Skip to main content

View Diary: You may want your Employer to Drop Subsidizing your Insurance (76 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Seems to me that Wu's example is suspect (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wu demonstrated the phenomenon with data from New York state's health insurance exchange and the hypothetical example of a family of four earning $50,000 per year. He assumed they were being offered, in the employer plan, insurance costing $13,646 annually for the entire family, and $4,788 annually for coverage for just the employee.
    So we have an apples - oranges issue right there.
    The employee has a family of four, but is only presently getting insurance for himself? That is somewhat unrealistic.
    In his scenario, the company paid 50 percent of the employee's premium for coverage, but nothing for the premiums for the rest of the family.
    As, frankly, is this proportionation of employer - employee contributions. It is typically the case that group health plans provide marginally more generous subsidies to single vs. family plans - but it rarely goes down to a flat subsidy by the employer, with no kicker to help defray the cost of the employee's total coverage.

    As for this suggestion:

    Our analysis suggests that employees and employers across the country should sit down and discuss the potential merits of discontinuing employer-sponsored plans
    that is completely hysterical.

    A well designed plan for a typical heterogenous population, within an existing larger employer actually offering subsidized health coverage using a cafeteria plan, would not be designed as Wu suggests. Moreover, it would be financially injurious to all, except the outlying example insured, to engage in the type of behavior Wu suggests - and that Mangan trumpets by headline as evidence of a failure in the law. I'd love to hear McCarter's FP views on this CNBC article, it sounds very much like a developing Obamacare myth.

    •  What would be the advantage to the employer (0+ / 0-)

      or employee to have health insurance for an employee and her  family give up the opportunity for government subsidies for family members?  This is especially the case when the employer subsidy is otherwise greater than the $2,000/employee penalty from ACA.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 03:42:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You mis-read the CNBC article (0+ / 0-)

      In all cases, the employee and family have health insurance, not only for the employee as you wrote in your first PP.

       The article compares the different ways this can be done.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 03:55:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am certain it does not cover this (0+ / 0-)
        the different ways this can be done
        I am certain it is cherry picking a specific example - and having looked at the "study" on which this was based so did ValuePenguin, in all 3 examples they employed.

        I will grant that I did not scan the first paragraph I quote as intended - but I did not misread the entire article.

        •  The Article's example was to explain (0+ / 0-)

          some perverse effects when employer subsidies to an employee for health insurance results in the family becoming ineligible for government subsidies at great economic cost to the family.

          It could have been explained with equations, but that generally does not work well for most people.

          ACA provides significant government subsidies to families with household incomes below $94,000/yr (a large share of families), losing that entire benefit from ACA because of an employer subsidy (smaller than what ACA provides plus an adjustment for what ACA insurance Vs employer insurance costs) has an outcome most all advocates of ACA would not be happy with.

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 04:46:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site