General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA CEO's-Eye View of ObamaCare
We currently offer all of our more than 21,000 full- and part-time employees at our Carl's Jr. and Hardee's restaurants access to health insurance. At least since 1999, we have offered all of our crew employees access to affordable plans with an annual benefit cap. We currently offer these plans under a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services, as the ACA prohibits plans with benefit caps.
For restaurant general managers, we offer a more extensive plan where the company pays 60% of the premiums. However, only about 6% of crew-level employees and 60% of general managers sign up for health-insurance coverage.
These low participation rates surprised me. So over the past couple of years I have asked CKE employees what motivated their decisions. Our crew-level workers tend to be younger, and perhaps unsurprisingly some told me they were unconcerned about illness or injury. Others already had insurance through a spouse or parent. A significant number said they declined coverage because they could get medical treatment "for free at the emergency room." Among those who had signed up, many said it was because they were concerned about developing a medical condition (perhaps due to a family history of illness), and then being unable to get affordable coverage due to this pre-existing condition.
These kinds of responses are why I question the ACA's viability. The new law's success depends on young, healthy people who are lower-risk signing up for health insurance to offset the costs of insuring individuals who are at higher risk. If predominantly high-risk individuals sign up, health insurance is going to be very expensive. Yet, even after the ACA takes effect, people will still be able to get medical care at the emergency room. Further, the ACA prohibits insurers from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions. In other words, individuals will no longer have much incentive to get health insurance as a hedge against the possibility of developing a medical condition.
This is why I am concerned that the ACA could actually cause the number of our covered employees to decrease, particularly in the first year. The penalty for declining coverage will be low compared with the cost of coverage; and employees will know that if they happen to get sick, they can get insurance after that. So the economically rational decision for young people, like our crew employees, is to pay the penalty and forego the insurance. Despite what the government may believe, our employees are smart enough to figure this out.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323309404578613653344566068.html#printMode
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
djean111
(14,255 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Now there's no incentive to grandfather yourself in to a plan because pre-existing conditions are not a problem.
CTyankee
(63,945 posts)Also, I don't get the logic here. If the ACA prohibits denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions, why is there fear of signing up earlier, rather than later? Seems to me that you could reason that getting your medical insurance all lined up a) prevents any hassles in the actual process of signing up before some catastrophe strikes (such as an accident) and b) you have health care even if you move out of your parents house before you are 26 yrs. old.
Also consider if you are a young female. You can get your contraceptives cheaply under the ACA. That's a no brainer to me as a woman! Plus, the services of a GYN or a PA in a gynecologist's office.
djean111
(14,255 posts)This is why a Medicare for all would work better - lots of healthy people, all people paying into the system, profit not relevant.
CTyankee
(63,945 posts)And I think it will improve over time and get us to Medicare for All at some point.
dkf
(37,305 posts)By a pre-existing condition.
That incentive is no longer there as pre-existing conditions will no longer prevent access.
CTyankee
(63,945 posts)were suddenly in an accident, e.g., and needed the health care coverage to be already in place.
But I understand that kids think they're bullet proof. The only way around their inertia is to convince them that they need to do this as a matter of personal responsibility. No excuses. I don't think this is primarily the employer's responsibility (altho a good case could be made by management to encourage such maturity in its younger workers) but rather a responsibility of the ACA to get that message across, primarily through the media.
Yavin4
(35,475 posts)Maybe. Maybe not. This is oft repeated phrase is taken as fact. Let's see the policy enacted and then we can measure it. I'm not so sure that young people won't sign up.
If we find in two years that the penalty-accrual rate is too high, we can raise the penalty. If we find that Obamacare is resulting in rates that are too high, we can tweak it or add a public option to tamp down on rates and the amount of overhead and profit the insurers can take and remain competitive. Lots of "if____, then____."
At this point, we don't know anything. It hasn't started yet--we can make educated projections and theorize how it's supposed to work, but we know nothing of how it is working. The ACA bill isn't the end of the solution to healthcare in America...it's the beginning of the solution to healthcare in America. It's not going to stay static, we'll fix it as problems make themselves known.
dkf
(37,305 posts)What you suggest.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)they're invincible
and broke
and working shit shifts w/ no notice for 5 to 25 hours a week
Yavin4
(35,475 posts)There is truth in your statement, but it's not the complete truth.
There are young people who would buy health insurance if available, and they have the means to do so. They work for startups or are independent contractors.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
on point
(2,506 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Who posted this nonsense?
Oh, yeah . . .
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Andrew Puzder is CEO of CKE Restaurants, Inc., which employs about 21,000 people at Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s restaurants. He is an economic adviser to presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
http://www.humanevents.com/author/apuzder/
more
even more
bluedeathray
(511 posts)Must be a socialized medical system. We can no longer afford to subsidize a "middle man" corporate structure.
One which contributes nothing, sucks value out of the system, and denies benefits to a substantial number of people who have paid for benefits and then end up either developing increased level of disease and sickness due to lack of treatment, or just die.
For example: In 2008, Aetna paid the exiting CEO about 1.4 percent of the company's net, or $18,058,162.
http://financialservices.about.com/od/CompRelatedFA/i/Total-Compensation-Of-Ceos-At-Health-Insurance-Companies.htm
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Most companies pay between 70% and 80% of the premium. For them to pay only 60%, coupled with what I imagine are minimum wage level jobs for "crew members", means they simply can't afford the coverage.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)ceonupe
(597 posts)That's not rich but pretty good.
On the low end Carl's jr / Hardee's pay about .50-$1 more than similar chain fast food. Not quite as much as chickfila but more than your avg McDonald's or Burger King
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)The story in the OP states that 60% of managers take the insurance; however, only 6% of "crew members" do. It is simply unafforable for most of them.
Even presuming full-time work of 40 hours/week and 50 weeks a year, the extra $0.50/hour amounts to $1000 pre-tax, probably $750 after taxes. Per year. We don't know from the article what the health plan design is, but if it is typical it means that at these subsidy levels the crew member would have to spend 15%-20% of their take home pay to take the insurance.
fglad
(25 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Yes you get a visit but assuming there is something really wrong with you - something chronic. Where do you go after the ER? At the most they may give you medication for what ails you but any follow up is not what they do. So what are these people who advocate for ER medical assistance expecting someone who is really sick to do?
Oh, yeah, "Die quickly!" I forgot.
mulsh
(2,959 posts)even more impressive is the way he show true insight into the needs of disparate groups of employees. It's good to know there are altruistic CEO"s like this one looking out for the little guy. With such poor sign up rates for CKE"s health plans its a wonder they just don't cancel health care altogether. Further kudos for getting a waiver to maintain those benefit caps.
Articles like this are part of the reason I read the WSJ with a healthy dose of skepticism.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Yes, because surely the only reason people want to avoid getting diseases is to save money.
What utter horseshit.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
liberal N proud
(60,365 posts)Not 100 times but closer to 1000 times more.
Simply put, they cannot afford it!