For those that are working Part II

[Merge]

I can't post in the other thread. I keep getting an error, so Hall85... I will leave your post as the last word in our debate although I tried to disagree several times. lol.

but as far as the mckinsey poll, those that are working are in luck that various reports are calling it a push poll.

"“Thеrе іѕ nο doubt thаt thе аnѕwеrѕ one wουƖԁ ɡеt аftеr priming respondents thе way thеу ԁіԁ wουƖԁ bе expected tο include more expressed interest іn thе possibility οf nοt insuring employees thаn a qυеѕtіοn qυеѕtіοnеԁ іn a nonprimed context,” ѕаіԁ Floyd Fowler, a Older Research Fellow аt thе Center fοr Survey Research аt University οf Massachusetts, Boston, аnԁ author οf thе book Survey Research Methods."

A new report from avalere health concludes that "Overall, our analysis suggests that the ESI (employer sponsored insurance) market will be fairly stable after 2014 when key ACA coverage provisions go into effect."

Link

 

[HALL85]

There are so many factors to consider, I can't put much confidence in a report like this. Every expert on reform that I have spoken with has indicated it's impossible to forsee what will happen over the next 3-5 years-from what might be clawed back via the 2012 election; how the state challenges will fare; and the uncertainty of potentially 40 million people entering a system with the increased supply limitations we are facing. All I know is that a lot of lawyers will be making a lot of money on this over the next few years and the last time I checked, none of them can improve my health or life expectancy....

 

[Merge]

Of course things may change but this study was based on the current law.

The claim that 30% of employers would drop their plans is bogus and the questions in the mckinsey poll were leading.

Employers will offer healthcare plans as long as employees value that benefit.

 

[HALL85]

Sorry, but I don't take one study as gospel. Too many moving parts to be that definitive.

Thankfully, most of this package will never come to realization.

 

[Merge]

Out of curiosity, did you read it? It isn't one study... they assessed other models and surveys.


"Avalere conducted a comprehensive review of estimates of ESI post-2014 when several important ACA
provisions take effect. Specifically, we assessed:
? Publicly available information on microsimulation models that project the size of the ESI market
post-ACA implementation. The models included in this study were created by the Urban
Institute, RAND, the Lewin Group, and the Congressional Budget Office;
? Interviews conducted with modelers, academics, experts on ESI, benefits consultants, and trade
associations representing employers;
? Other published analyses produced by Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Booz & Company; and,
? Employer surveys, such as Mercer, Towers Watson, and Aon Hewitt."


and apply what happened in Massachusetts where a penalty was significantly lower than what it will be nationally and employer sponsored coverage went up, or apply logic and employers will not give a competitive advantage to other companies for employees.

What parts do you think will not happen?

 

[HALL85]

Merge, they assembled a study and supported it with points from other selected studies that supported their case. Did you think they would use information that would not substantiate their case? There are various view points on whether it will help or hurt ESI...it's up to the reader to draw their own conclusions.

 

[Merge]

It is a study, not fact.

This part is what I was aluding to and what pretty much seals the deal for me.

"Employers have historically offered health benefits for three primary reasons. First and foremost, employers offer health benefits to recruit and retain employees. While ACA does not change this motivation significantly, the value that employees place on ESI might change over time if the exchanges are viable and well-functioning. This would, in turn, reduce the salience of ESI in the recruitment and retention process. In addition, the importance of this factor could decrease if unemployment remains at currently high levels as employers will continue to be able to pick from a larger pool of applicants, and therefore might not need to offer health benefits to compete in the labor market. Overall, the role of ESI in recruitment and retention is expected to continue to be a strong motivator for employers to continue offering health benefits post 2014."


Again, as long as employees value health coverage from their employer, they will still offer it. Suggesting they will drop coverage and let other companies have that advantage over them is way off. That will not happen.

Look at what happened in Massachusetts. ESI went up after they implemented a mandate with a (MUCH lower)penalty.

 

[HALL85]

I don't really have a good sense of how the reform bill will or won't impact ESI. My issues have to do with the reasons why it was done in the first place (cost) and how ineffective it will be on paper much less in reality.