Documents reveal AT&T, Verizon, others, thought about dropping employer-sponsored benefits

Source: CNN Money



Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the bill's critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.

Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/news/companies/dropping_benefits.fortune/index.htm

---

Not sure why it's "thought" in the title but "examining" in the article but whatever. My question is: how is the gov't going to respond to this?

A few years back some companies were in favor of socialized medicine for this very reason.

Bring it on!

Hope every one who considered that idea shrivels starting with the genitalia. They can call it Executive Waste of Space disease.

Theyll still need to attract workers when its all said and done.

If they're thinking of dropping it now, why did they offer it before when they didn't have to offer it? I seriously think that many companies are trying to manipulate their employees through fear so that they won't support anything favored by President Obama.

I could envision some companies wanting to do if for retirees however.

Nothing was stopping companies from dropping coverage before.

A lot of right-wingers said companies would just stop offering health care benefits when the health care bill is passed.
My response was always, "They could have dropped coverage at ANY time before this law was passed and I'm sure none of you would have given a flip unless it was YOUR family. Spare me the feigned outrage."

What these companies are looking at is a way to provide the same coverage they are doing now at a lower cost i.e. drop coverage and get their employees covered by the Federal Government, the fines for the later is much cheaper then the cost of providing medical coverage themselves AND THE EMPLOYEES ARE STILL COVERED SO EMPLOYEES WILL NOT JUMP SHIP and go to a company with medical coverage.

Previously, if a company dropped medical coverage, it would be facing a huge turnover (As people defect to companies with medical coverage), unions would strike, non-unionized employees would see the advantage of a union and form one etc. That was the check on most companies dropping coverage, the cost were to high even how it would upset their employees. With the new program, if a company drops coverage, the employee still has medical insurance, except provided by the Government. Now that involves fines, but the companies are seeing such fines as so low, it is the more cost effective alternative. [

so they could dump their employees onto the government-payor plan. Just dumping them outright and leaving them to fend for themselves was probably considered too disruptive and likely to result in mass resignations, especially among vital executives.

especially those on the right who were SOOO scared of employers dumping employees for the public option.

Well hey, it's better than being dumped and having to fend for yourself.

I am sure the vital executives could afford health insurance on their own. It's the rank and file employees who would really be in tough sh**.

Won't they likely dump them first?

:D

I was serious about the "It's a feature, not a bug" thing (in context of this thread/HCR/employer-based coverage) though -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7935517#7953068

Even Fortune admits this fact in this very article:

I'm here:

How can that be? That is not what I was promised.

............for god knows how long. I can't wait for 2014 until all the "good" stuff kicks in. What a clusterfuck.

for not buying for profit insurance with after-tax dollars after our employers drop our insurance. Why do you think this was so vehemently opposed by the left? Still waiting for the chess move.

the same calculations. The reason we did not really think of it before is that having our employees (53 total) without benefits would leave them with MASSIVE bills if they had to go private. What we are thinking of doing is dropping coverage, paying the fine, and giving everyone a raise of part of the savings so they can buy coverage in the exchanges. Just the facts of what we have to do.

I'm doing the same thing.

These stinkin' greedy bastard corporations had better be ready to cough up the dough they are spending on our health insurance. Everyone should add their health benefit dollars to their salary and DEMAND to be compensated accordingly. That is why everyone is willing to do without a meaningful salary increase----they are getting benefits in lieu of a wage increase. We cannot let them get away with this. If they want their employees to buy insurance on their own, then they better be ready to pay higher wages.

Really, it is an employers market out there.

As I wrote upthread, the non-profit I am on the BOD of is thinking of doing this. We are, however, planning on giving raises to our employees with part of the savings - not all, but part.

they better be ready to do the same for all of management/executives. And not be giving them raises in lieu of health coverage unless they do the same for the employees.

more now that it will be then. For example if they simply dropped everyone, yes they wouldn't have to pay for health coverage. Why don't they? Because people wouldn't work there.

Nothing stopped them before for doing such a thing. Now there is a penalty when before there was absolutely nada that would have happened if they had decided to pull the trigger.

Just spin from the GOP/Corporate media trying to create FUD. Personally, I say do it, let's get to a single payer system sooner than later.

L-

ON Edit: My Libertarian friends are all giggly over this as in their minds it shows just how evil the Dems are. All it does is show their ignorance of how the system really works.