Looks like a huge loser for me. I get my insurance thru my employer for a family of six. They pay about 75% of the premium now, and I pay the rest. Trading that in for a stipend of $500 a month leaves me way worse off than before.

I dunno, according to Rick Lindquist, this is going to result in my employer saving money, me saving money, AND me getting coverage for medical care as I do right now.
The win, win, win, scenario.

Then what, is it going to start raining beer?
Color me very, very skeptical.

Guinness:  nectar of the gods.

I'll toast you with Jamison.

The article certainly should make people think. That employers keep shouldering the worrisome task of trying to select proper medical insurance for their employees certainly seems like a decision that would be better made by the employees themselves. The quesiton then becomes just how much the employer would contribute as well as the range of available policy options for the people seeking such insurance. 

To the first point, the article merely used the $500/mo as an example only. Employers that provided excellent medical insurance would likely pony up substantially more to keep their valued employees. The issue then would be the range of options to the employee and their costs. It would likely open up a super-ACA approach to the whole thing, but perhaps at a national level. Would this bring better coverage and more options? I don't know. It would more then resemble then what seniors such as myself go through that are on Medicare Advantage programs that work with private insurers in conjunction with Medicare. In these cases the seniors have multiple plans to choose from with different options, deductible, co-pays as well as side benefits such as health club memberships, dental coverage and/or eye coverage. 

I don't expect the transition to be quick as it has been ingrained for years to work the other way, but I DO expect as the article implies that we will see more and more of it. 


 

Goose wrote:

I worry. Yes, intuitively, it seems better for an individual to decide what coverage they want rather than the employer. However, large employers bring a large number of customers to an insurance company, and thus have historically have had the clout necessary to get better rates, better coverage, acceptance of pre-existing conditions etc. The government, thru medicare has the ultimate clout, deciding for themselves how much they will pay providers.

Individuals have not had these advantages in the past, leaving some of us better off with employer based coverage. Now, maybe the ACA will remove the things I have mentioned above as issues. Maybe.

I would think insurance companies would prefer to keep their large clients as well. Would an Aetna, for example, want to lose a Fortune 500 company with 20,000 insured employees to the open market? I think not.