The Employer Mandate

[Skip8282]

This just isn't going to work...   


________________________ ____
The Employer Mandate. Sections 1511-1513 of the Senate bill contain an "employer responsibility" provision that requires companies with more than 50 employees to offer qualified health plans-- as defined by government bureaucrats--to their full-time employees or to pay a tax of $750 per full-time employee. Since the penalty is much cheaper than providing health insurance, employers are likely to just pay the $750 tax. For employees, however, this means they lose their employer contribution toward their premium costs.

There is another catch. An employer who offers qualifying insurance must pay a penalty of $3,000 for every employee from a low-income family who qualifies for and accepts a premium subsidy in the "health insurance exchange."[23] The employer's total penalty is capped at $750 times the total number of full-time employees if more than a quarter of the employees receive the subsidy.

In summary, if a company employs many low-income workers, it can save money by dropping its health plan and paying the $750-per-employee tax or by reducing as many employees as possible to working part-time. However, if a company has mostly middle-income workers, it faces a $3,000-per-year penalty for hiring a worker from a low-income family who elects the subsidy. Also, this penalty applies to the employee's family income, not the income that the employee is paid by any particular company.

Therefore, a company would save $3,000 by hiring someone with a working spouse or a teenager with working parents whose family income is higher instead of a single mother with three children. Even worse, if one-fourth of its employees qualify for a premium subsidy based on income and family size, the company would still pay the $750-per-employee tax whether it offers insurance or not.

The Senate bill would create many perverse incentives that would encourage companies with many low-income employees to drop their health plans entirely. Unlike the lower-income workers who would qualify for the subsidies, higher-income workers would have to obtain coverage on their own with no assistance.[24]


http://www.rightsidenews.com/200912207858/politics-and-economics/analysis-of-the-senate-democrats-health-care-bill.html

[Purge_WTF]

  The fact that anyone, business owner or no, would be forced to buy something is government intrusion at its worst--not to mention lip service to the health insurance industries that the members of said government are in bed with.

  I know that many people on these boards are wary of Alex Jones, but in The Obama Deception, he and the people he interviewed suggested that, while Obama portrayed himself to be someone against the corporate stranglehold on our country while he was campaigning, he's actually a bigger corporatist than Reagan or Bush. The health insurance industry will be getting tens of millions of new (but I suspect not always willing) customers if the new bill gets signed.

[Skip8282]

I think we need radical change, but it also has to be realistic change.  With this type of employer mandate, it leaves open the possibility of less people being covered because it's simply cheaper for a company to pay the fine.

As for the government forcing it, it happens now.  Companies, at least in my state, are force to pay into unemployment which is essentially a government run insurance.  If you own a restaraunt here, you have to have a certain number of people attend a specialized training program for food safety, etc. 

But, there has to be a balance.  Bankrupting small business will just kill us.

[Kazan]

I think we need radical change, but it also has to be realistic change.  With this type of employer mandate, it leaves open the possibility of less people being covered because it's simply cheaper for a company to pay the fine.

As for the government forcing it, it happens now.  Companies, at least in my state, are force to pay into unemployment which is essentially a government run insurance.  If you own a restaraunt here, you have to have a certain number of people attend a specialized training program for food safety, etc. 

But, there has to be a balance.  Bankrupting small business will just kill us.

The issue here is state vs federal government, if there is a state reg and you don't like it, you can relocate to another state. If its federal then you are screwed, that in essence is why their is a 10th amendment, the states are to decide what is not a power given specifically to the federal government.

[Skip8282]

The issue here is state vs federal government, if there is a state reg and you don't like it, you can relocate to another state. If its federal then you are screwed, that in essence is why their is a 10th amendment, the states are to decide what is not a power given specifically to the federal government.

I can partially agree with that, but in reality I've come to believe that the 10th Amendment died long before any of us were born.  But, I've got little sympathy for Republicans given that they had more than ample time to work on and resolve this issue.

I think this current healthcare bill is going to be a financial disaster.  But, we'll see...

[Kazan]

I can partially agree with that, but in reality I've come to believe that the 10th Amendment died long before any of us were born.  But, I've got little sympathy for Republicans given that they had more than ample time to work on and resolve this issue.

I think this current healthcare bill is going to be a financial disaster.  But, we'll see...

States rights took a dirt nap after the civil war

[Skip8282]

States rights took a dirt nap after the civil war

Yeah, pretty much.

[OzmO]

BOHICA.   

[Skip8282]

BOHICA.   

Looks that way.  We'll have to see what the compromises are going to be between the House and Senate's version.