3 ms·

> but at what point to employers relvolt? Why would they? They often pass the cost increases to the employees and employer-tied healthcare it's a useful retent

> but at what point to employers relvolt? Why would they? They often pass the cost increases to the employees and employer-tied healthcare it's a useful retention tool as people are far less likely to quit if their treatments would suddenly become very expensive.

alephnerd 2y ago
> They often pass the cost increases to the employees Up to a limit. In well compensated white collar industries like Software, Life Sciences, and even Hardware, a good health plan can be a major differentiator or ensure strong employee retention, because a $20-30k raise is basically $12-18k after tax (not bad, but not worth the amount of headaches) I know some larger companies in the Bay Area that don't pay as competitive as Netflix but provide BCBS at a very low cost.
no_wizard 2y ago
This assumes every business shares this vision. I'm sure big fortune 500 companies that can absorb these costs over competitors might see some value here[0][1] but I don't think the vast majority of businesses see it this way, most would seemingly benefit[2][3][4] by being able to attract talent more reasonably, and particularly helps small business and other smaller entities. Though I imagine there is an other components that drive support or resistance[5], I don't think its uniformly beneficial for business writ large to keep the current system [0]: Though it wasn't broadly employers that opposed both the public option for the ACA or Medicare 4 All, but insurance companies and adjacent services most specifically. [1]: Though, there is some notion (though no hard evidence) that bigger businesses can use it as retention and recruitment tool (https://www.marketplace.org/2021/06/10/why-dont-u-s-businesses-show-more-support-for-single-payer-health-care/ https://www.marketplace.org/2021/06/10/why-dont-u-s-business...) I don't think their ability to recruit top talent rests solely on healthcare options, however. [2]: https://www.epi.org/publication/medicare-for-all-would-help-the-labor-market/ https://www.epi.org/publication/medicare-for-all-would-help-... [3]: Though Automakers and other manufacturing companies likely benefit regardless of size: https://www.autonews.com/article/20050328/SUB/503280747/japan-s-health-care-gives-toyota-edge https://www.autonews.com/article/20050328/SUB/503280747/japa... [4]: https://www.blhct.org/about https://www.blhct.org/about [5]: Such as business owner(s) political ideology (in either direction), tax policy implications and the like.
- maximinus_thrax 2y ago
  This is a very well written comment, so thank you :) What I'm saying is obviously speculation, but it's based on the following: - large fortune 500 companies are the ones with actual political power. The vast majority of businesses are far less likely to be able to lobby for significant policy change. - that said, if this was an actual issue wrt to budgeting and such, I'm sure the bean counters would have already lobbied internally for external lobby for universal healthcare, if that makes sense. The silence from the big players on this subject tells me they're more than willing to pay for their employee healthcare, otherwise they'd already have eliminated this cost center. So, they do have an incentive to maintain the status quo. - their ability to recruit kinda stopped after ACA. Before that, major players had 100% free healthcare, which was an actual recruitment advantage. Nowadays, it's pretty uniform so it does not matter. HOWEVER, I personally have some anecdata about folks who stay in big tech because they have kids with special needs, care which would be super expensive if they wanted to move to some small startup or even a government job.
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    >that said, if this was an actual issue wrt to budgeting and such, I'm sure the bean counters would have already lobbied internally for external lobby for universal healthcare, if that makes sense. The silence from the big players on this subject tells me they're more than willing to pay for their employee healthcare, otherwise they'd already have eliminated this cost center. So, they do have an incentive to maintain the status quo. On this specifically, what I have read on the subject suggests that most businesses simply aren't evaluating this to begin with, even big ones, but the ones that have, such as the big 3 Automakers, are actually for universal health care (since it significantly reduces their costs for employee benefits, especially for retired workers) and other big businesses with manufacturing interests. Many large employers like state governments would really benefit from federally implemented universal healthcare as well and they do lobby for this. I simply think that the insurance and adjacent industries have such targeted lobbying on this that other lobbying is more easily ignored, since GM for instance, isn't spending millions to specifically lobby for universal healthcare, while insurance companies and adjacent industries that benefit from the status quo directly lobby consistently spending millions against it, quite specifically

alephnerd 2y ago

> They often pass the cost increases to the employees Up to a limit. In well compensated white collar industries like Software, Life Sciences, and even Hardware, a good health plan can be a major differentiator or ensure strong employee retention, because a $20-30k raise is basically $12-18k after tax (not bad, but not worth the amount of headaches) I know some larger companies in the Bay Area that don't pay as competitive as Netflix but provide BCBS at a very low cost.

no_wizard 2y ago

This assumes every business shares this vision. I'm sure big fortune 500 companies that can absorb these costs over competitors might see some value here[0][1] but I don't think the vast majority of businesses see it this way, most would seemingly benefit[2][3][4] by being able to attract talent more reasonably, and particularly helps small business and other smaller entities. Though I imagine there is an other components that drive support or resistance[5], I don't think its uniformly beneficial for business writ large to keep the current system [0]: Though it wasn't broadly employers that opposed both the public option for the ACA or Medicare 4 All, but insurance companies and adjacent services most specifically. [1]: Though, there is some notion (though no hard evidence) that bigger businesses can use it as retention and recruitment tool (https://www.marketplace.org/2021/06/10/why-dont-u-s-businesses-show-more-support-for-single-payer-health-care/ https://www.marketplace.org/2021/06/10/why-dont-u-s-business...) I don't think their ability to recruit top talent rests solely on healthcare options, however. [2]: https://www.epi.org/publication/medicare-for-all-would-help-the-labor-market/ https://www.epi.org/publication/medicare-for-all-would-help-... [3]: Though Automakers and other manufacturing companies likely benefit regardless of size: https://www.autonews.com/article/20050328/SUB/503280747/japan-s-health-care-gives-toyota-edge https://www.autonews.com/article/20050328/SUB/503280747/japa... [4]: https://www.blhct.org/about https://www.blhct.org/about [5]: Such as business owner(s) political ideology (in either direction), tax policy implications and the like.

maximinus_thrax 2y ago
This is a very well written comment, so thank you :) What I'm saying is obviously speculation, but it's based on the following: - large fortune 500 companies are the ones with actual political power. The vast majority of businesses are far less likely to be able to lobby for significant policy change. - that said, if this was an actual issue wrt to budgeting and such, I'm sure the bean counters would have already lobbied internally for external lobby for universal healthcare, if that makes sense. The silence from the big players on this subject tells me they're more than willing to pay for their employee healthcare, otherwise they'd already have eliminated this cost center. So, they do have an incentive to maintain the status quo. - their ability to recruit kinda stopped after ACA. Before that, major players had 100% free healthcare, which was an actual recruitment advantage. Nowadays, it's pretty uniform so it does not matter. HOWEVER, I personally have some anecdata about folks who stay in big tech because they have kids with special needs, care which would be super expensive if they wanted to move to some small startup or even a government job.
- no_wizard 2y ago
  >that said, if this was an actual issue wrt to budgeting and such, I'm sure the bean counters would have already lobbied internally for external lobby for universal healthcare, if that makes sense. The silence from the big players on this subject tells me they're more than willing to pay for their employee healthcare, otherwise they'd already have eliminated this cost center. So, they do have an incentive to maintain the status quo. On this specifically, what I have read on the subject suggests that most businesses simply aren't evaluating this to begin with, even big ones, but the ones that have, such as the big 3 Automakers, are actually for universal health care (since it significantly reduces their costs for employee benefits, especially for retired workers) and other big businesses with manufacturing interests. Many large employers like state governments would really benefit from federally implemented universal healthcare as well and they do lobby for this. I simply think that the insurance and adjacent industries have such targeted lobbying on this that other lobbying is more easily ignored, since GM for instance, isn't spending millions to specifically lobby for universal healthcare, while insurance companies and adjacent industries that benefit from the status quo directly lobby consistently spending millions against it, quite specifically