6 ms·
Health Insurance Costs for Businesses to Rise by Most in 15 Years
- lapetitejort 1y agoImagine if businesses did not have to worry about their employee's healthcare. Instead they could focus on the business at hand. Maybe this is just a crazy idea.
- duxup 1y agoWhat I don't see are businesses advocating for someone to take this work off their hands. I gotta wonder how much hassle this is if it doesn't cause them to advocate for alternatives. Rather lobbying efforts and such seem to focus on other things.
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y agoBusinesses should get out of health insurance and also things like 401k. Give the same tax benefits to everybody. I am totally convinced that cost would go down if employees could choose health plans for their own needs instead of the employer choosing what's best for the employer.
- duxup 1y agoI would like them to, but they also don't seem to want out. How much hassle this is to them seems up in the air to me.
- JoshGG 1y agoCrazy! Imagine if human beings did not have to worry about losing access to healthcare for themselves and their children because their company went bankrupt or they got laid off. So Crazy!
- franktankbank 1y agoThe craziest thing to me is paying less even accounting for insurance for simple seasonal illnesses. Do I have strep? Go to hospital and pay $400 to find out yes/no and then get prescription covered by insurance at opaquely priced pharmacy of your choice. Go to private practice pay $25 and get yes/no and then you can freelance prescription.
- crawfordcomeaux 1y agoNot crazy. Caring about the business without caring about the people who literally are and empower the business is simply dehumanization. It's been done to death. Literally. Edit: People seem to think I'm proposing businesses keep operating how they are. I'm suggesting businesses that truly care need people running them who know how to care, not the normalized psychopathy that's become corporate culture. I'm not suggesting current or past harmful relationships with businesses continue or that even those businesses should continue.
- ambicapter 1y agoShould business also care about their employee's diets and fitness regimes? There are things that are outside of the purview of a business and the healthcare of their employees, outside of the direct impact of the business's work environment on the employee's health, should not be part of it. Another way to say it, there is more to health than how an employer affects a person's life, and those things are none of the business' business.
- crawfordcomeaux 1y agoYes, businesses would be better off if they cared about wellbeing to such a degree. That doesn't mean control employees, though. It means to actually care about the quality of food the employees have access to and the quality of culture surrounding them. It means caring about the environments people live in. It means recognizing people LEARN to make harming choices through harm (individual, familial, social, collective, cultural, systemic...etc) so recognizing repair is needed & pursuing that. This is what lobbying would be about without dehumanization. Don't get lost in the fascist fantasies of what it means to care.
- throwway120385 1y agoI don't want my employer to be involved in any of that though. Otherwise we'll be having a lot more conversations with people who are completely unqualified to make any determinations about things like my mental health.
- mcs5280 1y agoThis is how they keep the cogs trapped in the machine
- jerlam 1y agoTying health insurance (via tax benefits) to employment was a explicit decision by the US government to make people work, but it also makes people stay in worse jobs longer out of fear.
- crawfordcomeaux 1y agoDon't pretend what the US does amounts to genuine care. The philosophy behind a business caring for employees and implementations of slavery are two fundamentally different topics, only confused when buying into US propaganda.
- mrguyorama 1y agoSure. 80 years ago, in the context of the war economy of WW2 How is that relevant? Democrats have been pushing for Medicare for all or some other fully socialized system since the Kennedys, while republicans have shown zero ability to do anything but ban you from buying cheaper drugs Pretending this is "gubermint bad" is just ignorant. It also just, wasn't the government's explicit doing. The government froze wages during a literally existential war. Look at Russia right now for why that's generally a good idea. Companies responded by offering non-wage payments of various sorts. The US built a significant fraction of ALL war material for the allies in WW2. They did this through significant amounts of command economy. Building a Liberty transport ship every other day was done by centralized planning, NOT the free market. See the US's current difficulties buying 155mm howitzer rounds for examples of how the "free market" is worthless at dealing with real wartime production concerns. We didn't build 50k tanks by waiting for the free market to collect a payday. We didn't build more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined by relying on the free market. So why haven't republicans fixed this in the near 70 years of political dominance they've had in the US? Democrats have consistently pushed for solving this shitty situation for decades, but have never gotten the votes needed to even get into government.
- barbazoo 1y agoSomeone has to pay for healthcare. If not the employer directly, then they’ll pay for it through higher wages. Are you suggesting employees stop paying for healthcare altogether?
- kingnothing 1y agoThe US pays more per capita for healthcare than any developed nation. We should redirect those funds to more taxes to pay for Medicare for all. Costs will go down and your healthcare will no longer be tied to your employment. As a bonus, everyone gets healthcare.
- barbazoo 1y agoSure but that’s not gonna happen. Workers mostly ever only get things taken away these days. It wouldn’t mean that money is available somewhere else all of a sudden to pay for healthcare.
- kingnothing 1y agoIf Congress could decide to agree on something, they announce taxes are being raised by X% to provide Medicare for all next year. Next year, employers stop providing healthcare via insurance companies and everyone signs up for medicare. Done.
- coredog64 1y agoOne of the huge fights about ACA from the left was so-called "Cadillac Plans": Unions negotiated excellent medical insurance coverage in lieu of wages for their members. If you suddenly axed employer-provided coverage, nearly every union in the US would want to renegotiate contracts to account for that.
- andrei_says_ 1y agoBut what about billions in profit for healthcare insurance companies and their business model to collect money and deny benefits?
- polygotdomain 1y agoI completely agree. While it's counter intuitive, many businesses want to maintain control of employee's healthcare. Some companies look at it as a way to compete by offering better benefits than their competitors. A lot of companies like controlling healthcare because it keeps employees tied to their employer. If you temporarily lose your insurance when you switch a job, all of the sudden switching doesn't look as good. When you get to really larger companies, then they have the ability to self-insure, which means they can control the costs a hell of a lot more. Of course, since many companies prefer less regulation, the last thing they'd want to do is hand over the keys to what they do for the healthcare for their employees over to the government. With things how they are now, they can always cut or pair back their plans if they want to cut costs. That lever would be gone with single payer. Like many things, the system is set up to benefit those in charge rather than those who it's meant to serve. You can look just about anywhere outside the US and see that universal healthcare is a much better system, but better for who? Not much of a benefit for those who make the decisions, so we keep the flawed system we have.
- TuringNYC 1y ago>> Some companies look at it as a way to compete by offering better benefits than their competitors. Do they really? I've see only select hedge funds actually advertise their health plans. Even that is usually that "we pay 100% of premiums." Most plans are impossible to assess until you actually get to the job and see the tiers available and support available. The devil is in the details -- network coverage for your specific state, co-insurance, co-pays, deductibles, % premium paid, support like QoS/tier.
- polygotdomain 1y agoCompetition based on benefits really comes in at the low end and the top end of employment. If you're a tradesperson, just having insurance coverage is a big thing. It doesn't matter if it's not great, it's better than nothing. Leaving a job with insurance for one without insurance is likely going to cost you thousands of dollars out of pocket for the same coverage. At the top end, companies will have plans that cover so many things at very high percentages, meaning that your out of pocket for health insurance will be surprisingly small. Less competitive companies simply can't offer that. It's only in the middle where the details of a plan matter, and those are going to be the hardest details to find.
- bko 1y agoIf you think health insurance is expensive now, wait until it's free! In all seriousness, if a private business with all the incentive in the world can't figure out how to lower healthcare costs, I don't see how punting to the government would somehow be better. Everyone that proposes a single payer can't explain who makes less money. Will we save money by the doctors getting paid less? The drug companies? Where do these savings come from? Even if you're able to do everything the health insurance company does and capture 100% of their margin with equal efficiency, you'll capture a profit margin of around 2-6%. The only argument I hear is "other countries do it", which is just unpersuasive. It's not a serious argument. Propose something better
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago"The only argument I hear is "other countries do it", which is just unpersuasive. It's not a serious argument. Propose something better" What's unserious about this?
- kingnothing 1y agoSingle payer is cheaper. The US spends more per capita than any other developed nation and is not even capable of providing health care to all of its citizens. Move to single payer, kill the medical insurance industry, and save these costs: The health insurance industry employs approximately 605,000-912,000 people directly. The top 10 companies generate over $1.5 trillion in combined revenue annually. Conservative estimates suggest these companies spend $45-90 billion annually on employee salaries.
- bko 1y ago> The US spends more per capita than any other developed nation and is not even capable of providing health care to all of its citizens. US has medicare and medicaid. It actually spends more than most other countries. I guess they need to spend more to save money? Again throwing around stats about health insurance industry is not an argument. That money gets spent on something unless you think there is some grand cabal of health insurance companies to do make-work and hire people and set money on fire for no reason. Why doesn't some greedy capitalist start a health insurance company, set slightly less money on fire and provide great healthcare? https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-spends-public-money-healthcare-sweden-canada/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-spends-public-money-hea...
- turtlebits 1y agoThey don't have to, it's a perk I'm sure that many (me included) rather have their employer pay/take care of, than to do it out of pocket with higher salary.
- forgotoldacc 1y agoAmerican mindset. In some countries it's just provided to everyone equally. And no, we don't have the wait times Americans are afraid of. I can visit a doctor the same day and get treatment. My friends back in the US are desperately trying to find appointments with everything filled months down the line. America has the worst of all systems combined.
- turtlebits 1y agoSolve that problem first and maybe I'll change my mind. Otherwise I'm being honest in my situation. IME employer provided insurance is way better than what I can find on my own.
- const_cast 1y agoThat's because health insurance in the US sucks major ass. It's just bad, period. More expensive for comparatively much worse care and worse outcomes on Average. Americans (I'm an American) sometimes have a preconceived notion that, if something is really expensive, it must be good. No... no that's not necessarily the case. The insurance companies would love for you to believe that, but in actuality, we're just getting fucked. It's just a worse system overall, in pretty much every metric you could possibly choose.
- mothballed 1y agoEveryone needs healthcare, and offering the benefit is mostly untaxed, so it's just a way of offering a higher compensation than the competition that doesn't. End result is most every professional full time job offers it, because taxed can't compete with untaxed.
- franktankbank 1y agoYou've explained the current situation without acknowledging any of its downsides, good job.
- latchkey 1y agoI don't worry about it. I just pay it 100% for my employees.
- nradov 1y agoIf something is unsustainable then eventually it will stop. US healthcare costs have been increasing at faster than the rate of inflation to the extent that it now consumes about 18% of GDP. The majority of people are on employer sponsored group health plans and employers have absorbed most of the cost increases but they're reaching a breaking point. I predict that more employers will simply drop medical benefits and choose to pay the penalty instead, forcing employees to purchase their own health plans on state ACA exchanges. https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/employer-responsibility-under-the-affordable-care-act/ https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/employer-responsibil...
- glimshe 1y agoI'd prefer that if it was replaced by a system where the business pays/subsidizes YOUR ACA plan. Changing health plans when you change jobs is a huge headache.
- franktankbank 1y agoI'd prefer it be unrelated and they can just pay me a fucking salary without deducting several tens-of-thousands "for my benefit".
- garciasn 1y agoDon't opt in to the health insurance from your employer then.
- franktankbank 1y agoI'm obligated to purchase a 30K lottery ticket and lose year over year on the chance I get cancer.
- BobaFloutist 1y agoYou just described insurance as a whole. If you truly just want catastrophic coverage, get a dirt cheap catastrophic coverage plan from the marketplace and pay for meds and basic care out of pocket, you'll probably save money.
- doctorpangloss 1y agoOkay, and how much did insurers pay back in rebates to companies large enough to have their own pools? Assuredly that has also grown. People in this thread ask why don’t businesses lobby for public health. Wrong: why doesn’t Apple lobby for public health? Follow the money. It’s so naive to think it’s solely about providers. Who anyways, when there is fraud, they are defrauding CMS, not UNH.
- nradov 1y agoHuh? What rebates do you mean? Most large employers like Apple are already self funded and the health plans merely act as third-party administrators, assembling networks and processing transactions. The ACA does include a minimum medical loss ratio so health plans that come in under the limit are forced to issue premium refunds to customers. There is plenty of waste, fraud, and abuse committed by providers against all payers including Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial health plans. Most providers are honest and follow the rules in good faith but there are a few bad apples who attempt to exploit all payers.
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago"The ACA does include a minimum medical loss ratio so health plans that come in under the limit are forced to issue premium refunds to customers." The loss ratio seems to be a good incentive for insurance to pay more to hospitals in order toincrease their own cut of the premiums they are taking in.
- nradov 1y agoSure, that's part of it and the minimum medical loss ratio does create some perverse incentives. But in most markets there are intense competitive pressures between health plans which motivates them to negotiate lower rates with network providers. Your employer would be happy to switch from Aetna to Humana (or whatever) next year if it cuts their employee healthcare costs by 3%.
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
- Der_Einzige 1y agoWant this to stop? Make GLP-1 available on every street corner and get the majority of Americans who are overweight or obese to start taking it en mass. One of the few things I'm happy about republicans being in power for is the current grey market situation with GLP-1s. I have a feeling that a democratic FDA would try to come down hard on the current situation. Rich people and girls who are pissed at their body know how easy it is to get these drugs with no oversight. Thank god for it and may it never get harder to access these substances.
- barbazoo 1y agoWhat a sad state of affairs. That’s what giving up looks like in my opinion. Which is fine but that’s what it is.
- Der_Einzige 1y ago[flagged]
- franktankbank 1y agoTake childhood obesity as a single case-study. Add ozempic and all you've done is covered up childhood abuse.
- philipallstar 1y agoYou've got to be mad thinking that hooking people on medication for life is better than people learning self-control and discipline. This isn't the only area in which those things matter for health outcomes, and for life outcomes. It does give big pharma a lifelong revenue stream though, so I suppose it's good for them.
- axus 1y agoI put it in the same category of playing a video-game every day. It can be cool and fun for the people doing it, but a dystopia if you were forced to do it for your health; it's not for everyone.
- 1y ago
- rimbo789 1y agoNationalize health care. All health care should be owned by the state and operated not for profit. The profit motive and health care outcomes are fundamentally at odds.
- franktankbank 1y agoNationalize health insurance maybe as a start.
- estimator7292 1y agoNo, also nationalize for-profit hospitals which prioritize ten cents in profit over a person's actual life.
- franktankbank 1y agoI think you are wrong. Insurance as run today requires so much extra provider staff that it negates its own benefits.
- duxup 1y agoI don't think Hospitals are the folks running away with all the monies here.
- BobaFloutist 1y agohttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/steward-health-care-hospital-bankruptcy-filing-greed-misconduct/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/steward-health-care-hospital-ba...
- UtopiaPunk 1y agoMedicare For All, as put forward by Bernie Sanders, would do this. It basically just expands the existing Medicare structure to cover everyone.
- fair_enough 1y agoThe whole idea of making employer-sponsored health insurance tax-free but not out of pocket medical expenses is a problem in need of fixing. As things currently stand, you can only write off medical expenses that exceed 7.5% if your adjusted gross income, and only if you use itemized deductions rather than the standard deduction. This public-private healthcare system as it currently exists in America combines glacially-slow subpar public services with the rent-seeking behavior of private insurance. More than any other group, it screws small business owners, i.e. the people the politicians usually claim to run for office on behalf of.
- Pwntastic 1y agohttps://archive.is/WvHZo https://archive.is/WvHZo
- UtopiaPunk 1y agoThe USA really needs to implement Medicare For All or a similar plan. The amount of bureacracy that would be simplified or just go away is staggering. The savings would be huge. Getting healthcare would be easier not just for patients but for doctors as well! Doctors' primary concern is providing the best treatment for their patients, but they usually have no idea how much such treatment would cost. Patients often don't know if they'll be totally covered or if they'll be financially ruined until they make a separate phone call to some customer support rep (who also probably doesn't really know). It's nuts. Under a Medicare For All system, coverage would be standardized for everyone, and doctors would have much better understandings of whether an MRI or X drug would be covered or not. Likewise, employers won't have to carry this burden. Companies that hire employees across multiple states have to navigate a patchwork of state/region based health insurance policies. Whenever there is a wrinkle in health insurance paperwork, an HR person has to to hunt down the issue and coordinate between an employee and the health insurance. My gosh. I switched employers within a month of having a major medical event, and it was just the worst. The hospital was claiming I didn't have insurance, but I did (through COBRA, which is a whole other shit show that should and would go away), so I had to have multiple phone calls with the HR dept of the employer that I had just left. It's pretty awkward! How often do we get to say that the government option reduces bureacracy. That's not to mention the increasing potential for innovation! I know personally I left a fulfilling but somewhat unstable freelance lifestyle to get a job that offers health insurance after I had kids. I would like to pursue something else independently, and I can tolerate the financial risks, but I simply cannot tolerate the high costs of health insurance for myself and the rest of my family (or worse, the risks that come with having no insurance at all). If my family had health insurance, I'd leave my day job and chase other more exciting, fulfilling prospects. If that was a successful venture, maybe I could afford to hire a few employees because I wouldn't have to cover their health insurance. Medicare For All should be a slam dunk. The only thing standing in the way is the health insurance industry, which is rolling in money. Get rid of them.
- swed420 1y agoIt was surreal to see the lengths that bought corpo Dems and their media went to sink the Bernie Sanders campaigns twice, making it extremely clear they preferred Trump over Bernie. The whole system is broken. It's overdue to launch our own publicly owned instance of what they built in Taiwan to sidestep political gridlock: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/17/audrey-tang-toxic-social-media-fake-news-taiwan-trans-government-internet https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/17/audrey... https://www.plurality.net/ https://www.plurality.net/
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y agoWorks when/where archive.is is unavailable: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/insurance/health-insurance-costs-for-businesses-to-rise-by-most-in-15-years/ar-AA1Mg1Fv/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/insurance/health-insurance-c... Text-only, no Javascript: https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1Mg1Fv/ https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1Mg1Fv...
- josefritzishere 1y agoThe Medicare-for-all solution increasingly seems to be the most economical.
- amirmi78 1y agoI wonder why people focus so much on insurance companies, given their relatively small profit margins. The more glaring issue seems to be provider costs, which are several times higher than comparable services in other countries, with little variance. Are we suffering from a shortage of medical schools? Or from a lack of competition among medical device manufacturers?