Some of this probably has its roots in the ACA adding extra taxes onto “Cadillac insurance plans” though which I didn’t even learn about until recently. Yes, apparently you may need to pay extra taxes for extra good insurance
Some of this probably has its roots in the ACA adding extra taxes onto “Cadillac insurance plans” though which I didn’t even learn about until recently. Yes, apparently you may need to pay extra taxes for extra good insurance
Anyway, just trying to frame my logic here, because I don't consider myself an evil employer trying to skimp on health insurance for my employees (which many I consider friends), but an employer that has to approve health plan changes annually which each increase cost by a considerable amount. If this trend continues, each employee will cost $900 a month within 5 years, and the coverage will be half as good. That's $5k a year per employee that I could put into their salaries, while not screwing anyone over on the worst case scenario.
This falls apart in practice when employees, who are already spread thin financially, elect an HDHP but can't or won't set aside cash to cover expenses.
My comment was only to serve as counterpoint that companies aren't all looking at an HSA because they want to screw people over. Many are looking at an HSA based health plan because they are increasingly becoming more attractive as benefits shrink while becoming more expensive. Again, I am friends with my coworkers, my family is on the same health plan, and I have everyone's best interest in mind, and I wouldn't approach the decision lightly. Obviously there are shitty people out there managing employer plans, I don't speak for them!
This said, the tax on these sorts of plans are absolutely necessary with regard to controlling costs within the system, as cadillac plans which pay providers more for care, give them increasing amounts of leverage to demand payout increases from every other cheaper insurance plan.