Question About Obamacare

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

BLAZER PROPHET

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
18,725
Likes
191
Points
63
Michael Tanner, senior fellow at the Cato Institute:

Under ObamaCare, employers with 50 or more full-time workers must provide health insurance for all their workers, paying at least 65% of the cost of a family policy or 85% of the cost of an individual plan. Moreover, the insurance must meet the federal government’s requirements in terms of what benefits are included, meaning that many businesses that offer insurance to their workers today will have to change to new, more expensive plans.

ObamaCare’s rules make expansion expensive, particularly for the 500,000 US businesses that have fewer than 100 employees.

Suppose that a firm with 49 employees does not provide health benefits. Hiring one more worker will trigger the mandate. The company would now have to provide insurance coverage to all 50 workers or pay a tax penalty.

In New York, the average employer contribution for employer-provided insurance plans, runs from $4,567 for an individual to $ 12,748 for a family. Many companies will likely choose to pay the penalty instead, which is still expensive — $2,000 per worker multiplied by the entire workforce, after subtracting the statutory exemption for the first 30 workers. For a 50-person company, then, the tax would be $40,000, or $2,000 times 20.

That might not seem like a lot, but for many small businesses that could be the difference between survival and failure.

Under the circumstances, how likely is the company to hire that 50th worker? Or, if a company already has 50 workers, isn’t the company likely to lay off one employee? Or cut hours and make some employees part time, thus getting under the 50 employee cap? Indeed, a study by Mercer found that 18% of companies were likely to do exactly that. It’s worth noting that in France, another country where numerous government regulations kick in at 50 workers, there are 1,500 companies with 48 employees and 1,600 with 49 employees, but just 660 with 50 and only 500 with 51.

Overall, according to the Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare could end up costing as many as 800,000 jobs.


The article goes on to state that the loss of anything near this will severely deepen the recession we've lived in for the past 4 years. And how will those people pay the Obamacare tax? I am not totally opposed to national healthcare, but this is shaping up to be a real mess.

How do you think this will all shake out?
 
Last edited:
if there is demand for a 50th worker in the market, then another company should theoretically sprout up and hire that worker if he is let go. now maybe they only hire 49 people, and the process repeats, but the market should determine the demand for workers in any field, not obamacare
 
People will be hired for less than 30 hours. 120 man hours is 3 workers 40 hours or 4 workers 30.
 
The first person to live to be 200 years old has already been born.
 
if there is demand for a 50th worker in the market, then another company should theoretically sprout up and hire that worker if he is let go. now maybe they only hire 49 people, and the process repeats, but the market should determine the demand for workers in any field, not obamacare

Interesting thought.
 
The country voted for Obamacare; it's what we want. There are those of us who warned against it, but everyone else knew better. I hope people enjoy healthcare being turned into the DMV.
 
The British, to save money, are going to let you see the doctor via Skype instead of in person.

Yay.
 
The British, to save money, are going to let you see the doctor via Skype instead of in person.

Yay.

I believe we should have computer doctors with treatment plans done based on best methods
 
Scrap ObamaCare. Give everyone an account on WebMD.

Way cheaper. Just as good - ask barfo!
 
Scrap ObamaCare. Give everyone an account on WebMD.

Way cheaper. Just as good - ask barfo!

Ask me? Sure. I prescribe heroin, and lots of it.

And after all, I *am* a doctor.

barfo
 
My understanding is that Congress can amend the regulations to change the cutoffs. Hopefully it will. The idea was never to put forward a final bill that would solve all health care problems forever, but rather put forward a major step that would then get modified with further legislation as we go along. Like we do with pretty much everything else.

Those who rejoice whenever Congress is in gridlock may want to re-think that. Absence of Congressional activity does not automatically translate into smaller government.
 
Absence of Congressional activity means no DHS, no ObamaCare, no Bush prescription drug benefit for medicare, etc. I'd be happy to give those things up for whatever gridlocked govt. grows by.

Bush's last budget was $3T.
$3T + $3T + $3T + $3T = $12T

Obama's budgets have been $3.6T (increased to $3.8T, but I'll use the $3.6T figure):
$3.6T + $3.6T + $3.6T + $3.6T = $14.4T

A difference of $2.4T.

There was no gridlock when Obama's $3.6T budget passed. There've been no budgets passed by congress since. I'll take the gridlock that would have kept spending at $3T.

But you are on to something. The spending might say $3.6T, but when TARP money is repaid by the banks and spent elsewhere, they play games with the accounting to keep the spending figure down. That is, the money was spent in 2008/2009.

A gridlocked congress or not wouldn't have prevented Bernanke from printing near $3T in money from thin air and spending that, too. It doesn't show up on the govt. spending figures either. It shows up on the balance sheet of the Fed, though we can't audit it.
 
Under ObamaCare, employers with 50 or more full-time workers must provide health insurance for all their workers, paying at least 65% of the cost of a family policy or 85% of the cost of an individual plan. Moreover, the insurance must meet the federal government’s requirements in terms of what benefits are included, meaning that many businesses that offer insurance to their workers today will have to change to new, more expensive plans.

Ouch. Does not bode well for America in a global economy where we're fighting tooth and nail for jobs.
 
Ouch. Does not bode well for America in a global economy where we're fighting tooth and nail for jobs.

you need to also take into account the tax to be applied to each person that does not or can not afford to purchase the level of insurance required under obomacare. The last figures I have seen is as high as 4700.00 depending upon income.
 
BP - I find myself repeatedly going back to this Reddit thread to understand the impact of the ACA. To clarify this issue:

Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty. ( Citation: Page 174, sec. 4980H[39] )

Question: Can't businesses just fire employees or make them work part-time to get around this requirement? Also, what about businesses with multiple locations?

Answer: Yes and no. Switching to part-time only won't help to get out of the requirement, as the Affordable Care Act counts the hours worked, not the number of full-time employees you have. If your employees worked an equivalent of 50 full-time employees' hours, the requirement kicks in. Really, the only plausible way a business could reasonably utilize this strategy is if they currently operate with just over the 50-employee number, and could still operate with under 50 employees, and have no intention to expand. Also, regarding the questions about multiple locations, this[40] legal website analyzed the law and claims that multiple locations in one chain all count as a part of the same business (meaning employers like Wal-Mart can't get around this by being under 50 employees in one store - they'd have to be under that for the entire chain, which just ain't happening). Independently-owned franchises are different, however, as they have a separate owner and as such aren't included under the same net as the parent company. However, any individual franchise with over 50 employees will have to meet the requirement.

Having said that, the ACA only requires employers to offer insurance to full-time employees, so theoretically they could get out of this by reducing all employees to 29 hours or fewer a week. However, if any employees' hours go above that, their employer will have to provide insurance or pay the penalty. And also, this is putting aside how an employer only offering part-time work with no insurance will affect how competitive they are on the job market, especially when small businesses with 25 or fewer employees actually get that aforementioned tax credit to help pay for insurance if they choose to get it (though they are not required to provide insurance).
 
QT Mook

BP - I find myself repeatedly going back to this Reddit thread to understand the impact of the ACA. To clarify this issue:



Nice link, although I consider the suorce. Writer does a good job of putting a happy face on stuff...
 
QT Mook

BP - I find myself repeatedly going back to this Reddit thread to understand the impact of the ACA. To clarify this issue:



Nice link, although I consider the suorce. Writer does a good job of putting a happy face on stuff...

The guy seems pretty liberal, but he also seems to try very hard to present things in as non-partisan way as he can. It's the simplest, most concise, best-referenced and least partisan explanation I've yet seen. I'm always open to something better, though, so if you have something you prefer I'd love to read it.
 
Nice to hear that a company is considered small business if they have under 50 employees.

I have a different view of what a small business is, but like the federal standard as applied to Obamacare.
 
Why do people need health insurance?

How about we start by answering that simple question.

If you could just show up at a clinic and get cared for without having to pay or owe anything, what is the point of insurance?
 
Why do people need health insurance?

How about we start by answering that simple question.

If you could just show up at a clinic and get cared for without having to pay or owe anything, what is the point of insurance?

Ever been to one of those clinics?
 
Ever been to one of those clinics?

I'm making the distinction between CARE and INSURANCE.

If we did away with insurance, why wouldn't govt. run clinics be the best that the rich can be taxed to pay for?
 
It seems to me the problem is that we have insurance companies and the President wants to also pay for a national health care program at the same time. Like being double charged.
 
OK, so instead of paying $500/month for insurance, how about you pay $50 to go to a govt. clinic only when you need to? If you need heart surgery or something, you pay $1000.

If you don't want govt. clinic care, you can deal with a doctor who's not part of the system (a govt. employee) and buy blue cross or whatever.
 
Cato has incorrect facts. There are 28 million businesses in the US. 99% are small business (According to the SBA, less than 500 employees), and actually the vast majority have 25 or fewer employees. There are 20 million one-person businesses in the country: The self-employed, the freelancer, the independent contractor, etc.

Obamacare will help the vast majority of all small business and their employees. The '49 should I hire the 50th' scenario is a red herring.

BTW, helping and knowing about small business is what I do for a living.
 
Cato has incorrect facts. There are 28 million businesses in the US. 99% are small business (According to the SBA, less than 500 employees), and actually the vast majority have 25 or fewer employees. There are 20 million one-person businesses in the country: The self-employed, the freelancer, the independent contractor, etc.

Obamacare will help the vast majority of all small business and their employees. The '49 should I hire the 50th' scenario is a red herring.

BTW, helping and knowing about small business is what I do for a living.

good stuff

and like i said before, if there is a demand for that 50th worker, he will find a job regardless
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top