#Obamacare to cost employers more than $5,000 per employee

Posted by: Phineas on April 2, 2014 at 4:29 pm

**Posted by Phineas

"Obamacare has arrived"

“Obamacare has arrived”

The American Health Policy Institute did something unusual: rather than estimate the effects of Obamacare from the outside, they went to 100 large employers and asked the directly what their expected costs would be over the next ten years. The results were eye-opening — and disturbing:

Obamacare will cost large companies between $4,800 and $5,900 more per employee and add hundreds of millions to their overhead, according to a new survey.


Factoring in the health care law’s added mandates, fees, and regulatory burdens, employers anticipate cost hikes between $163 million and $200 million in 2016, a 4.3 percent increase. By 2023, employers will be paying 8.4 percent more than “what they would otherwise be spending” for their employees’ health care.

In the next 10 years, the total cost of Obamacare to all large American employers is estimated to be from $151 billion to $186 billion, according to the study.

“This study is a c-suite diagnosis of how [the Affordable Care Act] ACA is shaping large employer behavior,” Tevi Troy, president of the American Health Policy Institute, said. “We don’t know yet precisely how employers will react, but the study shows that employers will have to make real changes or incur heavy costs, which means that the ACA will have a significant impact on those in employer-sponsored health care.”

While noting that some will say the results will “lead to more economical use of health care dollars,” the study questions whether the increase in health costs could bring the “end of the employer-sponsored health care system.”

I don’t think there’s any “may” about it: the perverse incentives of Obamacare scream at employers to save money by dumping their insurance plans, pay the fines instead, and let the employees try their luck on the exchanges. (And luck is what they’ll need.)

This, of course, is what was intended all along, part of the Obamacare Trojan Horse that Harry Reid admitted we’re all supposed to ride to the land of single-payer, state-run healthcare. Blowing up the existing health care and insurance industries, which most people were satisfied with, was all part of the plan.

We shall have a chance to comment on said plan next November. I, for one, am looking forward to it. Aren’t you?

Read the rest at the Free Beacon.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

3 Responses to “#Obamacare to cost employers more than $5,000 per employee”


  1. The fallout from this health care fiasco is reminiscent of the old Communist “Five Year Plan”. It seemed all they ever had to show for their efforts was five years of bad weather, and massive malnourishment to boot.

    The commiecrats running for reelection, besides not standing anywhere near Obhammud during the Rose Garden gloat, are whistling past the graveyard over the looming fallout. It will be as bothersome and contentious as the ghost of Banquo.

  2. Tuerqas says:

    One of the biggest problems is that the phrase nobody ‘knows the half of it’ is so applicable to all parts of Gov’t, but especially concerning the ACA. Part of Obamacare that my bank HR wife was telling me about recently was about the new regulations on employment that are a hidden part of the Obamacare law. Banks (and other companies) over 100 employees already had laws on having a certain percentage of minorities on the payroll and (for banks) paid fines for not approving certain numbers of minority loans each year, regardless of other eligibility. I know a specific small town bank of under 10 locations, but just over 100 employees that has paid over a 1/2 million in ‘fines’ each of the last 15 years just for not approving the appropriate number of minority loans. In other words, because they refused to loosen their standards to include bad risk loans, they paid hefty fines right through the era of the housing crash. Of course, had small banks written all of the bad loans that big banks had, they would just have closed their doors and been bought up by the bigger banks, further centralizing the US monetary control.

    Through Obamacare, they now have added fines for not having enough minority and especially disabled employees. They now must have minorities and disabled in every department, ignoring the fact that they have multiple 2-4 person departments. What are they supposed to do, fire enough of their current workers in key departments to hire untrained workers? No, they are supposed to pay the fines. They have nothing to do with ACA, but they are part of the regs from the ACA…Include that in the ACA costs and numbers go up even more dramatically.

  3. Carlos says:

    The idea of hiring minorities and disabled simply because the persons are of defined minority or disabled status is on the surface possibly noble enough, but in real life is really, really ignorant, especially when run by ignorant bureaucraps (which includes most government workers at all levels of government). Liberal/statist “thought” processes do not allow, under any circumstances, for judicious use of common sense.

    Or, as Tuerqas points out, simply another way for government to steal more of our money. I’ll guarantee you, the banks know it’s coming so plan for it with higher fees, so ultimately it’s not the banks but their customers that pay for the stupidity of nanny government – just like with everything else the nanny bureaucraps do.

    And unfortunately, those selfsame nanny bureaucraps are true believers in that nanny government. They just can’t figure out why people like me call them socialists.