Individual mandate

Reason-Rupe: 58 Percent of Americans Expect Employer Mandate Will Lower Pay


A new Reason-Rupe poll finds a majority of Americans (56 percent) favor a provision in the new health care law that requires employers with more than 50 employees to provide health insurance or else pay a fine.

At the same time, 58 percent of Americans expect the employer mandate to drive employers to pay their workers less, 29 percent expect no significant impact on pay. Even among those who support the provision, 50 percent expect employers to reduce pay.

Moreover, nearly half of Americans (47 percent) expect the employer mandate will lead employers to lay off workers. 39 percent think it will not significantly impact employers' hiring decisions.

In the midst of a weak economic recovery, it could be problematic that the public expects this provision to potentially lead to lower incomes and layoffs.

Among those who favor the employer mandate provision, over half (53 percent) do not believe it will lead to layoffs. This suggests more people would oppose the provision if more thought it would result in layoffs. 

However, among those who favor the employer mandate, half expect lower worker pay. One might infer that because of the difficulty and disincentives for accessing portable health insurance, independent of employers, individuals are willing to take a pay cut in order to gain access to the health care market. However, if this regulation were to cause people to lose their jobs they could also lose their access to the health care market.

Full poll results found here.

Nationwide telephone poll conducted March 10th-20th of both mobile and landline phones, 1200 adults, margin of error +/- 3 percent. Columns may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Full methodology can be found here

Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.

NEXT: What We Saw at the San Francisco Marijuana Rally

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. frist!

  2. Remember this one? -“You can keep your Doctor or your plan with this new bill.”

    Unless of course your employer says “nah, cheaper to pay the penalty than provide health insurance. Oh, and I’m gonna keep the difference rather than pay it out in salary. It will make the bottom line look better.”

    Thanks Obama!

    1. Employers could drop health insurance coverage anytime as it is.

      So they are MORE likely now with a fine? Do you think at all?

      1. You’ll probably claim this as propaganda, but here you go stupid-


        Other findings:

        60% of employers said they’ll pursue some alternatives to a traditional employer-sponsored insurance plan ? like weighing a switch to a defined-contribution model, in addition to dropping coverage.
        30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage ? even if they completely compensated employees for the change through higher salaries and adding other benefits.
        85% of employees would remain at their jobs even if their employer stopped offering health insurance.
        60% of employees would expect their compensation to increase if their employer dropped coverage.

        1. Dude…ignore. Just ignore. Just walk away.

          1. hey, that’s my line!

            1. I’m just here for the gasoline.

  3. Tying health insurance to employment is so freaking stupid it boggles the mind, yet it persists and grows. That Democrats have done nothing to change this or even acknowledge the problem says everything you need to know about the healthcare debate. Republicans haven’t been much better.

    1. Whenever I try to make this point to lefties, they all refuse to believe that salaries would increase if employers stopped paying for healthcare.

  4. To the forty two percent who believe it want effect their pay over time, BBWWHAHHAHAHAHA! I’m here to sell you a saddle for your unicorn.

    1. wont effect their pay over time — homophones, the asshole of all language formations.

      1. Don’t be a homophonephobe, dude.

        1. You’re right. I’ll be sure to throw in ‘there’ for ‘their’ and ‘hear’ for ‘here’ next time. Embrace my inner homophone.

          1. Really go for the gold and use “they’re” for “there”. Show how much you aren’t a homophonephobe.

            1. I’m really comfortable around homophones, I just don’t think they deserve special rights like getting married or adopting synonyms.

              1. Look, I don’t need the homophone agenda being pushed on me, OK? And that’s what homophone marriage is all about. I mean, “marry” and “Mary” are not the same!

                1. “Merry and Mary not Adam and Steve!”

    2. But is it a gay unicorn that supports abortion?

      Because that determines both how I purchase and how I vote.

  5. In other news, a majority of Americans still think Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks.

    Polls like this are meaningless except as measures of anything but levels of ignorance. I don’t understand at all why this is interesting. Outcome surveys, in which people are asked now and then a few years from now for solid numbers about their situation before and after the passage of Obamacare, would tell us something about its actual impact: this poll tells us NOTHING.

    1. To be more explicit, this is like polling on a statement of fact: asking people for their opinion about something that is either true or false. It tells us nothing about whether that statement is true or false. In this case, opinions about the impact of Obamacare are about as useful as tits on a bull: they say nothing about Obamacare except its popularity. That by itself is interesting, but you may as well just ask people what their opinion of Obamacare is and skip the pseudoscience.

      1. I’m sorry to interrupt your dinner, but we’re conducting a poll and would like to know if you believe in unicorns.

        1. I believe in unicorns, but not pegassi. The aerodynamics just don’t work out.

    2. Actually this is not quite true.

      There is some value in knowing how people percieve the outcome of a law/policy/whatever will impact them. True it will not give any information on how it actually WILL impact them but knowing how they think it will can give insight into how they will behave leading up to the implementation of the thing.

      So if the majority of Americans believe that the employer mandate will put their job or salary at risk you can expect to see a pull back in consume spending as people hedge against that fear. if they do not expect this then they will behave as normal.

      1. That’s pretty weak:
        (1) Assuming Americans will cut spending for any reason other than actually running out of money is foolish in light of history.
        (2) Even if it happened, it would be a second-order effect at best.
        (3) I am willing to bet the responses here would correlate almost precisely with answers to the question, “Do you support Obamacare?” In other words, it’s just a proxy for the opinion question anyway.

  6. You know what else lowers employee pay? Wall Street fat cats. I AM THE 99%. (Are we still doing that?)

  7. Let’s all chant together:

    Free shit! Free shit! Free shit! Free shit!

    1. I usually try to avoid taking a shit for free by holding it till I’m on company time.

      Nothing like getting paid $25 – $50 bucks to take a dump 🙂

  8. If only a rad science fiction writer could have warned us that There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

  9. This ratherless world rocks! Thanks Reason!

  10. From Savage Love:

    I have an awesome relationship with an awesome guy. He loves me and takes care of me. I’m GGG and he’s vanilla. I only draw the line at poop, animals, and children. But he’s never asked me for anything other than vanilla sex. Which is why I don’t know what to do. I went downstairs late the other night, and he was sitting on the couch masturbating while stroking the cat, which was sitting on his chest. The cat was sitting ON him, Dan, WHILE he was yanking himself. I don’t know if he saw me. I went right back upstairs and went to bed. In the morning, he acted like nothing happened. Now I don’t know what to do. Confront him? Get him help? Get rid of the cat?
    ? Can’t Analyze This…..012-04-05/

    1. Buy lots of Meow Mix

    2. It’s called mutlitasking, woman!

    3. I’d be more weirded out by the cat, not the dude. Cats pick when you get to give them attention….and this cat picked a time when dude was spanking it. He probably swatted at it a few times, the cat flipping its tail in his face and blocking the line of sight to the TV. But, like, he’s spankin-it…what’s he gonna do, get up and chase the cat outside/upstairs? Nah, you just give up and get back to business, and if you gotta pet the cat to keep it from fuckin up your groove, then you pet the cat.

  11. Of course, if the mandate is not defeated, when it reflects in figures down the line showing wage stagnation, the left will use those figures to their rhetorical value. You can count on it.

    1. I mean to they’re advantage. Sorries.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.