Will The MSM Notice?
A Towers Perrin Survey came across the Business Wire on Reuters this morning stating that a majority of employers surveyed will reduce benefits resulting from the proposed Democrat Health Care Reform bill that is working its way through Congress if it increases costs.
Employers say they will not absorb any additional costs that result from reform and plan to take actions to avoid doing so, including reducing benefits, raising prices for customers and/or reducing head count.
The survey of 443 HR and benefit executives found that 87% of those surveyed would reduce benefits, 38% were likely to pass the increase off to consumers, 30% would absorb the costs by cutting staff and 27% would reduce salaries and compensation as a counter measure. Somehow we are supposed to believe the 11% of executives that claim their companies will absorb the loss.
What about the possibility of accepting the proposed penalty for eliminating health care coverage altogether and forcing employees onto the government plan?
Among the full survey group, employers expect they would respond to a pay-or-play mandate in the following ways:
- 37% of employers would provide company-sponsored health coverage that substantially exceeds the standard.
- 29% of employers would discontinue company-sponsored health coverage and pay the assessment if the per-employee costs of payments to the federal government were substantially lower than their current costs.
- 26% of employers would provide company-sponsored health coverage at the level of the minimum standard required.
Take note of that "minimum standard required". This could certainly result in a reduction of coverage for those fortunate enough not to have been kicked out of their plans altogether. You will be stretched to find this statement mentioned by the mainstream media unless accompanied by the phrase "according to racist right wing radicals".
There is no word as to how racisist Towers Perrin is for doing such a survey.
Update: I changed the intro paragraph to specifically reflect the accompanying graphic becuase it is plausible that a company could reduce benefits and absorb some costs at the same time.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Just more proof that
September 17, 2009 - 12:40 ET by motherbeltJust more proof that liberals continue to ignore the Law of Unintended Consequences.
I wouldn't even go that deep
September 17, 2009 - 12:54 ET by YahooWatcherI would just say that the left ignores reality.
Don't Tax Me, Bro.
QUINN & ROSE...
September 17, 2009 - 14:41 ET by danybhoyOn "The Warroom" with Quinn & Rose (a national morning show, also on XM158), Jim Quinn's 1st rule is...
"Liberalism always generates the opposite of it's stated intent"
...Obama's economic policies will destroy this nation, & he does'nt give a damn. It is easier to get people to reset everything if everything is destroyed. It's all part of the progressive agenda.
"...How blind can you be, don't you see...
...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."
Nightwish
mb, these "consequences" are not unintended
September 17, 2009 - 16:29 ET by R D HelmIf you want to execute a Marxist takeover of America, which is what they are doing, you have to get people to actually want socialism.
As the left sees it, the more Americans who are dependent on government, the better for them.
What is the quickest way to get there? Take away private sector jobs.
-Dave
I agree with Rush. It's time for Obama to resign.
Not unintended at
September 18, 2009 - 00:51 ET by RR GOPNot unintended at all...they want to force Americans into Socialized/Nationalized medicine.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
This is the dirty little secret...
September 17, 2009 - 12:58 ET by PrairieSkythat Obama and Co., haven't told and won't tell the American people about Obamacare...All we hear from them is, "don't worry...if you like your present employer-sponsored healthcare, you can keep it, yada, yada, yada..." Yeah, that's all well, fine and good, as long as the employers can still afford to offer a plan, and even if they do, they'll very likely have to cut benefits because of costs. That's what Obama and the Dem/libs won't tell us, and don't want us to know.
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan
Unemployed
September 17, 2009 - 13:11 ET by cvgbuckeyeI own a small business with 14 employees and I will need to close the doors if this passes. There are thousands of other employers with millions of employees who will be doing the same.
America, are you going to wake up in time or not?
Hold on. Why would you
September 17, 2009 - 16:01 ET by LeondeuxHold on.
Why would you need to close your doors?
Why would your costs increase exactly?
"Hold on?" Good grief, what the hell is wrong with you, Leon?
September 17, 2009 - 16:41 ET by SickofLibsWhen you go the store, do you open the loaf of bread and examine every slice before you pay the cashier, or do you just accept at face value that you're getting a loaf of bread?
The guy made a statement. He owns the business. Does he have to submit his P&L to you so you can ascertain his margin?
SickofLibs, that's fine,
September 18, 2009 - 15:49 ET by LeondeuxSickofLibs, that's fine, but he's wrong. Ask him what his insurance premiums have been doing for the past decade.
Leon,
September 17, 2009 - 16:26 ET by R D HelmMost everyone I know who started a small business did so in order to make money. They DID NOT do it in order to fund government.
At some point, it isn't worth the hassle to keep going. I know several small business owners who are already struggling just to keep their businesses afloat.
Should they get hit with this idiocy, along with the other tax increases we all know are coming, they are going to have to shed some employees, and several are probably going to say to hell with it and shut down.
-Dave
I agree with Rush. It's time for Obama to resign.
→ RD
September 17, 2009 - 16:33 ET by Cool ArrowLeon couldn't be as stupid as his posts suggest, could he?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool: multiply X100, then you have the order of magnitude close
September 17, 2009 - 16:44 ET by SickofLibsSomeone could casually mention what their belt size was, and this dope (and a number of others) would question it.
Stupid
September 18, 2009 - 08:28 ET by cvgbuckeyeYes
RD - Private Insurance
September 18, 2009 - 15:49 ET by LeondeuxRD - Private Insurance companies have been gouging small businesses for years.
How would introducing another option into the market place increase their costs?
As it stands now, they're being held hostage by companies that can raise rates whenever they want.
Leon.
September 18, 2009 - 16:18 ET by R D HelmAnd the federal government has been gouging them, too.
Now, they are getting ready to screw them with much higher taxes, too, whether ObamaCare passes or not.
I am not saying the health care system is perfect, but I think the problems that do exist can be isolated and fixed without having the federal government take the whole thing over, and eventually that is what they intend to do.
I just don't see a need to blow up the neighborhood just to fix a leaking water pipe.
-Dave
I agree with Rush. It's time for Obama to resign.
cvgbuckeye...If this passes...
September 17, 2009 - 16:42 ET by PrairieSkythe effects of this mess will be huge to small (and large) businesses in this country. The latest version that's been rolled out by Max Baucus is no better, and hopefully won't fly with folks, either.
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan
PS,
September 17, 2009 - 16:51 ET by R D HelmDon't forget the other tax increases that are heading towards small businesses across the country, too.
This country is going to be shedding private sector jobs for sometime to come.
-Dave
I agree with Rush. It's time for Obama to resign.
RD...Yep...There are a whole...
September 17, 2009 - 18:39 ET by PrairieSkyplethora of taxes, fees and fines that TeamObama have in store for all of us...We keep hearing the recession is over...the recovery is beginning...I have my doubts. If "O" and Co., get what they want, whatever "recovery" may be starting will have a real rocky road to navigate.
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan
I wonder what the "6% - Other" group is thinking
September 17, 2009 - 13:22 ET by YahooWatcherLeave the country? Shut down their business entirely?
Don't Tax Me, Bro.
I have to believe that this
September 17, 2009 - 13:20 ET by ConservativeRexI have to believe that this administration knows that company's that have unions in them use medical coverage as a bargaining tool. Most have 'Union Coverage' usually an HMO and 'Company Coverage' usually a PPO. I work in a right to work state. I prefer a PPO over an HMO. Now, the union workers won't have a choice. I don't blame the Company's, drop it. That's one less thing they have to worry about. This just screws the union worker, supposedly the 'backbone' of the Obama cabal. Good, serves 'em right!
The company I work for will join the 87%
September 17, 2009 - 14:32 ET by rvail136and will do so immediately after passage of the bill. That sucks as we have pretty good health insurance. So I guess the President has been "missleading" us when he says we'll get to keep our insurance...and our doctors...go figure...politicians, ya can't trust 'em and ya can't f...
Rich V.
www.thevailspot.blogspot.com
Let's see now,
September 17, 2009 - 15:23 ET by boomerconThey would levy a tax on "luxury" health insurance plans to fund the "normal" health insurance needs of that magical 30-48 million (it's a moving target).
Employers and others would begin to drop those "luxury" policies, thereby dropping the taxes collected which fund the "normal" policies from gov't.
Pretty soon, it all works out: everyone has a "normal" policy, and nobody has a "luxury" policy, so no more class envy.
Except for that pesky little matter of paying for all those new "normal" policies (which now number around 200 million). Since nobody has a luxury policy any more, no more taxes on them are coming in.
Dang! Up jumps those unintended consequences again and those libs never ever get it, that it's the inevitable tail on the coin they never admit has two sides.
Single stupidest survey
September 17, 2009 - 16:00 ET by LeondeuxSingle stupidest survey ever.
Whoa, you mean to tell me that employers will reduce benefits if costs rise??? Get out!
This is what they do already. This is what any business would do.
The key point that's being missed is that reform wouldn't raise healthcare costs.
Wonder how much they spent to commission this genius study of the obvious.
Really Leon?
September 17, 2009 - 16:40 ET by MightyMouth"The key point that's being missed is that reform wouldn't raise healthcare costs."
Please, how is that you came up with that brilliant assertion?
The real point is 'is' that there is no need for the government to do anything but get out of the way and let Insurance Companies compete without mandates!
Why do I need to pay for chop-a-dick-off-a-me coverage when I wanna keep mine (thank you very much!). Or why do I need to pay for coverage that includes having a baby when I had mine years ago! We have the courts and contract law to clean up the problems. Conservatives could have this thing written on two pages if they were even allowed in the debate!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
Leon II: "Healthcare costs will not go up"
September 17, 2009 - 16:51 ET by SickofLibsHey genius, there's hardly even any Dems left that will make that statement.
Please report for "re-minionizing" and updated training modules.
Hey, ah, Leon
September 17, 2009 - 17:05 ET by R D HelmCan you name anything the government has ever stuck its nose in that didn't result in increased costs to somebody?
-Dave
I agree with Rush. It's time for Obama to resign.
Where is flip side of this
September 17, 2009 - 16:01 ET by mandrakeWhere is flip side of this poll? The question is what if does NOT increase your costs?
The reason I bring this up is that for sometime the car manufactures in Detroit moved production to Ontario because the health costs per employee was cheaper.
What if costs don't go up?
September 17, 2009 - 16:56 ET by SickofLibsThen we'll all have more disposable income to spend on importing Canadian unicorns and their upkeep.
Everybody wins! Yay!
Thank you for ignoring the
September 17, 2009 - 17:50 ET by mandrakeThank you for ignoring the point of my post, that the poll question was Biased by the very nature of it's wording.
→ Foregone conclusion
September 17, 2009 - 17:56 ET by Cool ArrowIf the "waste reduction" upon which the savings is based was truly within the scope of their mission, doesn't it make sense they'd be mobilizing against that waste as we speak?
Hence, the Canadian Unicorns.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
This is great! Everyone
September 17, 2009 - 18:00 ET by mandrakeThis is great! Everyone wants to dance around everything except the actual wording of the poll question!
I love this place :)
→ Mandrake
September 17, 2009 - 18:06 ET by Cool ArrowRead your question again and tell us what you're really trying to say.
Do you understand that your question does not even make a whit of sense?
Pardon my confusion, but I think I may need an interpreter.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
The question is constructed
September 17, 2009 - 18:18 ET by mandrakeThe question is constructed as an"if' statement. But logic dictates that every "if" clause must have a coresponding "else" clause. eg:
if (this happens)
{ I do this; }
else
{ I do some else; }
Am I clear yet?
→ Not even close
September 17, 2009 - 18:24 ET by Cool ArrowAn {if} statement, in the vernacular you're trying unsuccessfully to tout, requires a {then} before introducing an {else}.
Try English before moving on to languages less familiar to you.
Your original question still lacks clarity.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Not in C or C++
September 17, 2009 - 18:31 ET by mandrakeNot in C or C++
→ {then} here's your question
September 17, 2009 - 18:42 ET by Cool ArrowEmployer Actions If Healthcare Reform Increases Employer Costs What if Does Not Increase Your Costs.
Be my guest, Mandrake. Please answer the question I've constructed from your directions.
{else} come up with something that makes even less sense.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool
September 17, 2009 - 19:11 ET by mandrakeNo I think we've managed to come up with something that makes no sense all, and so reflects the spirit of the original poll question ;)
OK MD how about
September 17, 2009 - 18:34 ET by general companyThe question is what if (it) does NOT increase your costs?
But it does, and will cause rationing. If a bill such as this is ever passed, forever after, every bit of legislation will be to cut cost and services. We know this because we have seen it in other project the Fed has run, see Medicare, SS, Post office and every other Budget they are charged to keep. You Canadians dont see it because it is generational, you are only left to defend it. It cost you less (maybe) because ours is better. Our corperations have been the ones doing the investing to develop even better health care. As much as I like Canada, I cant find anything in my living room made by an Canadian Company. Well I dont want to defend bad policies and beg for my services. I want them available, like every other item I feel I may need.
The reason I bring this up is that for sometime the car manufactures in
Detroit moved production to Ontario because the health costs per
employee was cheaper.
Actualy the reason is, they were now being built by Canadians, without the input of American Unions, same reason they went to Mexico and now China. Also has a lot to do with other Gov taxes and regulations our Fed imposes on them. The proof, all of the Right to Work states have viable auto industry. When this changes they will leave Canada also. Imagine, these cost override the huge cost of shipping Cars half way around the world. Be happy you have them, because my bet is it wont last.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
that's like asking
September 17, 2009 - 18:41 ET by katainkent"What if I turned gravity off?" Rather an entertaining idea, but unlikely to happen.
____________________________________________
The Emperor, he has no clothes
I am sure
September 17, 2009 - 16:46 ET by katainkentthe company I work for would drop healthcare benefits like a hot rock.
And people are fools if they think any cost a company accrues it does not try to impose on its customer. You don't keep your business very long if you do.
____________________________________________
The Emperor, he has no clothes
→ I'm tellin' ya
September 17, 2009 - 16:58 ET by Cool ArrowThere is just no way Leon II is as stupid as he represents himself.
Don't fall for it.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Have any of them ever had to meet a payroll?
September 17, 2009 - 17:42 ET by samhermanmdLike many on this board, I am a small business owner. I am a solo private medical practitioner with a single office with six employees. If my taxes are raised, and it appears that this is inevitable, I will either have to quit practicing medicine or fire some staff to deal with lower reimbursements and increased taxes.
Just because I am a health care professional does not mean I am an indentured servant like these idiot liberals seem to think.
I fear that so many of my colleagues will be forced out of business that health care overall will suffer. So many of these pro-single payer morons have not bothered to consider what pressure they are putting on the providers of health care across the professional spectrum.
Wait a minute!
September 17, 2009 - 18:34 ET by FastEdAre you telling me that companies might want to drop something that doesn't make money for them and their employees? How profane! Just the idea of a capitalistic owner must drive the admin crazy - oh, that's why they want this - got it!
Proud member of the MOB - Move Over Barack, we want our country back!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V