Apple Skips Debate, Comitts to Health Insurance

[denem]

Source: Ifo Apple Store

In the midst of a heated national debate over legislation to provide all Americans with affordable health insurance, Apple will skip the controversy entirely and extend full-benefit medical insurance to part-time employees in January 2010. According to sources, the benefits now offered only to full-time employees, including those who work at the retail stores, will be offered to those working as few as 15 hours a week, which would include nearly all store employees. The insurance benefit will apply to employees who have at least one year of service with Apple.

The change in coverage is significant, since American businesses have traditionally offered medical and other benefits only to full-time employees, and sometimes reduced benefits to those who work at least 20-hours a week. Apple has 16,500 full-time equivalent retail store employees, according to the company’s latest financial filing.

It’s estimated the staff is composed of about 9,900 part-time employees who will be affected by the insurance change. Based on the average cost of medical insurance policies purchased by employers, the annual cost of extending medical benefits to part-time store employees could be at least $80 million a year. (...)

The sources say Apple now pays up to 65 percent of an employee’s health care insurance, with the employee paying the remainder. That pay-out will reportedly also apply to the part-time employees insurance coverage. That figure compares to an nationwide average of 73 percent, according to the 2009 Kaiser Family Foundation’s Employer Benefits Survey.

Read more: http://www.ifoapplestore.com/db/2009/10/26/apple-skips-debate-commits-to-health-insurance/

---

It's not that generous (65%). It's more significant that it's announced now and will be up and running in full from January 2010. On my reading, qualifying part time employees starting receiving the subsidy from January 1st.

[leanderj]

1. Let's watch Dell do the same

Yeah, right.

[alfredo]

2. Talent retention.

[garthranzz]

3. I'm a Mac

and that's one reason why. Though a big company, Apple has a conscience - it's dedicated to going green, now this. Not perfect, but aware and responsive.

[WriteDown]

5. I hear they only use the greenest Chinese technology to make

my ear pacifiers.

[PHIMG]

4. With deductibles, copayments nobody can USE IT

This will be crap insurance. The devil is in the details. Nobody's health should depend on the "generosity" of thier employer.

MEDICARE FOR ALL. NOW.

[targetpractice]

7. It's not crap... It's better than other employer sponsored plans.

Why do you disparage Apple when they are trying to to a good thing.

Obviously, you want pie-in-the-sky coverage right now.. But, why fault Apple for doing something pragmatic and beneficial now?

[PHIMG]

8. Because it WILL be crap insurance that people making retail wages can't afford

The corporations get the HALO effect for their "generosity" but in reality its of little use to employees. See Starbucks and Wallmart who have similar policies.

When people making huge sums of money as lawyers and doctors are ruined financially from illness when their insurance fails them what hope to people making $7-13/hr have?

The employer model is a failure. Private Health insurers are EVIL. It's time for MEDICARE FOR ALL.

So "pie high" ever major industrialized country in the world has some form of it.

Why are you so willing to lionize a company for what amounts to a PR stunt?

[targetpractice]

11. You are being ridiculous...

I agree that we need a single-payer system, and our current system is a failure..

Be that as it may... Apple has extended a premium benefits plan to thousands of part-time employees... And, you are whining and bitching about that?

Apple is making a progressive statement by changing policy NOW... This move is offering real coverage to many people NOW...

Apple also quit the US Chamber of Commerce in protest of their lack of endorsement of progressive environmental policies.

You are picking on a company that is trying to be responsible and progressive... and you are looking foolish because you are shooting off before thinking.

[PHIMG]

13. Yes... I'm looking foolish.

I'm attacking the EMPLOYER MODEL. And yet I've upset the sensibilities of the APPLE FANBOYS apparently so I'm looking foolish. A big whatever to that.

[targetpractice]

15. You are not allowing for exceptions to your perceptions of the "EMPLOYER MODEL"...

And, you are faulting a particular company for trying to work within the constraints of the current "EMPLOYER MODEL"... to offer real and actual health care coverage NOW (not years from now). Any changes to the system that you (and I) wish for are years away... At least Apple is trying to help its employees RIGHT NOW.

Yes, you are right... I am an Apple fanboy... and their stance on extending health insurance coverage to part-time employees is one of the reason why I am.

What is your employer doing for you and your co-workers?

[heliarc]

20. I own 4 macs, and 3 PCs...

I respect Bill Gates' Jr' and Senior's desire to do the right thing. I also respect this move on the part of Apple.

We aren't just talking about the model... we are talking about real benefits for real people. They found a way to say that we can't survive anymore as a nation with people who are uninsured. The message was sent loud and clear.

I will qualify my "respect" by saying the move seriously undercut's the opening of the Microsoft Store, and has several strategic pitfalls, not the least of which is the fact that these are 9000 less people who might have qualified for a strong Public option. Less people on the public option... more chance of failure of the public system. This may or may not be an agenda of the Apple corporate heads... but that is the effect at least.

Creates problems for the Competetive model everyone keeps hoping the public option will fulfill.

[targetpractice]

24. Huh?!?

What are you talking about?

[heliarc]

25. Late at night.

Sorry to be confusing. Look... the article says 9000 more people might be insured by apple under their new policy... Those are the very same people that would have benefitted from a public option.

At the same time that they are providing more insurance options for their workforce, they are ALSO bolstering the private system in a way that sends a message to the corporate community: "Do something now or you lose all that money that is siphoned back to private insurers." It seems a lot like protective capitalism...

Though I think that for those 9,000 + workers who will get a health plan out of it... they are probably better off for it.

The rest was me just trying to say that I own both Mac and PC computers and don't really have a stake in which megacorporation makes a better computer.

[targetpractice]

34. Sorry... My late night comprehension skills were lacking...

I see the argument you are making...

I believe Apple wants it's retail experience to be the best it can be, and offering health insurance to part-timers helps in that goal... perhaps, by making happier employees and increasing retention.

You mention that by doing so... Apple is bolstering the private system... Maybe their move is a portent of things to come... A sign of the type of competition that we will see due to the public option. The private system will strive to insure more people and offer better coverage in order to compete.

All in all, I think covering 9,000 more people with healthcare insurance today is a good thing.

[fascisthunter]

28. we are talking about a shift in mainsteam America

more folks will start to wonder, why the hell isn't my employer doing this? This a great precedent.

BTW - Read Bill Gates Sr., "Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes" (Beacon Press, $25)

[Regret My New Name]

44. So, what would you like to see Apple do?

[2Design]

6. whether great or not - it more than most have now and more than congress is

willing to give the rest of us

[targetpractice]

9. Right... Apple has a huge cash war chest...

I think they deserve credit for taking care of their employees within the constraints of the current healthcare insurance system.

Keep in mind, they also extend benefits to same-sex partners.

[HDPaulG]

10. UPS has been providing Health insurance to part time

employee's since 1976. UPS provides pensions to part time employee's also beginning 1976, they have a 25 and out and 30 and out with health benefits for the retiree's...Paid vacations, Holidays, Personal Days paid...Apple is not as progressive as UPS. UPS is more dependable too....

[heliarc]

21. Feh...

I like the US postal service better than the "private option"

[WriteDown]

26. UPS is like the USPS...

Just without all the machine gun fire. :evilgrin:

[Earth Bound Misfit]

52. SNORFL ROFLMAO

[mopinko]

30. because their business needs part timers. they work in the morning and again

in the afternoon. it ain't generosity. it's what they have to do to avoid paying people to stand around and do nothing in the middle of the day.

[HDPaulG]

12. PS: Unionized UPS'ers in Wisconsin

Have no co-insurance...No weekly nor monthly co-insurance. No payroll deduction's. They have a better plan than management thanks to the Teamsters and especially Local 344 and the Union Trustee's on Milwaukee Drivers Health and Welfare and Pension Funds.

[Psephos]

14. In other words, they have no incentive to consume medical care efficiently

The lack of any discernible cost for medical benefits to a covered worker makes it a no-brainer that they will overconsume it. How many potatoes or jars of pasta sauce would you take home from the supermarket if they were handing them out free? Would you drink more beer on game day at the sports bar if it was free? How many flights would you take next year if you could just show up at the airport and get on a plane for free?

This multiplied by millions of people in the same situation is one of the strongest drivers of ever-escalating medical demand, and in turn, medical inflation.

[HDPaulG]

16. Mr.Endurance Inline Skating....AKA Psephos...

While you are inline skating down the Boulevard, where is the evidence that people with employer paid health insurance abuse it? They do not over consume it. Your argument lacks coherence and logic. Keep on skating...

[Psephos]

17. The useful question is, where is the evidence that they don't?

Unless your argument is that the price of a something doesn't influence how much of it is used. ;)

So, is that your argument?

When demand rises faster than supply, it causes prices to move upward. Pricing anything as "free" causes demand to rise faster than supply.

PS - Posting stuff from my profile is kind of like people at a restaurant table greeting their waitperson by their first name because they read their name-tag. Mild ick.

[HDPaulG]

19. It's your arguement...

You need to defend it. Between busing/serving tables...I do wish you have insurance like the part time UPS'ers. They don't abuse it. Nor do the full time employee's... Health Insurance/Benefits are for health...Living well, and being productive to society and employeer's...And yes, I think your name tag may be "Mild ick". Your economic analogy re: health suggest "free"...nothing is free. I know you know that.

[Psephos]

35. This discussion is not about me. It's about incentivizing good stewardship of limited resources.

That's twice in a row you went personal with no provocation. Must be low on ammo. ;)

You think there's no relationship between how much health care a person consumes and whether they must pay something out of pocket for their services. I think there is.

Next.

[heliarc]

23. you can assume by the same logic...

that the anxiety created by under or erratic employment causes overuse of medical benefits at incorrect times...

All it requires is a change in perspective. In my opinion the fact that I give a company 40 hours a week for a wage and no profit sharing means that I'm not getting anything for free. There is a very real cost. If I get health care paid for in full it doesn't mean that I'm a "free" man by any stretch of the imagination. It just stands as a definition of my worth as labor...

Plus... I'm not an expert on these plans... The benefits are paid for by the employer... but not the copays right? I assume there's a modest deterrent to overuse because you still have to drop a copay here and there right?

[heliarc]

22. How typically American of you...

:sarcasm: I don't need more than I need... Especially not health care. Less is more when it comes to the double edge of medication and testing...

[Psephos]

29. One might think you consider that word insulting. ;) n/t

[denverbill]

32. There is a free work-out facility in my 12 floor office building. Why isn't it always packed?

Just because something is free doesn't necessarily mean it will be over-consumed. My office visit co-pay is $20, but even if there was no co-pay I'm still not going to go to the doctor any more than I do right now because:

#1 it's a pain in the ass. You got to make the appointment, arrange time off work, travel to the appointment, wait to be called in, wait for the doctor, etc.
#2 it's no fun. It's usually cold in the office. It's a pain waiting around. The doctor asks embarrassing questions and gives you unwanted advice (eat less, exercise more, etc)

The only way price could alter my consumption is if you paid me to go (it would need to be substantial too, $5 won't cut it, $100 would) or if you made it so expensive I'd have to be dying to go.

To answer your question, my grocery store does occasionally give stuff away. But because I don't really like going to the store, I don't make a special trip just because something is free. And even though they give away Sunday papers almost every week, I never take one, even though they are free, because I subscribe anyway and I don't want an extra copy. As for potatoes, we may eat 5 lbs of potatoes in a week, but I'm not going to bring 100 lbs home because they are free because I couldn't eat that many before they would rot.

If you could get a quadruple bypass surgery for free, would you get one even if you didn't need one?

Sorry but the 'free=massively over-consumed' argument isn't reasonable. It's not the same as free beer at a sports bar or free airline tickets. I'd rather go to a sports bar and pay for my beer than go to a doctor for free.

[Psephos]

37. Do you think less people would go to the work-out facility if it cost to get in?

I guess you don't believe that, say, taxing gasoline or cigarettes will affect demand for them either.

:shrug:

[denverbill]

40. Would you go to the doctor every day if it was free? Would you smoke if cigarettes were free?

You make it sound like the only reason people don't spend 24/7 in the doctor's office is because it's not free.

I'm not arguing that price has no effect whatsoever on demand in any case.

When gas prices tripled under Bush, there was a slight decrease in gasoline consumption. Cigarette taxes cut smoking rates, slightly.

If health care was completely free, demand would increase, somewhat. People who couldn't afford a $100 office visit and had no insurance would be more likely to go if it was free, but they aren't going to go just for the hell of it. They aren't going to get surgery just because they can. They aren't going to take drugs for no reason just because they are free. There would be a perceptible increase in use, but in the vast majority of cases, the increase would be driven by people who actually needed care, not by some free-loader who just goes because it's free. And part of that increase would be offset by people not using the emergency room when they get so sick they had to go.

I would rather work than go to the doctor. I would rather pay to go to a baseball game than go to the doctor. I would rather lug 100 lbs of rotten potatoes out to the compost pile than go to the doctor. Few people enjoy going to the doctor. If health care was free, the major increase in consumption would be by people who actually needed care but who previously couldn't afford it, not by people 'over-utilizing' it. Personally, I think that's a good thing.

[Psephos]

42. That's not the argument.

Health care is a limited resource, like everything else.

The real question is, given that demand is strong, and will become stronger as more people enter the system, what is the best way to ensure health care resources are efficiently allocated to those conditions and people that need it most, without wasting money? How can we incentivize health care consumers to act more like stewards of a limited resource, instead of profligate consumers? Hard to think this is anathema to progressives.

Health care inflation rises when demand rises faster than supply (more dollars competing to buy the same goods). That's freshman economics. Given that cost is the major sticking point right now in Congress, I think this needs to be a bigger part of the discussion.

[denverbill]

51. Health care is a limited resource?

Seriously the way you talk makes it sound like you think if the cost of health care goes to 0, demand becomes infinite. Most of the civilized world has had free health care for their citizens for years and they pay 50% less than we do for their care. How is Canada 'incentivizing' their consumers? Answer: They don't. People don't go to the doctor when they don't need treatment. Apparently, the only place in the world where people consume medical resources they don't need is in economics textbooks and at the CATO Institute.

[CreekDog]

33. Would you schedule extra appointments to the dentist if they were free?

oh yeah, maybe not. :eyes:

[Psephos]

36. Without question. n/t

[CreekDog]

38. and you'd sign up for extra root canals?

prostate exams?

colonoscopy's?

:eyes:

[Psephos]

39. I'd sign up for more cleanings, reworking of metal fillings, orthodontics...

...more preventative resin fillings for pits, and whatever else.

Prostate exams? Colonoscopies?

Yes, in general, I would have more frequent complete physicals, say once or twice a year.

Your idea that I must enjoy something in order to want it is interesting, but not accurate.

[denverbill]

41. So are you saying you currently aren't getting work done that you need to have done because of cost?

Or are you saying you'd get unnecessary work done if it was free?

[Psephos]

43. There is a continuum between necessary and unnecessary. It's not either/or.

Expense is part of the judgment about whether consuming a given service at a given time is necessary.

We make these judgments all the time about other things as well. Should I replace the roof on the garage this year or next, or just play it by ear? Should I get the radiator pressure-flushed and refilled, or just do it with a garden hose? Do I need another jacket for winter, or can I get by with the one I have?

Eliminate the cost, and the decisions will be different.

This seems pretty basic to me. :shrug:

[denverbill]

48. Most people could easily define necessary versus unnecessary when it comes to health care.

Most progressives don't think that the decision about whether to take your kid to the doctor should be as dependent on your financial wherewithal as whether or not you get your radiator pressure-flushed. Wealthy people should take their kids to the doctor for every sniffle they get. Poor people should decide whether it makes financial sense for them to have a doctor check their kid with a 105 degree temperature or whether to try to get by without medical care.

It's pretty easy to spot necessary versus unnecessary. Treating an abscess is necessary. Tooth whitening is not. Neither of those decisions depends on your ability to pay. There is no continuum that says it's necessary for the wealthy with a little line drawn down to 'unnecessary' for the poor.

Feel free to ration radiator-flushing and winter jackets by price, but let doctors determine what is medically necessary and treat people according to best practices, not according to their ability to pay.

[Psephos]

50. If it were only so.

If you work in an Emergency Room for a while you'll see that what is reasonable or necessary is not, ahem, universally understood.

At. All.

This is true in any clinic.

Furthermore, it's not doctors who determine whether treatment is medically necessary, but patients. Once a patient declares their problem is an emergency, law requires they be treated, whether or not they can pay, whether or not the doctor thinks it's an emergency.

Lots of emergency sore throats, sore feet, headaches, insomnia out there. LOTS. LOTS. LOTS.

[dugaresa]

46. you would volunteer for a colonoscopy every year because it might be covered?

wow, clearly you haven't had to drink the special "cleaning fluid".

Personally, unless my doctor directed me to take a test I would rather go to work or do something more fun than spend hours at a clinic or hospital undergoing a test.

My husband has to go for a scoping of his esophagus every year, he does not look forward to that. Wishes he didn't have too.

[Psephos]

47. No.

That's silly. Or kinky, for some. ;)

But I would follow the recommendations for screening intervals considered optimum for disease detection and prevention.

I seem to recall that for those under 50, colonoscopy is not indicated unless symptoms of colon disease are present or there's strong family history of bowel cancer. For those over 50, I believe it's every five years.

[dugaresa]

45. how does one consume medical care efficiently?

enlighten me.

[Psephos]

49. Example

You wake up with a runny nose and mild fever. You are catching a cold. You go to the doctor, and ask for antibiotics. Doctor gives you a Z-Pac (erythromycin 7-day supply), even as she tells you it's not likely to help. Much easier than having the same argument she's already had with the last 50 runny-nose people. If you went to the E.R., you just spent $500 on $5 worth of medicine that won't help. But it's not your $500. If you went to a GP, then it's more like $100 or $200. But probably not on the same day that you called.

Colds are caused by rhinovirus. There is no antibiotic that can help you.

Or this. Your back has been hurting again for the past few weeks, but on Saturday it feels worse, and on Sunday it's no better. You go to the E.R., where they put you through the routine of hisotry, physical exam, x-ray, ortho consult, etc. They tell you that with a herniated disc history, you have to accept that there will be periods of more pain and less pain in your future, just as your back specialist has told you previously. You want more than words. The E.R. doc needs to move on to the laceration repair in the next room asap, so hands you a prescription for Flexeril and another for Vicodin, despite knowing that it's just another kick of the can down the road. You walk out satisfied, leaving a $1400 bill behind.

Etc.

Much of the waste comes from two sources.

1. People have been conditioned to seek medical care for routine ailments and chronic conditions. Many, perhaps even most, routine visits solve no problem and are not medically necessary. There are far less expensive ways to deal with most of these problems.

2. Physicians practice defensive medicine, ordering more tests than needed, more procedures, more medicines, because it helps ward off undeserved malpractice actions.

Stats I've seen say over 80% of physicians admit to defensive practices. Spend a day at the E.R. observing and you'll soon understand how many emergencies are treated vs. toothaches, backaches, and runny noses. Figure five hundred to a thousand bucks a pop on each case and it's clear why free isn't as good as a small, reasonable cost to incentivize good stewardship. They charge five dollars at the local "free" clinic for the uninsured and I'm told that number works best for their demographic to encourage conscientious consumption.

[dugaresa]

53. the issue is that in both the common cold and disc case, the patient

may be paying a lot of money out of pocket for health care and doesn't feel like they are actually getting anything for the money spent.

in the past 12 months I have paid $12,000 in medical premiums. That is for the luxury of having insurance.

If I get a cold and my nose starts to run more green than clear, I may feel that since I have forked over so much cash that I should get my money's worth and go to the doctor for some care. Hell I paid approximately $1000 a month for it, don't I deserve to use it?

Having worked around medical professionals, I am pretty familiar with what is a cold and what is not. However I have actually made myself worse by not seeking treatment when I should have. About 5 years ago, I had a cold, it gradually got worse. I gargled every 3 hours with salt water, I drank fluids and because I am a salaried employee, I took time off. However I kept getting worse and ended up with a fever and feeling worse (it took about 10 days to get in this stunning shape). My doctor's office couldn't see me as they didn't have hours that day so I called the insurance advisor who said, "go to the ER" and gave me an authorization. Turns out I had a very bad case of strep throat and both ears were infected and it was beginning to trigger my asthma. The ER doctor said, "had you waited longer, we would have had to admit you".

So when do you know it's the right time to go?

That is why I use what I pay for, especially when I pay so dear a price.

[Psephos]

54. I agree with you more than you might think.

You're intelligent, decently funded, and medically aware.

You are, in other words, not the problem. You're a responsible consumer of medical care, and you should continue your practices.

The problem is that there are millions of people who aren't. That doesn't mean they're any less deserving of excellent care, and it's no judgment upon them. The issue here is: how can we continue delivering excellent care to them when they need it, but not continue incentivizing them to consume care when they don't?

It's not a simple problem. In Canada, for example, while the care is free, the "cost" for expensive procedures is frequently that one must go on a considerable waiting list. My personal observation at the local "free" clinic for uninsured people is that a small co-pay ($5) helped a lot in cutting back on the number of medically-unnecessary visits. Both are ways of causing patients to consider whether they really need a particular instance of care.

My argument in this thread has been that a completely free system, where service costs nothing to the patient in time or money, incentivizes wasteful consumption of medical care, to the detriment of all. So the question is, how can we shape behavior toward good stewardship?

Those that argue that consumption decisions (not you, dugaresa) take no account of personal costs are arguing against the most basic economic nature of human beings.

[Vidar]

18. Good for Apple.

[xchrom]

27. excellent. nt

[ItNerd4life]

31. Except they have to be employed for a year.

So what happens if the employee gets sick the first year they are working at Apple? No benefits.

Still need a better program.