Video: Will ObamaCare drive businesses out of providing health insurance?

posted at 2:10 pm on March 24, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

In a word, yes, and that’s not just me talking. Last night, CBS did a perspective on how ObamaCare’s mandates and tax incentives will impact small businesses, which Democrats insist will see benefits from the ObamaCare largesse. The only problem is that the system actually incentivizes businesses to pay penalties and throw their employees into the government-run exchanges:


Watch CBS News Videos Online

• Businesses with fewer than 25 employees that pay an average of no more than $40,000 will get a tax credit – up to 35 percent of the company’s share of their total health care premium.

• Companies with 26-49 workers are unaffected.

• Businesses with 50 or more workers must offer coverage or pay $750 per worker. That penalty applies for every employee if even one signs up for government-subsidized insurance.

But there are potential problems. Case in point: It would be much cheaper for Dick Bus to drop the generous coverage he now offers and take the hit at $750 a head for his 120 workers. The penalty would be $90,000 a year. He’s currently spending $480,000.

Bus would save $390,000, but canceling his plan would force his workers to the health plan exchange and could cost more than they’re paying now. The Senate is considering an increase in the $750 penalty to prevent that scenario.

Bus insists that he won’t cut his employees loose, which is certainly noble, but unrealistic. If his competitors do it and lower their costs, allowing them to lower prices on their products and services, Bus will have to follow suit or go out of business. Small businesses already operate on tight margins, and this will be an easy business decision for those companies, at least when their CEO isn’t on camera.

In an otherwise good and balanced report, CBS misses another strange incentive. As listed above, small businesses only become eligible for the credits if their average salary remains below $40,000. That means a decision to give raises not only carries the cost of the raise itself to the business, but also a potential loss of that 35% subsidy ObamaCare grants. This will have the overall effect of suppressing salaries and putting experienced workers at a disadvantage in hiring decisions. It also provides an incentive to keep the workforce under 26 people; the 26th hire eliminates that 35% subsidy as well, making it a very expensive new position.

ObamaCare sets all of its incentives to oppose growth. Can anyone wonder at the impact this will have on the economy?

Update: One other anti-growth incentive, as Mark the Great points out in the comments: businesses with 50-60 workers have a big incentive now to downsize.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

It is the single payer system in disguise…when are we going to wake up?

d1carter on March 24, 2010 at 2:12 PM

Will ObamaCare drive businesses out of providing health insurance?

That is after all, the goal.

MarkTheGreat on March 24, 2010 at 2:12 PM

Repeal the bill. Cease funding in 2011, vote up repeal, make 2012 about signing repeal.

Chris_Balsz on March 24, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Companies with 26-49 workers are unaffected.

Companies with 50 to 60 workers, will find themselves with a huge incentive to get rid of a few workers.

MarkTheGreat on March 24, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Cloward-Piven baby! Learn it, live it, Hate it!

Chip on March 24, 2010 at 2:14 PM

That is after all, the goal.

MarkTheGreat on March 24, 2010 at 2:12 PM

No. The goal is to bring down not only America, but western civilization. This is just one of the many means.

LibTired on March 24, 2010 at 2:14 PM

that’s been my fear all along…i work for a hospital, but whose to say they won’t drop us to save some $$$

cmsinaz on March 24, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Of course we all new this but Granny McBotox and Lincoln Jesus didn’t care. Only that mattered to them was power and a political victory.

Shame on the 53% of this country that handed this man the keys to the White House. What a blight on American history this man has become.

jawkneemusic on March 24, 2010 at 2:14 PM

A non-event in the long run.

robertnyc212 on March 24, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Those under 40K salaries should work out great when we add a VAT and continue with the Weimar Republic monetary policy. Come to the cabaret, old chum.

Mr. D on March 24, 2010 at 2:15 PM

As if every single business in America won’t eventually fall under this disaster; too much lost revenue for our new insect overlords.

My guys aren’t going to appreciate it when I tell them I’m now going to start paying them in rock candy, glass beads and cheap whiskey.

Bishop on March 24, 2010 at 2:16 PM

These Do Good’ers always end up doing you over REAL good.

I’m not buying the idea that the dems didn’t think of this ahead of time. They want people off private healthcare all together. They also want people to hate their companies. It’s the worker vs. everyone mentality they want to flourish.

portlandon on March 24, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Guess I better learn to eat a lot less…

OmahaConservative on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

One of the biggest beneficiaries of this bill will be the makers of automated equipment. No employees, no health care costs.

MarkTheGreat on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Bus insists that he won’t cut his employees loose, which is certainly noble, but unrealistic. If his competitors do it and lower their costs, allowing them to lower prices on their products and services, Bus will have to follow suit or go out of business. Small businesses already operate on tight margins, and this will be an easy business decision for those companies, at least when their CEO isn’t on camera.

–There’s nothing now that prevents Bus from cancelling their insurance and saving the whole $480,000 other than competitive pressure from other potential employers.

Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Here is an example even crr6 could understand:

Business with 40 employees paying an average of $40K a year per employee.

In 2014 that business will have to pay $2K per employee as a fine. That’s $80K a year….or the salary of 2 employees. Which means either the business lays off 2 people or doesn’t hire 2 people when it needs to. In either case that is 2 full time $40K a year jobs eliminated.

But hey, ObamaCare won’t affect anyone adversely making under $200K a year righ?

Sure.

angryed on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Companies will simply stop paying health benefits because the fine is cheaper.

The more rich companies will hire a doctor on as an employee to take care of every-day clinical issues because it will be cheaper.

Millions of Americans will lose their health care because there is no alternative for another four years.

Enoxo on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

The Senate is considering an increase in the $750 penalty to prevent that scenario.

This is the sleeper sentence.
Any time they want to “regulate” they just increase the taxes.

“The power to tax is the power to destroy”, stated John Marshall.

right2bright on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

My corporation has 9000+ employees. Do you think they pay more than $6,750,000.00 to provide us healthcare?

ladyingray on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Is that a $750 a year penalty?

Is there a business out there, that offers a credible insurance packages, that spends less than $750 a year on average for their employee premiums?

I guess math really is hard….

cs89 on March 24, 2010 at 2:18 PM

It is going to throw average Americans who actually toil for a living into a government nightmare, kill jobs and punish businesses.

This is exactly what this bill is meant to do.

Key West Reader on March 24, 2010 at 2:18 PM

The House-Passed Health Care Plan Revisited: Employer Mandate Penalties on Small Firms
===================================
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/The-House-Passed-Health-Care-Plan-Revisited-Employer-Mandate-Penalties-on-Small-Firms

canopfor on March 24, 2010 at 2:18 PM

OmahaConservative on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

mac and cheese 2/$1

cmsinaz on March 24, 2010 at 2:18 PM

A non-event in the long run.

robertnyc212 on March 24, 2010 at 2:15 PM

I guess if you don’t work.

dmann on March 24, 2010 at 2:18 PM

The best part is that Obama made the exchanges sound just so darn good, people like Dick Bus can dump them into the exchange, pocket $400k AND feel good about it.

Win/win for the rich and greedy!

Chuck Schick on March 24, 2010 at 2:18 PM

I’ll close up shop before I’ll play the ObamaScare game. My accounting costs are going to skyrocket with all this new crap.

Knucklehead on March 24, 2010 at 2:19 PM

A non-event in the long run.

robertnyc212 on March 24, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Yea, for those of you who don’t work, don’t own a business, don’t have any ambition to better yourselves. Your right, it’s a non-event.

PappaMac on March 24, 2010 at 2:19 PM

robertnyc212 on March 24, 2010 at 2:15 PM

AnninCA off, loser.

OmahaConservative on March 24, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Here is an example even crr6 could understand:

angryed on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

I don’t understand
crr6 on March 23, 2010 at 2:20 PM

right2bright on March 24, 2010 at 2:19 PM

One of the biggest beneficiaries of this bill will be the makers of automated equipment. No employees, no health care costs.
MarkTheGreat on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

But then who will make the automated equipment? They too could use automation but would need someone else to make automated machines for them to make automated machines to replace people. And on and on.

Oh yeah, China could do it, almost forgot about them.

Any recommendations for for a good Chinese language program?

Bishop on March 24, 2010 at 2:20 PM

A non-event in the long run.
robertnyc212 on March 24, 2010 at 2:15 PM

The end of an industry is not a non-event. You are talking about people’s livelihoods.

kingsjester on March 24, 2010 at 2:20 PM

My corporation has 9000+ employees. Do you think they pay more than $6,750,000.00 to provide us healthcare?

ladyingray on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

–The answer is almost certainly yes. Companies pay roughly $1300-$2000+ (depending on location and a bunch of other things) yearly for health care insurance for a family of four. That would be reduced by the employee contribution for insurance.

Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Here is an example even crr6 could understand:

Business with 40 employees paying an average of $40K a year per employee…..

angryed on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Employee? What is an employee? Work? Never heard of it.

crr6 on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

portlandon on March 24, 2010 at 2:20 PM

PappaMac on March 24, 2010 at 2:19 PM

I do ok.

robertnyc212 on March 24, 2010 at 2:20 PM

ObamaCare sets all of its incentives to oppose growth.

Intentional.

And this is the Senate bill, not Dear Liar’s bill, so there are many Fascist-Democrats who want to destroy America. And capitalism.

rbj on March 24, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Companies with 50 to 60 workers, will find themselves with a huge incentive to get rid of a few workers.

MarkTheGreat on March 24, 2010 at 2:14 PM

I believe the penalties/fees only start with worker number 50. Hiring a 50th worker doesn’t trigger that the company now must pay fines for workers 1-49.

But, yes, this still is an incentive not to expand.

strictnein on March 24, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Knucklehead on March 24, 2010 at 2:19 PM

You and many other small business owners.
Dear God, what a nightmare this crap is…

OmahaConservative on March 24, 2010 at 2:21 PM

–There’s nothing now that prevents Bus from cancelling their insurance and saving the whole $480,000 other than competitive pressure from other potential employers.

Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Your being ignorant. As usual, but then you wouldn’t expect a lawyer to understand how the real world works.

In the current situation, there is no public plan to dump those workers on.

MarkTheGreat on March 24, 2010 at 2:21 PM

I want to start a class action based on the 9th amendment my right to privacy of my body and my medical and financial information. I will use Roe vs. Wade decision as precedent.

Would that not just kill libs?

patriotparty1 on March 24, 2010 at 2:22 PM

–There’s nothing now that prevents Bus from cancelling their insurance and saving the whole $480,000 other than competitive pressure from other potential employers.

Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

So, in other words, the free enterprise system works. It never was “broken”.

Thanks for clearing that up.

hillbillyjim on March 24, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Just like we all thought. This “bill” is a jumping off point. If the Senate is already considering an increase to the penalty of a bill that is one day old, what else are they considering?

sandee on March 24, 2010 at 2:22 PM

–There’s nothing now that prevents Bus from cancelling their insurance and saving the whole $480,000 other than competitive pressure from other potential employers.

Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Yes there is. It’s called guilt from leaving them without healthcare.

Employers no longer will suffer from that. They’ll just throw them on welfare.

Chuck Schick on March 24, 2010 at 2:23 PM

My accounting costs are going to skyrocket with all this new crap.

Knucklehead on March 24, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Accounting, HR, legal, they will all increase.
Now you liberals should be able to see why the attorneys are supporting dems, it is a cash cow for them.
The lawsuits of not following this complex incomprehensible bill/law is a gold mine to attorneys.

right2bright on March 24, 2010 at 2:23 PM

The only problem is that the system actually incentivizes businesses to pay penalties and throw their employees into the government-run exchanges:

Um…that was the plan, Ed.

“This is just the beginning…,” as we heard several Democrats utter gleefully in the waning days before the Kill America’s Health Care System Act of 2010 passed in the face of bipartisan opposition.

Beginning of what, you might ask?

SINGLE. PAYER.

The public option.

This was the plan all along.

Good Lt on March 24, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Healthcare repeals filed in Congress
God Bless Steve King.

OmahaConservative on March 24, 2010 at 2:23 PM

ObamaCare sets all of its incentives to oppose growth. Can anyone wonder at the impact this will have on the economy?

Saw it coming. We all did.
Time to get a govt job, people.

Badger40 on March 24, 2010 at 2:23 PM

OK, Ed. I guess I don’t understand this.

With Obamacare Bus would save $390K after payng $90K in penalties for dropping insurance benefits for his employees.

But currently he can save $480K per year after paying $0 in penalties. If he isn’t dropping insurance now, why would he do it later?

Not arguing, just asking.

Bobbertsan on March 24, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Oh yeah, China could do it, almost forgot about them.

Any recommendations for for a good Chinese language program?

Bishop on March 24, 2010 at 2:20 PM

The Japanese and Koreans make some pretty good equipment as well.

MarkTheGreat on March 24, 2010 at 2:24 PM

My father-in-law called me a liar when I told him about this. When I showed him the math as it was reported on MSNBC a couple of weeks ago, he clammed up. No apology yet for calling me a liar.

AubieJon on March 24, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:20 PM

It certainly would be ironic if my employer, a health care alliance, decided to drop coverage for all of us and pay this fine, wouldn’t it?

ladyingray on March 24, 2010 at 2:24 PM

85/15 split
Eighty five percent of insurance premium goes to paying claims (cost of treatment) fifteen percent to run the company. Where’s the insurance company profit? Won’t be any.

Skandia Recluse on March 24, 2010 at 2:24 PM

If we all will recall, this was the first argument against ObamaCare when the House first released it a year ago.

This is the salient point as to why it will wreak havoc upon the economy. But, because it involved more explanation than could be made in a 20 second sound bite or the 8 seconds allowed by Hannity to answer his 10 minute question, it dropped from the list of things the GOP wanted to talk about.

As an aside, what would be the potential for bringing a SCOTUS challenge to HRC by arguing through the Commerce clause that the exchanges, in conjunction with the personal mandate and the practical effect of the limits on company size and employee wages will have a substantial economic impact on interstate commerce, affecting the entire economy in a negative way.

I think thats another avenue of challenge. Use it’s own “merits” as a sword to hack it to death.

BobMbx on March 24, 2010 at 2:24 PM

No. The goal is to bring down not only America, but western civilization. This is just one of the many means.

LibTired on March 24, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Yeah, pretty much this.

Daggett on March 24, 2010 at 2:25 PM

After a week long respite from posting I see the repercussions of this debacle continue to mount. If any business is capable of thriving in this environment it hasn’t been founded yet.

fourdeucer on March 24, 2010 at 2:25 PM

I believe the penalties/fees only start with worker number 50. Hiring a 50th worker doesn’t trigger that the company now must pay fines for workers 1-49.

But, yes, this still is an incentive not to expand.

strictnein on March 24, 2010 at 2:21 PM

It’s even stupider than that.

At 50 employees, the fines kick in. But the 1st 30 of the 50 are exempt from the fines. But at 49 employees, no company will hire the 50th until absolutely forced to. What will happen is the remaining 49 will get overtime, work weekends, clone themselves so they can work 24 hrs a day….anything to avoid becoming a 50+ company.

angryed on March 24, 2010 at 2:25 PM

ladyingray on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

You too, shall be a subsiderary soon!

upinak on March 24, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Companies with 26-49 workers are unaffected.
Companies with 50 to 60 workers, will find themselves with a huge incentive to get rid of a few workers.

MarkTheGreat on March 24, 2010 at 2:14 PM

The same argument was made when the Family and Medical Leave Act was passed seven years ago. It also covers businesess with 50 or more employees and provides for unpaid time off for employee and family health problems. Guess what? The world didn’t end.

Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:25 PM

There’s nothing now that prevents Bus from cancelling their insurance and saving the whole $480,000 other than competitive pressure from other potential employers.

Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

True, but a company may be able to create a package where the employee and employer win (taxpayers as a whole loose).

Company pays $90,000 fine.
Let’s say the government charges the group of employees (summed up) an annual premium of $250,000.
Company agree’s to pay employee’s an additional $300,000 per year.

Total cost to company: $390,000 (company saved $90,000)
Increase to bottom line of company: $90,000 (480,000 – 390,000)
Increase in income to employees: $50,000 (300,000 – 250,000)

So you can clearly see if the premium is not greater than current company cost less fines, the company and the employees can both win.

WashJeff on March 24, 2010 at 2:26 PM

There’s nothing now that prevents Bus from cancelling their insurance and saving the whole $480,000 other than competitive pressure from other potential employers.
Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

And…keep going. When his competitors dump their employees on the government HC scheme they can use the saved money to undercut Bus, thus affecting what he can do to stay in business and forcing his hand.

Bishop on March 24, 2010 at 2:26 PM

As listed above, small businesses only become eligible for the credits if their average salary remains below $40,000. That means a decision to give raises not only carries the cost of the raise itself to the business, but also a potential loss of that 35% subsidy ObamaCare grants.

Uh Ed, that was part of the overall plan. It keeps more and more people at the “poverty” level and totally dependent on the government cheese for just about everything. Can’t have a Feudual system without serfs don’t you know?

Johnnyreb on March 24, 2010 at 2:27 PM

A non-event in the long run.

robertnyc212 on March 24, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Except when there is nobody to pay for your free shit.

uknowmorethanme on March 24, 2010 at 2:27 PM

–There’s nothing now that prevents Bus from cancelling their insurance and saving the whole $480,000 other than competitive pressure from other potential employers.

Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

So, in other words, the free enterprise system works. It never was “broken”.

Thanks for clearing that up.

hillbillyjim on March 24, 2010 at 2:22 PM

PWN of the week

angryed on March 24, 2010 at 2:27 PM

A representative from the state called, wanted me to hire people, adding that the state will pay 50% of the wages, etc.
No thanks, I said, I can’t afford the gov. 50% discount.
I want to hire two people, no thanks, I will do without, using a temp or 1099 what I can…I am not alone, whomever has an employee, pays a fine, the fine is raised, you can’t afford the employee so you lay them off, you can bet a lawsuit follows.

right2bright on March 24, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Not arguing, just asking.

Bobbertsan on March 24, 2010 at 2:23 PM

When workers decide where to apply for work, benefits is one of the things they use to make their decision.
If one company is offering $15/hr with health insurance, while another company is offering $15/hr w/o health insurance, which company do you think will get the most applications. Which will let them be picky about who they hire, leaving the leftovers to the company offering less.

The company not offering health insurance would have to increase his base pay in order to compensate, or get a health insurance plan.

MarkTheGreat on March 24, 2010 at 2:28 PM

The same argument was made when the Family and Medical Leave Act was passed seven years ago. It also covers businesess with 50 or more employees and provides for unpaid time off for employee and family health problems. Guess what? The world didn’t end.

Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Unemployment was nowhere near as bad as it is now in 2003, the economy was far more robust and taxes on investment were being cut 25%, as opposed to being hiked 60% now.

Chuck Schick on March 24, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Oops. Big correction. I wrote:

–The answer is almost certainly yes. Companies pay roughly $1300-$2000+ (depending on location and a bunch of other things) yearly for health care insurance for a family of four. That would be reduced by the employee contribution for insurance.

Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:20 PM.

That shouldn’t be yearly. It should be monthly.

)

Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Even more of an incentive to send jobs overseas.

exhelodrvr on March 24, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Guess I better learn to eat a lot less…

OmahaConservative on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Don’t worry, Obama’s communist scientists are working on new flavors of Soylent Green. I hear strawberry and even tuna flavors might be on the menu

darwin on March 24, 2010 at 2:29 PM

–There’s nothing now that prevents Bus from cancelling their insurance and saving the whole $480,000 other than competitive pressure from other potential employers.
Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

So the snake oil that Pelosi offers as a reason for the bill is uh…just that? Snake oil?

Wow. I’m sure I’ve been told that the current system didn’t have any competition, and that capitalism didn’t look out for the welfare of the employee.

Square peg meets round hole.

BobMbx on March 24, 2010 at 2:29 PM

It also covers businesess with 50 or more employees and provides for unpaid time off for employee and family health problems.

Is it normal to have every employee of a company demand family leave time simultaneously?

There’s the owner, standing around wondering why he’s the only one at the company picnic.

Bishop on March 24, 2010 at 2:29 PM

There’s nothing now that prevents Bus from cancelling their insurance and saving the whole $480,000 other than competitive pressure from other potential employers.

Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

He could just as easily force his employees to pay their own premiums also and let them keep their health insurance.

Have you figured out yet that Employer provided health insurance is one of the biggest problems with the system?

uknowmorethanme on March 24, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Anyone want to wager that some of these Corps will ask if you want to do one of two things:

1. Be let go
or
2. Get a 1099 and pay your own taxes, healthcare and so forth, while they can pay you as a contractor.

Watch.. it will happen.

upinak on March 24, 2010 at 2:29 PM

upinak on March 24, 2010 at 2:25 PM

I’ll be an SEIU member before long…

ladyingray on March 24, 2010 at 2:29 PM

The same argument was made when the Family and Medical Leave Act was passed seven years ago. It also covers businesess with 50 or more employees and provides for unpaid time off for employee and family health problems. Guess what? The world didn’t end.

Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Ugh. The family leave act is pennies on the dollar compared to ObamaCare. Family Leave allows 12 weeks of ****UNPAID**** leave. All it does is guarantee the person taking the leave will not get fired. It doesn’t cost the employer all that much.

Now compare that to a fine of $2000 per employee per year.

Jesus dude, do you have even the slightest clue how business works?

angryed on March 24, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Hope and Change, bytchezzzz!!!!!!!

BPD on March 24, 2010 at 2:30 PM

I do ok.

robertnyc212 on March 24, 2010 at 2:20 PM

You do ok what? Living off the government? Selling drugs? What?

PappaMac on March 24, 2010 at 2:30 PM

businesses with 50-60 workers have a big incentive now to downsize.

And businesses like ours, employing between 30 and 40, will NEVER expand above 50. EVER.

MississippiMom on March 24, 2010 at 2:30 PM

The same argument was made when the Family and Medical Leave Act was passed seven years ago. It also covers businesess with 50 or more employees and provides for unpaid time off for employee and family health problems. Guess what? The world didn’t end.

Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Guess what, you’re still an idiot. The cost of the family and medical leave act was several orders of magnitude less than this.
Second, studies have found that companies have decided to stay small rather than deal with the hassles of govt regulation.

MarkTheGreat on March 24, 2010 at 2:31 PM

I’ll be an SEIU member before long…

ladyingray on March 24, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Welcome to big government! I kid!

upinak on March 24, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Breaking: Amount of 1099 employees soon to be at record high.

uknowmorethanme on March 24, 2010 at 2:31 PM

I imagine even small companies will now begin to be internally partitioned into separate corporations in order to skate around fees and stay under the size caps.

TexasDan on March 24, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Guess what? It doesn’t cost the business anything. The leave is UNPAID.

How much do you charge for a billable hour?

ladyingray on March 24, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Businesses with 50 or more workers must offer coverage or pay $750 per worker. That penalty applies for every employee if even one signs up for government-subsidized insurance.

If my company goes with the penalty route it will save over $250,000 per year.

Gee, looks like I’ll be “enjoying” the bennies of Obamacare soon!

VibrioCocci on March 24, 2010 at 2:31 PM

OT: Sorry but this needed to be shared. As a parent I am outraged by this.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/88971742.html

IS this what we have to look forward to and more importantly is this going on all over the country?

milwife88 on March 24, 2010 at 2:31 PM

–There’s nothing now that prevents Bus from cancelling their insurance and saving the whole $480,000 other than competitive pressure from other potential employers.

Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM

WTH?
Are you a true capitalist after all?
Part-time employees, as far as I’m aware are not required to receive ins benefits.
Which is why many business that have high worker turnovers employ part time.
And of course they have a crappy work atmosphere w/ many disgruntled & unproductive employees.
My daughter left a company bcs of that.
Jimbo, just when I think there are times you can make some sense, you really confound things, by Golly!

Badger40 on March 24, 2010 at 2:31 PM

My guys aren’t going to appreciate it when I tell them I’m now going to start paying them in rock candy, glass beads and cheap whiskey.

Bishop on March 24, 2010 at 2:16 PM

It’ll be OK. They can buy Manhattan with it.

jwolf on March 24, 2010 at 2:31 PM

and even tuna flavors might be on the menu

darwin on March 24, 2010 at 2:29 PM

+1

OmahaConservative on March 24, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Welcome to big government! I kid!

upinak on March 24, 2010 at 2:31 PM

I’m considering trying for one of those new IRS jobs…I’m an accountant and it would be really cool to get to carry a gun for my job AND get the good insurance coverage!

ladyingray on March 24, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Hey…!

I have a great idea, everybody!

… Let’s elect Barack Hussein Obowma as President of the United States!

What do you say?

Seven Percent Solution on March 24, 2010 at 2:32 PM

True, but a company may be able to create a package where the employee and employer win (taxpayers as a whole loose).

Company pays $90,000 fine.
Let’s say the government charges the group of employees (summed up) an annual premium of $250,000.
Company agree’s to pay employee’s an additional $300,000 per year.

Total cost to company: $390,000 (company saved $90,000)
Increase to bottom line of company: $90,000 (480,000 – 390,000)
Increase in income to employees: $50,000 (300,000 – 250,000)

So you can clearly see if the premium is not greater than current company cost less fines, the company and the employees can both win.

WashJeff on March 24, 2010 at 2:26 PM

–Hmmm. Not a bad idea. But what about taxes? The employees and employer would have to pay payroll and income taxes on the amounts paid or received in cash. Right now, neither side has to pay those taxes on health insurance benefits.

Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Heres a less rosy picture,than the CBS one!!
===============================================
Healthcare Bill Effect On Small Business(video)

http://www.associatedcontent.com/video/480696/healthcare_bill_effect_on_small_business.html

canopfor on March 24, 2010 at 2:33 PM

They’ve designed this thing to crash the system.

In addition to this: I pay out of pocket. If my health care premiums go up by 300% in January as predicted, I will be priced completely out of the market.

Where do I go then?

This is all by design.

capitalist piglet on March 24, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Bobbertsan on March 24, 2010 at 2:23 PM

As others have noted, there is no current public plan for them to go to. He drops health insurance, employee retention falls off a cliff as his competitors snap up his best workers- decent wages plus “insurance.”

Short-term thinking. Most successful businesspeople are smart enough to think through this, and avoid losing significant percentages of their labor pool by such a stupid decision.

cs89 on March 24, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Guess we can kiss the ‘recovery’ goodbye. All you folks on “temporary unemployment” can now look forward to a life of leisure. 10+% unemployment will now be the “norm”.

So what’s Barry going to say when unemployment benefits run out? There going to be a ‘pill’ for that?

GarandFan on March 24, 2010 at 2:33 PM

milwife88 on March 24, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Don’t you know that, unlike speech or bearing arms, abortion is a right.

rbj on March 24, 2010 at 2:34 PM

AnninCA off, loser.

OmahaConservative on March 24, 2010 at 2:19 PM

This will NEVER cease to amuse me. :)

Monica on March 24, 2010 at 2:34 PM

The leave is UNPAID.

How much do you charge for a billable hour?

ladyingray on March 24, 2010 at 2:31 PM

My daughter after just having her baby has really no benefit from the FLMA other than they won’t fire her.
But they wouldn’t anyway bcs she is a valuable employee.
They WANT her back.
But for 6 weeks she is not making any $$ & has to pay her med ins premium herself.
And so all throughout her pregnancy, she was scrimping & saving her $$ in preparation for this.
And I am proud of her for this bcs she used to blow her cash on video games & DVDs, movies, & nights out.
Reality has hit my little girl hard.

Badger40 on March 24, 2010 at 2:34 PM

The same argument was made when the Family and Medical Leave Act was passed seven years ago. It also covers businesess with 50 or more employees and provides for unpaid time off for employee and family health problems. Guess what? The world didn’t end.

Jimbo3 on March 24, 2010 at 2:25 PM

10% (more like 17%), decline in home sales for the past year, business at an all time high for bankruptcy, more foreclosures then ever, gov take over of industry…and you think this happens all by itself?
It is these kind of laws that have an affect years down the pipeline.
You don’t pass a law, and in six months have it come tumbling down…it take years of these programs and spending to destroy the economy.
Take a look at accounting costs prior to the bill, and after the bill, HR requirements, it is a nightmare for a small to middle size business.
No the world didn’t come to an end…just the longest recession in history…please, pick up a book and do some reading, learn, then comment.
Nothing being done is helping us climb out of the recession, everything is driving us deeper…

right2bright on March 24, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Is it normal to have every employee of a company demand family leave time simultaneously?

Bishop on March 24, 2010 at 2:29 PM

The bill also only required that the company keep the position open for the employee when they returned, it didn’t require the company to keep paying the employee.

The act only covered people having children. ObamaCare covers 100% of employees.

MarkTheGreat on March 24, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4