0
0

Will individual mandate ruling help or hinder development of small businesses??


               
2012 Jun 28, 2:12am   5,126 views  8 comments

by Travis Bickle   follow (0)  

I've been under the impression a single-payer type healthcare system would help the development of small businesses (since businesses would not be required to provide health benefits as part of compensation, which a 'government option' would then cover [but result in exploding government deficits]), but what about this individual mandate type set-up where the health insurance industry gets a captive market -OTHERWISE- you pay a tax (penalty)? Does this help or hinder the development of small businesses, or just take more $$ away from the worker/would be entreprenuer in the form of mandatory health insurance (or penalty tax, take your pick)...
Thoughts anyone??

« First        Comments 4 - 8 of 8        Search these comments

4   GraooGra   @   2012 Jun 28, 1:03pm  

Small businesses which didn't have a health insurance for their employees would have to pay a penalty tax and since it is a cost to them they would pass that cost to their customers.
Small businesses which used to have a health insurance for their employees might make a decision to eliminate them if the cost is higher (which is going to be for sure) than the cost of penalty tax. However it is really difficult just to dump your cost. They probably say they would give their employees small raise in exchange of dumping the insurance. So their overall cost would go down a little bit.

5   zzyzzx   @   2012 Jun 29, 12:09am  

Travis Bickle says

And what will this do to those unemployed for more than a year, which is quite normal in this Obama economy??

As far as I can tell they will be enrolled in Medicare (or Medicaid, whichever).

6   tts   @   2012 Jun 29, 12:10am  

zzyzzx says

I mean clearly health insurance rates are going to rise dramatically due to all the extra stuff they now have to cover

Nope.

Insurance rates have been going up year after year for quite a while before the PPACA was ever passed or even brought up. That is why Clinton attempted to do healthcare reform years ago.

The cost of insurance and healthcare in the US has less to do with the price of doing business and more with profit for a few at the top.

The big problem with the PPACA is that it doesn't really do all that much to limit how much insurance costs can rise while also giving the insurance companies lots of cash on the tax payers' dime.

Forcing people to buy healthcare coverage while doing little or nothing to restrict price and profit increases for insurance companies and healthcare providers is a fucking joke.

7   divingengineer   @   2012 Jun 29, 4:20am  

My wife and I gross about 155K a year, there is no subsidy, or pity for EVIL people like us who went to school and work hard for a living. If we were to be dumped into this system, we would have to go to an exchange and pay up to 8% of our income a year on healthcare, or face a $1380 "Tax" from the IRS. So pay $12,400 a year in premiums or pay a fine, excuse me, "Tax" of $1,380 a year and get no services from it. This is bullshit, you know the exchange will run the premium up to the max for your income, this is a huge giveaway to the insurance companies and a huge transfer of wealth from the middle class to the lower class. If my employer quits offering healthcare as a benefit, and why wouldn't he, I'm taking a hit for over $1,000 a month for Obamacare premiums.
Most companies will quit offering health insurance as a benefit I predict, it will just be too tempting for the greedy bastards to pawn you off to the exchange. Without a raise in your pay to reflect their savings of course! They will simply put the money in their pocket. This will have many, many unintended consequences for healthy, middle class families and be a boon to poor and unhealthy people. If you and your wife each make $8 and hour and have a child, you will now have to come up with $215 a month to make the 8% premium, good luck, you'd be better off on welfare by the time it was all said and done. The middle aged woman who can't get insurance for her pre-existing conditions will now have to get insurance for her preexisting conditions, hope she can foot the bill or she'll have to opt out and pay a fine, sorry, "Tax".

So I predict only the poorest, most unhealthy people will be happy with this.

8   HEY YOU   @   2012 Jun 29, 10:58am  

I'm too lazy to do the research. Will the supplemental ins. that 65yr.olds carry be effected.

« First        Comments 4 - 8 of 8        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   users   suggestions   gaiste