5 ms·

It's not dumb, it's smart for employers who want to trap employees.

by sukilot 6y ago

tonyhb 6y ago
So... it's dumb for 999/1000 people.
defnotashton2 6y ago
This was by design. Didn't the dems do this in '96?
- judge2020 6y ago
  All I see from '96 is HIPPA. What are you referring to?
gnicholas 6y ago
How does it trap employees? If I’m considering switching jobs, wouldn’t my new employer offer the benefit also?
- judge2020 6y ago
  Not all providers and plans are the same, so some treatment for some health condition you have that is 75% paid for by insurance might go down to 25% or even 0% (not covered) with your new employer's health insurance plan. You also might just not have another job to go to immediately, like what happened at the beginning of Covid-19, in which you'd either need to pay for your previous insurance in full or cancel treatment.
  - culturestate 6y ago
    This happened recently to someone I know. They were offered a significant pay bump and a leadership position in a well-respected organization that lines up with their personal goals, but the new employer doesn’t offer insurance. They eventually decided to take the job, but having to even consider healthcare access in that calculus is ridiculous.
- indymike 6y ago
  Deductibles and max out of pockets have to be met again.
- chongli 6y ago
  Suppose your employer is less than ideal but you’re not particularly confident in your ability to get another job should you be laid off. A lot of people feel trapped in this situation every day. Not everyone has the skills and experience to be in demand. A lot of people feel their current job is the only thing standing between them and the food stamp line. These people should not have to worry about getting sick and losing everything after losing their job.
- robocat 6y ago
  If you have a health condition then you can be trapped, because a new insurer won’t cover existing conditions.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    This has not been true since Jan 1, 2014: https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-conditions/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-co...
    - zaroth 6y ago
      Before 2014 plans were required to cover pre-existing conditions as long as you had “prior credible coverage” and didn’t have a lapse in coverage for more than a short period of time. If you let coverage lapse, plans were allowed to impose a waiting period before coverage for the existing condition would start. Since 2014, the “fix” is that now it’s just required to always have insurance, or else you pay a penalty. Then for the last couple years the penalty was repealed but the coverage for pre-existing conditions is still guaranteed, which does open up a hazard that people will only buy insurance after they get sick... but really the risk of a sudden health issue is still high enough that most healthy people will still want coverage.
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  No. They offer what they offer. Even when plans seem similar, are you willing to pay out of pocket for a $4k/month medicine that you've been taking for years and only paying $250/month now for, all because the new insurance doesn't cover it? This is even more pronounced with lower-wage employees. I didn't switch jobs for years because of benefits: At best, I'd have to pay for COBRA for 60-90 days, which would basically take all of my money and then some. But mine was also fairly cheap and I had good coverage, something that similar jobs usually didn't match.
- fires10 6y ago
  I do not leave my current employer specifically because of health insurance. No other employer in the area provides comparable coverage. It would take about a $30,000.00 per year premium to get me to even consider leaving. Healthcare is my number one consideration on all employment decisions.
runamok 6y ago
Exactly. I don't understand why people don't understand this. It's a huge chilling effect on employee turnover. Until ACA pre-existing conditions was a huge aspect of that. Even now IIRC when I changed jobs once I recall any existing conditions would not be covered for 1 month. And it's the biggest cost increase over the past 2 decades and has soaked up almost all the profits that could have gone to employee salaries. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us... https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/#item-nhe-trends_total-national-health-expenditures-us-billions-1970-2018 https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spe...
- thayne 6y ago
  If a company has to trap employee with health insurance to keep them from leaving, that suggests they aren't treating their employees very well.

It's not dumb, it's smart for employers who want to trap employees.

tonyhb 6y ago

So... it's dumb for 999/1000 people.

defnotashton2 6y ago

This was by design. Didn't the dems do this in '96?

judge2020 6y ago
All I see from '96 is HIPPA. What are you referring to?

gnicholas 6y ago

How does it trap employees? If I’m considering switching jobs, wouldn’t my new employer offer the benefit also?

judge2020 6y ago
Not all providers and plans are the same, so some treatment for some health condition you have that is 75% paid for by insurance might go down to 25% or even 0% (not covered) with your new employer's health insurance plan. You also might just not have another job to go to immediately, like what happened at the beginning of Covid-19, in which you'd either need to pay for your previous insurance in full or cancel treatment.
- culturestate 6y ago
  This happened recently to someone I know. They were offered a significant pay bump and a leadership position in a well-respected organization that lines up with their personal goals, but the new employer doesn’t offer insurance. They eventually decided to take the job, but having to even consider healthcare access in that calculus is ridiculous.
indymike 6y ago
Deductibles and max out of pockets have to be met again.
chongli 6y ago
Suppose your employer is less than ideal but you’re not particularly confident in your ability to get another job should you be laid off. A lot of people feel trapped in this situation every day. Not everyone has the skills and experience to be in demand. A lot of people feel their current job is the only thing standing between them and the food stamp line. These people should not have to worry about getting sick and losing everything after losing their job.
robocat 6y ago
If you have a health condition then you can be trapped, because a new insurer won’t cover existing conditions.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  This has not been true since Jan 1, 2014: https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-conditions/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-co...
  - zaroth 6y ago
    Before 2014 plans were required to cover pre-existing conditions as long as you had “prior credible coverage” and didn’t have a lapse in coverage for more than a short period of time. If you let coverage lapse, plans were allowed to impose a waiting period before coverage for the existing condition would start. Since 2014, the “fix” is that now it’s just required to always have insurance, or else you pay a penalty. Then for the last couple years the penalty was repealed but the coverage for pre-existing conditions is still guaranteed, which does open up a hazard that people will only buy insurance after they get sick... but really the risk of a sudden health issue is still high enough that most healthy people will still want coverage.
Broken_Hippo 6y ago
No. They offer what they offer. Even when plans seem similar, are you willing to pay out of pocket for a $4k/month medicine that you've been taking for years and only paying $250/month now for, all because the new insurance doesn't cover it? This is even more pronounced with lower-wage employees. I didn't switch jobs for years because of benefits: At best, I'd have to pay for COBRA for 60-90 days, which would basically take all of my money and then some. But mine was also fairly cheap and I had good coverage, something that similar jobs usually didn't match.
fires10 6y ago
I do not leave my current employer specifically because of health insurance. No other employer in the area provides comparable coverage. It would take about a $30,000.00 per year premium to get me to even consider leaving. Healthcare is my number one consideration on all employment decisions.

runamok 6y ago

Exactly. I don't understand why people don't understand this. It's a huge chilling effect on employee turnover. Until ACA pre-existing conditions was a huge aspect of that. Even now IIRC when I changed jobs once I recall any existing conditions would not be covered for 1 month. And it's the biggest cost increase over the past 2 decades and has soaked up almost all the profits that could have gone to employee salaries. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us... https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/#item-nhe-trends_total-national-health-expenditures-us-billions-1970-2018 https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spe...

thayne 6y ago
If a company has to trap employee with health insurance to keep them from leaving, that suggests they aren't treating their employees very well.