the Semi-retired and the health care act

[Texas Proud]

That's not what I said. If you just want to rant, go ahead, but if you want to have a conversation then reply to what is written, not your corruption thereof.

Your EXACT quote:


"They simply shouldn't have exempted small companies - from anything."


No corruption on my part. Again, maybe you did not mean what you put down, but what you put down can have no other meaning.

 

[bUU]

Your EXACT quote:


"They simply shouldn't have exempted small companies - from anything."

Correct - THAT is what I said, not what you corrupted it into. What I wrote included this (which you oh-so-conveniently failed to read, or feigned to fail to read):

Either it is (in which case the public, i.e., society through its government, could, in "the public interest", make up for the extra burdens that small businesses would otherwise have to shoulder, rather than foisting those burdens on either of the two "innocent victims" in the situation, i.e., the business and the employees), or it isn't (in which case a system where everything is applied evenly is what's proper). I don't have a preference between the two - I only object to the idea that the heaviest burdens be placed on the weakest folks in the situation. That's basically economic bullying.

The comments you have already posted clearly pre-selected the first choice ("it is"), which implies a reliance on the comments in bold above to understand what you're reading.

 

[Texas Proud]

Correct - THAT is what I said, not what you corrupted it into. What I wrote included this (which you oh-so-conveniently failed to read, or feigned to fail to read):

Originally Posted by bUU
Either it is (in which case the public, i.e., society through its government, could, in "the public interest", make up for the extra burdens that small businesses would otherwise have to shoulder, rather than foisting those burdens on either of the two "innocent victims" in the situation, i.e., the business and the employees), or it isn't (in which case a system where everything is applied evenly is what's proper). I don't have a preference between the two - I only object to the idea that the heaviest burdens be placed on the weakest folks in the situation. That's basically economic bullying.




The comments you have already posted clearly pre-selected the first choice ("it is"), which implies a reliance on the comments in bold above to understand what you're reading.

You made that quote in a different post... if you had said that in the post I quoted, then you can argue that I left something out that made it appear different than it was... you are now trying to tie two post together and make them one.... so who is trying to corrupt a post

I did not corrupt your post... it is what it is...

 

[bUU]

Rationalize it any way you want. Presumably now you've read all my comments... do you have anything to say about them or is this issue dead?

 

[samclem]

Here we go again . . . Definitely a pattern.

 

[Texas Proud]

Rationalize it any way you want. Presumably now you've read all my comments... do you have anything to say about them or is this issue dead?

I am not rationalizing at all, just showing your quotes as you quoted them.

But sure, why not.

Your first post indicated that small business should not be exempt from a number of laws. I disagreed with that and posted about it. (which you seem to not like).

Your second post indicated two ways that this can be fixed. I had not weighed in on this. Your quote:

"Either it is (in which case the public, i.e., society through its government, could, in "the public interest", make up for the extra burdens that small businesses would otherwise have to shoulder, rather than foisting those burdens on either of the two "innocent victims" in the situation, i.e., the business and the employees), or it isn't (in which case a system where everything is applied evenly is what's proper). I don't have a preference between the two - I only object to the idea that the heaviest burdens be placed on the weakest folks in the situation. That's basically economic bullying."

I disagree with this also. I do not want our government to be spending tax dollars on different things in 'the public interest' for every business out there. This is not the job of gvmt. Politicians have gone out of their way to get gvmt involved with almost every aspect of life. There needs to be less of it.

I also do not see putting major burdens on small companies that they can not afford. The employees of that company knows what they are getting when they are hired. Nobody bullied them into taking that job. If they do not like it, they can look for another at a large company. (but small companies actually hire more people than large ones, so there are not that many jobs out there is there)

The health care act is placing huge burdens on small companies. There are plenty of them that will make changes to their workforce to get around the rules. If you now have 55 people, you will find a way to get by with 49. Those 6 people will be out of a job. If you required the company to pay for all of them, then maybe all 55 will be out of a job. You would say 'great', that is the way it should be. I would think that the people who lost their job might not feel the same way.


If you want to fix the problem, then do as others have suggested... take it away as an incentive for the company to provide. In fact, make it illegal for a company to provide any kind of insurance to their employees. I own a car and my company does not pay for that insurance. I own a house and they do not pay for that. So why are they paying for my health insurance (Don't get me wrong, I do not want this to happen, just putting it down as an argument)

 

[bUU]

Ziggy alluded to the crux of the problem, the fact that small businesses don't have the buying power that large businesses do, so I suggested we fix that. It's easily done: Require insurers to charge the same price to provide health insurance for John, whether John is working for a small company or a large company, or self-employed, or not covered by an employer (i.e., paying the penalty).

Others have suggested going to single-payer. That would work, too. Again, the point here is that it is wrong to shift the problem onto the backs of those least able to pay to solve them.

 

[ERhoosier]

Getting back towards OP, I know no one who happens to be semi-retired while running a business with 49 vs 51 FT employees. AFAIK it's more likely a semi-retiree would be under 65 (pre-Medicare) and doing PT consulting (i.e. fraction of single FTE). I may be reading this wrong, but it appears that such a person (if structured as a 1 person small business) might qualify for up to 50% tax credit for buying HI if his/her ave wage were $25k (phased out for ave wage $50k).
Affordable Care Act (ACA) | SBA.gov

Seems to me this would be more advantageous than using the HI premium subsidy under the Exchanges. Or am I missing something?

 

[samclem]

I may be reading this wrong, but it appears that such a person (if structured as a 1 person small business) might qualify for up to 50% tax credit for buying HI if his/her ave wage were $25k (phased out for ave wage $50k).

It looks like this might work, but we'd have to be sure there's no 'catch" (e.g. doesn't apply to sole proprietors, etc).

But it looks like it's not as beneficial as simply being uninsured and taking the check from the taxpayers to use at the exchange.

According to the KFF calculator (single person age 55, moderate cost location) a person with no employer insurance earning $25K would get a subsidy of $6768 and have to pay $1726 out of pocket for premiums. So, he'd be better off with the subsidies than the tax credit mentioned on the SBA page (that credit only pays up to 50% of the premiums). A person earning $45K still gets 50% of his premium paid by the government subsidy. Given the phase-out of the employer credit mentioned on the SBA site between 25K and 50K, it sounds like the regular ol' subsidy is still a better deal (for the individual, not for the taxpayers--but I digress)

Getting back towards OP

. . .your idea doesn't apply, because he's an employee. But, it could be helpful to others.

 

[Buckeye]

Can a company offer health insurance but make the employee pay virtually all of the premium so that offering health insurance doesn't really cost the company much?

 

[samclem]

Can a company offer health insurance but make the employee pay virtually all of the premium so that offering health insurance doesn't really cost the company much?

If a company doesn't offer insurance now, I don't know why it would be a problem (legally) for them to give explicit notice to their employees of their intent to reduce wages enough to cover the costs. Employees would then have the opportunity to seek other employment if they choose.
The only problem might be minimum wage laws. Also, since insurance costs would be higher for older employees or those who smoke, there might be lawsuits if the employers reduced pay based on these factors--it would be safer to just make it a consistent amount per hour for all workers (young folks take it in the gut again!)

 

[Buckeye]

If a company doesn't offer insurance now, I don't know why it would be a problem (legally) for them to give explicit notice to their employees of their intent to reduce wages enough to cover the costs. Employees would then have the opportunity to seek other employment if they choose.
The only problem might be minimum wage laws. Also, since insurance costs would be higher for older employees or those who smoke, there might be lawsuits if the employers reduced pay based on these factors--it would be safer to just make it a consistent amount per hour for all workers (young folks take it in the gut again!)

Wouldn't the employee have the choice whether to participate? Seems like you are describing compulsory participation. Would the employee then have to pay a fine because they were not purchasing health insurance or purchase their own policy that may be cheaper because it has a higher deductible than what the employer is offering?

Not sure what the new law requires in terms of participation rates, cost sharing, etc. but it seems like companies could force employees to pay a significant portion of the premium just like they do today. I think I was paying about 50% of the premium at one company I worked for. Many of the hourly employees did not purchase the health insurance because they couldn't afford it.

 

[samclem]

Wouldn't the employee have the choice whether to participate?

Well, unless the company is small (fewer than 50 full time employees) the government says they must provide insurance to employees who work more than 30 hours per week. If the company doesn't then they have to pay a fine (or tax--it depends on the day). If the company has to insure everyone, then I don't know how they could let one or more employees opt out (i.e. keep the higher pay). And the policies will also have employee co-pays, etc.

Lowering cash compensation to pay for health insurance is exactly what companies do anyway. Doing it explicitly just makes the whole situation more honest and transparent.

 

[Buckeye]

Well, unless the company is small (fewer than 50 full time employees) the government says they must provide insurance to employees who work more than 30 hours per week.

Doesn't "provide" just mean "make available for the employee to purchase if he wants to?" Can't companies offer insurance but keep their costs relatively low by shifting most of the cost of the premium to the employee if he wants coverage through the company's plan? Some employees may not be able to afford the premium but that's the employee's problem/choice and the company has met its obligation?

I may be misunderstanding what the word "provide" means wrt the PPA.

 

[samclem]

This Page has a good synopsis of most of the factors involved in the employer-provided insurance side of the equation. The employers are fined if they don't actually contribute to buying the specified coverage and if any employee gets government subsidies as a result. So, making insurance available for employees to purchase would not be sufficient to meet this requirement. Given this, I don't think a company can make a worker pay for the coverage. But, reducing paid compensation to workers so that the company can buy the insurance is a different matter. The employee never had the money, so he didn't buy the insurance.
But I'm certainly not a lawyer.

 

[Texas Proud]

Doesn't "provide" just mean "make available for the employee to purchase if he wants to?" Can't companies offer insurance but keep their costs relatively low by shifting most of the cost of the premium to the employee if he wants coverage through the company's plan? Some employees may not be able to afford the premium but that's the employee's problem/choice and the company has met its obligation?

I may be misunderstanding what the word "provide" means wrt the PPA.

Looking at the link Samclem provided... I saw

"minimum essential coverage Minimum essential coverage in relation to employer-sponsored health care coverage:
Coverage that is “affordable,” offers the required essential health benefits, and pays at least 60 percent of the total allowed costs of the plan benefits (or actuarial value). )"


So, it seems the company has to pay 60% for it to count.... just providing coverage is not enough....