do, and no employee with a family would work for your company otherwise. Of course, all this masks the REAL problem that employers and healthcare are so intertwined. Even this article puts some of the blame on employers, when really it's the healthcare companies and the overall rising cost of care.
• refurb 7y ago
  It’s likely the reason why real wages have been stagnant over the past few decades while total compensation has grown quite vigorously.