Human Resources News & Insights

Home : Healthcare Reform

Healthcare Reform

Reform law to stay or go? What employers, individuals say

by June 12, 2012 3 Comments

Two recent surveys have revealed where employers and the voting public stand on the healthcare reform law.

It won’t be long now before we know the fate of the law, as the Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of the month whether part or all of it should be struck down.

But what we do know, thanks to a survey by The New York Times and CBS News, is where a chunk of the voting public stands on the law:

  • 41% want the entire law overturned
  • 27% want the individual mandate requiring Americans to obtain health insurance to be struck down
  • 24% want the entire law kept intact, and
  • 8% had no response.

Takeaway: More than two-thirds (68%) want at least part of the law overturned.

What employers think

In addition, the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans (IFEBP) asked employers whether they thought the law would be overturned.

Their responses:

  • 66% think the individual mandate will be struck down but other pieces of reform will be kept intact
  • 19% think the entire law will remain intact, and
  • 15% think just the individual mandate will be struck down.

The IFEBP also asked employers and worker representatives which provisions they’d like to see reinstated should the entire reform law be thrown out.

Employers’ top three:

  1. The ability to offer more wellness incentives (33%)
  2. The mandate that insurers cannot turn away individuals with pre-existing conditions (23%), and
  3. The requirement to cover dependent children up to age 26 (22%).

Workers’ top three:

  1. The requirement to cover dependent children up to age 26 (59%)
  2. The mandate that insurers cannot turn away individuals with pre-existing conditions (34%), and
  3. The rule that eliminates participants’ cost-sharing for preventive services (32%).

Takeaway: Both employers and workers strongly favor the enactment of provisions that require insurers to cover dependent children and stop turning away those with pre-existing conditions.

Info: The New York Times and CBS News survey received 976 responses from adults, and the IFEBP survey received 1,027 responses from plan administrators, trustees and organizational representatives from private businesses, multi-employer trust funds and public employers.

 

Categories: Healthcare Reform, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Pay and Benefits
Tags: , , ,

Other Posts You Might Like

Subscribe Today

Get the latest and greatest Human Resources news and insights delivered to your inbox.
  • Common Sense

    It really shouldn’t matter what employers or individuals think about whether or not they think Obamacare should be overturned. It is simply unconstitutional. The federal government simply does not have the power to mandate the purchase of insurance. If the mandate is correctly deemed unconstitutional by the court then the entire law must be scrapped since Democrat lawmakers had deliberately removed the severability clause from the law during the legislation process.

    This whole endeavor should prove to be a blunder of epic proportions that has wasted billions and billions of taxpayer dollars.

    P.S. The article says: “Takeaway: Both employers and workers strongly favor the enactment of provisions that require insurers to … stop turning away those with pre-existing conditions.”

    How do they takeaway that notion. It appears to me that only 23% of the employers and 32% of the workers would want that provision reinstated if/when the entire reform law be thrown out.

  • MMAN

    I have to disagree with the provision that requires coverage for dependents up to age 26. I dropped out of college at age 19 to get married at age 20. I knew full well that if I did this I would need to get out there and work for a living and stand on my own two feet. I got my own job and health insurance through my employer. To me, this is yet another disincentive for young people who need to grow up and stand on their own two feet. While I am not saying that I wouldn’t take advantage of this benefit for my own children because most others will, I do not feel it should be a necessity.

    @Common Sense…the federal government requiring people to purchase their own healthcare insurance, you say is unconstitutional and be that as it may because I don’t disagree with you on that. However, states mandate the purchase of auto insurance so my question is what’s the difference. I know that some may say that auto insurance is a mandate to protect other people on the road rather than the individual because you can only purchase liability insurance for that purpose. With that said, it could also be argued that the mandate for health insurance also protects “other individuals” from footing healthcare bills for those who would otherwise not care if they have it or not because it has become such a perceived entitlement for so many.

    It seems to me that those same people who argue that they shouldn’t be footing the bill for the uninsured or underinsured are the same people who argue against the individual mandate which could potentially curb this problem. That to me just doesn’t make good sense.

  • Common Sense

    @MMAN Your question about footing the bill for uninsured’s misses the point. There is a huge difference between what the states are allowed to do and what the federal government is able to do. The constitution enumerates the specific powers granted to the federal government. The powers not granted to the fed’s or prohibited to the states are reserved for the states. If a state mandates that all citizens wear purple hats on Tuesday’s, it is within their constitutional rights to do so. The founding fathers were deeply concerned about the potential for abuse by the federal government and that is why the fed’s powers were so limited and specific. Unfortunately the founding fathers fear’s have in many ways come to fruition. If the Obamacare mandate is allowed to stand it will be fully realized as there will no longer be any real restrictions upon the federal governments power upon the states and it’s citizens. The question becomes: If the Federal Government can mandate the purchase of insurance then what restrictions if any would be left? Could they mandate the purchase of spinach, gym memberships, sun tan lotion, Jane Fonda work-out tapes, subscriptions to MSNBC… all in the name of the greater good.

    If proponents of Obamacare wish to enact the individual mandate they must first amend the constitution via the avenues provided within.

    Don’t feel bad that you did not know this. Many people (even our esteemed president who once taught constitutional law and some ACLU lawyers on the Supreme Court) are seemingly unaware or are willfully ignorant of this basic tenet of the constitution.