Skip to main content

View Diary: Employer-covered health care rare for part-time employees (62 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We're going about this all wrong. (12+ / 0-)

    Health insurance should not be tied to employment.  Period.  I always take a deep breath when people talk about the number of children uninsured.  Well, they don't work, do they?  

    This diary highlights why the private sector can not be trusted for something as important as access to health care.  It's not their business.

    The private sector is in the business of making money.  It's their sole motivation.  As a business owner I completely understand why these businesses are trying to cut costs.  You don't get a cookie for doing the right thing in business.  You only do the right thing when it means more profit at the end of the day.  And let's face it when we buy a product or a service the way the company treats it's employees isn't even a factor for most us because unless we work there how will we really know?

    Sure some companies have politicized their unwillingness to go along with the spirit of the law and damaged their brand in the process.  But most of them are doing what businesses do - quietly cutting costs at the employees' expense.

    •  Hear, hear! Hushes. N/T (0+ / 0-)

      Mollie

      "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible." --Frank L. Gaines

      "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

      by musiccitymollie on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 10:07:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There are financial advantages to big companies. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shanesnana, musiccitymollie

      They get a tax deduction for providing the insurance which their employees do not have to claim as income.  They use their clout to negotiate low prices from providers that benefit their employees and lower the bill for the company.

      Providing health insurance is a bit of a golden handcuff for companies to attract and hold their best employees.  Talented employees who might otherwise leave to start a business, move to a small company, or even stay at home with their kids for a few years continue working for an employer that provides health insurance.

      “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

      by ahumbleopinion on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 10:34:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The benefit is to the employees (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep, Pluto

        It makes no sense from a tax policy perspective that health insurance costs paid by your employer isn't income. The key benefit is to the employees. There is some handcuff associated with employer provided health insurance, but that relates primarily to families with preexisting conditions or other older or uninsurable family members.  

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 10:39:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, tax policy perspective aside, LOL, I (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peregrine kate

          am definitely in the camp of continuing to allow the employer paid premium (portion) to be "shielded" from being taxed as employee income.

          And part of the reason is because that in many instances (certainly for many union folks), this tax expenditure is part of an employees negotiated pay package, and represents a sort of indirect compensation.

          If the Dems want to lose in 2014, and 2016, just let them take this tax exemption away from the masses.  Political suicide, I say!

          {This, on top of the "catastophe" that the ACA is beginning to look like for some folks--like moi, LOL!  I don't know, but I believe that they should really think twice about it.}

          I know that I'll be shouting it from every roof top, if they pull it off.  

          It's part of the Bowles-Simpson proposal, of course.  So, I bet that both the corporatist Dems and Repubs are angling for it!

          You know, taking away this tax expenditure would much more adversely impact the working and middle classes, than even the mortgage interest tax exemption.

          I guess time will tell.

          Mollie

          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible." --Frank L. Gaines

          "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

          by musiccitymollie on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:27:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The benefit is also to the employers because (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musiccitymollie, VClib, Pluto

          they can essentially pay their employees with discounted money - the health insurance is more of a benefit to the employee than it costs the employer which is not the same as regular salary.  The clout to squeeze providers makes it even more valuable to the employee with minimal cost to the employer.

          “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

          by ahumbleopinion on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:35:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site