|
<< Don't Know What You've Got... | Main | A Bit Better- TAPPED on Unions >> September 13, 2003CA Health Mandate- Good for BusinessLate into the night, the California Assembly passed the health care employer mandate for larger businesses in the state-- promising to extend health care coverage to millions of Californians. All larger businesses in the state will now have to either provide health coverage or pay a fee into a state fund which will then cover those employees. And it's good for business in California, since it will help the majority of employers already providing health care by creating a level playing field for competition. Rival firms will have to compete based on innovation, not by dumping the health care costs of their employees on the public hospitals. And the state government will save the $1 billion per year in health spending they had previously been paying to subsidize unfair competition against the firms providing health care for their employees. That firms paying health care will benefit from this reform should be obvious. It's obvious to them. In a recent survey of employers out of UC-Berkeley, 64 percent of business respondents stated they supported an employer mandate for health insurance. Somewhat surprisingly, even most firms (59%) not offering health care were supportive of such a reform. This suggests, said the study's authors: the businesses most affected by the proposed reform would find that their competitors would face similar effects, and that most businesses would not likely face cost increases that would erode their competitiveness.Yes, they would feel some pressure from out-of-state competition, but that kind of competition is less direct and it's worth putting the increased costs in perspective. The typical cost increase from the new health care law would be on average just 0.2 percent increase in overall operating costs for these businesses. Here is the full study. (pdf) The real solution is to pass far more comprehensive reforms nationally, since states are limited in what they can do because of the federal ERISA law, in order to cut out all the wasteful administrative costs that make the US health care system the most expensive and bloated system in the world. But until then, the California law is a great step forward. Posted by Nathan at September 13, 2003 08:47 AM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsHawai'i has had a similar law for years; if an employee works more than 20 hours per week the employer has to enroll him/her in a health plan. Of course, this has led to some employers playing games with schedules. Posted by: Linkmeister at September 13, 2003 06:47 PM This should also be quite beneficial to unions there in that it will remove the baseline health plan from the negotiating table. In effect, these unions will only have to negotiate for coverages over and above this plan, rather than their having to renegotiate their entire health package each time. Posted by: Benedict@Large at September 13, 2003 08:50 PM Linkmeister: Regarding "employers playing games with schedules", Hawaii is hardly unique in this. In fact, supermarkets and large retailers have made a business of this, providing benefits only to "full time" employees, while limiting most of their employees to 37 hours/week or less. This is as good an argument for a national single-payer system as can be found. It takes employers out of the healthcare business (where they should perhaps not be anyways), and frees them to utilize all of their employees as much or as little as they need. Posted by: Benedict@Large at September 13, 2003 09:00 PM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|