Latest Breaking News

starroute

(12,977 posts)

6. This would give them less reason to overwork people instead of hiring more employees

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 01:13 AM

Jul 2012

At present, the health insurance costs for adding an additional employee are a major reason why employers would rather force their existing employees to work 60 hours a week. If those went away, the available jobs might be distributed more widely, bringing down the unemployment rate and giving young people more of a chance to get started.

There would be other dislocations, of course, but in the long run this could only be for the best.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Deloitte: One in 10 U.S. Employers to Drop Health Coverage [View all] alp227 Jul 2012 OP

And how many would have dropped coverage anyway, because of rising costs? pnwmom Jul 2012 #1

Good point. robinlynne Jul 2012 #7

Precisely Sherman A1 Jul 2012 #12

+1 harun Jul 2012 #26

Not nearly as many Xedniw Jul 2012 #27

That's not what the CBO numbers projected. Hillary's plan was better, but it didn't get passed. pnwmom Jul 2012 #28

Good. So the private sector insurers want no parts of their own system. Universal healthcare... nanabugg Jul 2012 #2

The US government workers will go to Obamacare lovuian Jul 2012 #14

Potentially a good thing bluestateguy Jul 2012 #3

true and I think it would be great. indivisibleman Jul 2012 #4

Employer-offered insurance is subsidized by the government. It's a very unfair system. yardwork Jul 2012 #25

two interesting points indivisibleman Jul 2012 #5

The insurance we can get as individuals doesnt come close! perhaps now that will change. robinlynne Jul 2012 #8

If you have a serious preexisting condition the rates are far lower in a large group plan pnwmom Jul 2012 #10

how old was this person? mopinko Jul 2012 #31

I'll bet anything they were young and healthy joeglow3 Jul 2012 #37

This would give them less reason to overwork people instead of hiring more employees starroute Jul 2012 #6

One problem many employers could have: young workers may be among the first to opt for the exchanges OmahaBlueDog Jul 2012 #9

Medical insurance that's tied to your job doesn't make much sense anyway. Kablooie Jul 2012 #11

Companies want Obamacare lovuian Jul 2012 #13

True musiclawyer Jul 2012 #20

Bingo! mikekohr Jul 2012 #40

Had one announce that he was going to do that in Sunday's Dallas Morning News LTTEs. tanyev Jul 2012 #15

bullshit. mopinko Jul 2012 #32

He was going to retire anyway treestar Jul 2012 #36

Wages better go up lobodons Jul 2012 #16

I believe this will be the fastest way to single payer - when companies start dropping coverage riderinthestorm Jul 2012 #17

It's the second-fastest way JustABozoOnThisBus Jul 2012 #18

Oh touche and right on. I completely agree. riderinthestorm Jul 2012 #19

Not as things currently stand. No way. woo me with science Jul 2012 #29

I keep seeing this as a race in my mind - do the Dems get to install Medicare for all riderinthestorm Jul 2012 #33

There is no evidence whatsoever woo me with science Jul 2012 #39

I can't understand why businesses are lobbying against single payer kimbutgar Jul 2012 #21

Health care costs need to be borne by the general tax fund, not individuals anyway BanTheGOP Jul 2012 #22

well thats Troy Cookin with Gas Jul 2012 #23

They'll pay the penalty under the ACA but that penalty is still cheaper than insuring an employee riderinthestorm Jul 2012 #24

$2,000 per employee but that is cheaper than actually paying half of the premiums underpants Jul 2012 #30

I know. My husband's former employer paid half riderinthestorm Jul 2012 #35

Not entirely bad, since it could decouple coverage from employment treestar Jul 2012 #34

++1000 nt nanabugg Jul 2012 #38