IBJNews

Employers want cake, and to eat it, too

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Employers are still trying to get their arms around what the new health insurance law will mean for them. But on the eve of the law’s passage last month, a survey by Indianapolis-based United Benefit Advisors LLC showed employers as a group had no hope the law would reduce their costs—but also no coherent plan for reforming the current system.

Of the 1,500 U.S. employers surveyed, 52 percent expect the new law to raise health care costs faster than present trends. Another 20 percent think it will keep costs rising as fast as they have been.

Only 28 percent think the new law will slow the growth or reduce the cost of health care.

Employers seem to want to have things both ways, according to United Benefit Advisors' summary of the survey results. Although employers think the new law will make the cost situation worse, only 11 percent of employers supported the new law’s most obvious cost-saving measure: the taxation of expensive, “Cadillac” health insurance plans.

Another example of employers’ conflicting desires is that they want requirements for health insurers to take all comers, but no requirements for individuals or employers to buy health coverage.

A whopping 71 percent approved of the law’s ban against health insurers declining coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Yet only 27 percent of employers supported the new law’s mandate on employers with 50 or more workers to provide insurance coverage. Even fewer, 21 percent, supported the bill’s tax penalties on individuals who don’t buy health insurance.

Of course, if employers’ demands had been enshrined in law, health insurers have warned they would be flooded by people with illnesses—knowing they cannot be turned away—and shunned by people in good health, who know they can wait to buy insurance until they’re actually sick. The result would be skyrocketing insurance costs.

Health insurers fear a similar result with the new health insurance law because the taxes that will be levied on people who don’t buy health coverage are, in their view, too small to be very effective.

"Employers want to be assured that their employees and their families have protection against the financial burdens caused as a result of having no or inadequate health care, pre-existing conditions and loss of coverage," wrote the United Benefit Advisors staff in a summary of the survey's findings. "Yet, at the same time, they do not support individual mandates for coverage with or without tax incentives/subsidies."
 
The survey was conducted online in February and early March. President Obama signed health insurance reform into law on March 23 and some amendments a few days later.

United Benefit Advisors is a network of benefits brokers and consultants around the country. It has more than 140 member firms, who represent nearly 40,000 employers in North America and the United Kingdom.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

  2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

  3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

  4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

  5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

ADVERTISEMENT