Vox: Why losing your employer health insurance is now good news



Sarah Kliff today: https://t.co/ZyhA2IDwMi Sarah Kliff in 2011: http://t.co/gRFJTGuHBMpic.twitter.com/8sISPE169O

— Jimmy (@JimmyPrinceton) October 8, 2014

@justkarl @JimmyPrinceton Are you saying a JuiceVoxer is both two-faced and disingenuous and not especially intelligent?

— Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) October 8, 2014

Back in 2011 Sarah Kliff wrote this about the effects of Obamacare:

The cost of switching to an insurance exchange

For the employer, dropping coverage is a pretty decent deal: A company would see its health care costs reduced by over 40 percent. They don’t drop to zero, however, since the employer would still be on the hook for the fines that come along with not offering coverage.

But for the employee, it’s a pretty lousy deal. Lockton ran the numbers, using data on how much employers pay for health insurance now and how much health insurance on the exchanges is projected to cost.They found that employers foot a significantly larger chunk of the insurance bill than the federal government would, even with the new subsidies they’d receive. The firm predicts their premiums would increase anywhere from 79 to 125 percent if they lose employer coverage and have to go to the exchange. There’s such a big variation because exchange subsidies vary by income: Those who earn less are eligible for a larger subsidy.

But today…

Tens of thousands of Walmart workers are about to lose their health insurance — and here's why it's good news: http://t.co/EUmHPxyVus

— Vox (@voxdotcom) October 8, 2014

Sarah Kliff’s new outlook on low wage employees losing their insurance coverage.

There are obvious benefits to getting health insurance at work. For one, employer-sponsored insurance is not taxed, meaning that every dollar of compensation provided as medical coverage stretches further. Individual market plans, meanwhile, are purchased with post-tax dollars. The only way to get in on the tax exemption is to buy coverage at work.

But for low-wage workers, Obamacare  has introduced a new and big drawback to the employer  insurance. Namely, anybody who gets access to affordable coverage at work is barred from getting subsidies through the new exchanges. This is even true for people who don’t buy insurance at work; just the act of getting offered employer coverage blocks individuals from using getting financial help.

.@voxdotcom Because they'll become dependents of the state. #savedyouaclick

— Rob Sterling (@Mr_Sterling) October 8, 2014

Sane ppl: We shld make it easier for biz to create good-paying full-time jobs @voxdotcom : part-time work &subsidies to barely get by–yay!

— Krystle (@TarheelKrystle) October 8, 2014

I'm wondering when @voxdotcom will realize that their piece confirmed what the right predicted before "A"CA passage: expensive & costs jobs

— Krystle (@TarheelKrystle) October 8, 2014

.@voxdotcom You are awful people.

— jon gabriel (@exjon) October 8, 2014

@NumbersMuncher @voxdotcom It's amazing how many things Vox can spin into "good news"

— Maxwell (@maxplaining) October 8, 2014

@exjon @voxdotcom just imagine them 8 years ago "4.6% unemployment, and why that's a bad thing"

— The Krackerjam (@KeviKev10) October 8, 2014

@voxdotcom More people are getting herpes – and here's why thats good.

— FT (@FauxToure) October 8, 2014

@exjon @voxdotcom Vox is going bankrupt. Here's why it's good news.

— Shoebart (@theshoebart) October 8, 2014

If only.

Read more: http://twitchy.com/2014/10/08/vox-why-losing-your-employer-health-coverage-is-good-news/