General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObamacare NOT what is contributing to drop in employer sponsored health insurance coverage
The Economic Policy Institute reveals the drop in employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) for over a decade--something that has nothing to do with Obamacare. This is a critical point to cite when discussing this issue with conservaderps.
No demographic or socioeconomic group has been spared from the erosion of job-based insurance from 200010. Both genders and people of all ages, races, and education levels have suffered declines in employer-based coverage. Workers across the wage distribution, in small and large firms alike, and even those working full time and in white-collar jobs have also lost coverage.
http://www.epi.org/publication/bp337-employer-sponsored-health-insurance/
For overall reference, here is a link to a Kaiser Family Foundation table about who is covered by what types of insurance in the U.S. population. The breakdown is as follows by percentage
Employer 149.4 48.5%
Medicaid 50.6 16.4%
Uninsured 48.6 15.8%
Medicare 40 13.0%
Individual 15.4 5.0%
Other Public 3.8 1.2%
------------------------------------------
TOTAL 307.8 100.0%
Quickly, this means for over 81% of the population (with employer sponsored, Medicare, Medicaid, or other public insurance) there will be virtually no changes.
For those who are already in private insurance market and uninsured, it will be a mixed bag. Some will qualify for expanded Medicaid. Others will be able to obtain insurance for the first time in a long time and not be denied coverage or priced out of the market. Others who purposefully choose not to be insured will be compelled to, and some younger healthier people in private insurance market will have to pay more (in many cases because the cheap policies they have cover virtually nothing).
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-population/
dkf
(37,305 posts)The degree to which full timers are dropped to 29 hours can be more specifically attributed to Obamacare though.
Also employers dropping coverage for part timers and spouses may be directly tied to the ACA.
I'm sure we will be able to tear apart the numbers and make the appropriate correlations.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)not just because of employment numbers but also because of companies for a variety of reasons dropping health coverage or reducing it. None of that had anything to do with ACA/Obamacare.
Why do you take a long standing trend that has been proven by data and still try to shoe horn in Obamacare as the cause?
From 2007:
Employment-based coverage is still the most prominent form of health insurance in the United States at 59.7% of all Americans; however, the rate of this coverage has fallen in every year since 2000. In 2000, 64.2% of Americans had employer-provided health insurance. By 2006, this percent had fallen 4.5 percentage points. Nearly 2.3 million fewer Americans had employment-based insurance in 2006 than in 2000. This decline does not take into account population growth. As many as 13 million more people would have had employer-provided health insurance in 2006 if the coverage rate had remained at the 2000 level.
Because of these large declines in employer-provided health insurance, workers and their families have been falling into the ranks of the uninsured at alarming rates. There were almost 5 million more uninsured workers in 2006 than in 2000. While uninsured workers are disproportionately young, non-white, less educated, and low wage, workers across the socio-economic spectrum have experienced losses in coverage. Even the most highly educated and highest wage workers had lower rates of insurance coverage in 2006 than in 2000.
http://www.epi.org/publication/bp203/
dkf
(37,305 posts)If there are less people employed obviously there will be less people getting employer based health insurance.
2000 had the highest participation rate since 1948 at 67.3%. It is now 63.2%.
dkf
(37,305 posts)What am I missing?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)no, it's dropping because of demographics, older people retiring.
If you look at the 25 to 54 age group it went up since the end of 2009, when it reached a low.
Remember, the health care law also funded an early retiree program.
FACT SHEET: The Affordable Care Acts Early Retiree Reinsurance Program
http://www.healthreform.gov/affordablecareact.html
The program ran out of funding in 2012.
Update on ERRP Payment Processing
http://www.errp.gov/newspages/2012/20120217-errp-end-of-funds.shtml
Congress has been trying to expand it for the last couple of years
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1088/show
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2425
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)to get reasonable insurance coverage....and that is going to be more important as we all continue to deal with the churn of our wonderful modern global economy which often means many job/company changes and multiple periods without work.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)and moving the population away from employment-based health insurance is a key need which has been met in at least an initial and limited way.
Let's implement this thing, find out where the weak points are, and go fix them. My hope is we end up where the most progressive minds wanted to go but had no political capital to get--single payer health care.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)when it has absolutely nothing to do with the ACA. Some are always looking for excuses to let people go and have been looking to fire people to help the bottom line for a long time. This is nothing but an opportunity to make a political statement and influence as many people as possible so they will say, "I got fired because of Obama care." I hear this all the time and it is nothing but Bovine Scatology.
It's like using a high number of FaceBook or Twitter friends, who are by the way a captive audience, to promote or sell a product or make a point.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)they were already dramatically raising premiums and lowering benefits throughout the 2000's, but since ACA passed, they have increased rates more and blamed ACA/Obamacare instead of their urgent and greedy profit taking they could feast on before things got real.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Bank of America attempted to charge a $5 debit card fee, blaming a provision in the Wall Street reform law that cut the credit card swipe fee from 44 cents to 24 cents. After cutting it in half, banks would still earn about 18 cents profit per transaction.
Bank of Americas quick reversal
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_11/bank_of_americas_quick_reversa033215.php
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Ron Green
(9,821 posts)Screw the "human resources," try to build shareholder value.
Even if it means lying about what you're doing.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)one of the things I was most impressed about in Obama's 2008 campaign was his team's diligent and some might say obsessive focus on rapid response to false claims. They learned the horrible lessons of Kerry and team waiting weeks while Bush liars defined and maligned him.
Same with the important initiatives like Obamacare--we have to be ready to answer all of the objections and concerns but also the lies and outright attacks.
madville
(7,397 posts)And health care. Some of it will be positive and some of it will be negative. We will have to acknowledge the bad along with the good in order to make legitimate arguments.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Yes, all the way to the bank, I should have bought stock in Health Insurance companies too.