An analysis published in Fortune ( see here ) makes a strong case for many employers to do just that."If you like your health care plan you can keep it"). Note to the leaders at AMA and ACP -can you say unintended consequences? On one of the other hands,could it be that the plan was to do that all along?
It seems to be a matter of doing the math. For example, the article says ATT now spends about 2.4 billion per year in health care costs and if they drop coverage and pay the penalties they will pay out 600 million.So if companies go that route, who pays for at least some of the cost of the shift to the exchanges.The government does in the form of subsidies which will invalidate the accuracy of the alleged savings from PPACA which has already been shown to be a bogus projection.
Did the brilliant planners in the administration and congress not see this coming or maybe that was the plan all along.Was the plan really to get employers out of the health care insurance business and move everyone over to the exchanges wherein insurance companies can be made to fail by the government setting the rates too low and and coverages too broad and then coming to the rescue with a single payer which is what Obama said he wanted all
Dr. Paul Hsieh makes the case here for a scenario in which the health care insurers tank and the government rides in and saves the day.