No? I fail to see where I go to school has anything to do with this?
Totally random but I kind of find it comical how in other countries when they revolt people by the thousands swarm the streets and really put on a show to get things done. In the US we go camping and complain about taxes while occupying state land paid for by taxes. Where did our countries balls go?
Pretty sure you went to a state school, sccc?.. just surprises me since its partially funded by tax payers.
I know how it’s funded. I also don’t know where I stated my stance on government getting involved in education, so again, it should not matter.
I also went to public schools, if you’d like to further prove your non-existent point.
Our country’s balls seem to have been wallowing away since the '60s.
Wow… theres truly no words for that…
Wrong again. Those that do not work will not be required to buy health insurance because since they don’t work they’re likely already under the income threshold that allows them to receive Medicaid. As state’s struggle to meet enrollment requirements in the future though, look for many to start raising that income level so as to bring more people onto the government rolls.
So if they are already on the governments tit according to you and the working class already has insurance it seems like a non issue besides governmental taxation on insurance companies and other tax increase provisions. :dunno
So true, not to be a dick but if you can’t understand what vlads saying your partially retarded.
For once I agree with vlad. Thought this day would never come.
:bowdown
:wow
I’ll write this instance off as a glitch in the Matrix :eek3
I’m just surprised you wouldn’t go straight to a private school since your so passionate about people not getting there college education paid for by the government. Public schools don’t count since you HAVE to go to school till your 16, college is not mandatory.
I have no problem with people’s educations getting paid for…
I have a problem with people demanding their education get paid for while they sit and protest about bullshit when they could be attempting to get a job to pay for it themselves like most college kids.
HUGE difference, and I expected more out of you, especially considering how I specifically stated:
I thought the 99% types were down at this occupy movement bullshit? The ones standing around all day, wanting free college tuition and a bunch of other shit? They should occupy a job fair.
The issue is now you have small businesses that provide insurance to their employees at an average cost of $6,000 per year dropping that coverage because the penalty is $2,000. You’re incentivizing businesses to not offer something because the government is just going to pick up the slack. This is what we call a slippery slope.
You’ve over estimating how many small business that may offer coverage now will drop it, they still have to offer incentives to potential employees.
And in hindsight if that is the case, isn’t this helping “job creators” by offering a relief of sorts?
I didn’t want to jump in on this but here’s the thing:
The company does not NEED to give the employees health insurance right now. They can strip the benefits, and face ZERO penalty.
So you’re saying they have incentives to take away the employee’s insurance when there is a $2000/employee penalty?
Once this law takes full effect in 2015, it will be more cost effective for small businesses to not offer health insurance to their employees and pay the $2,000 fine instead, yes. I rep a number of pharmaceutical companies, so coverage is obviously a big deal to them, and I was at a PhRMA session in DC two years ago after passage of the ACA and they estimate that employer-sponsored insurance coverage will drop from 52% now to 39% by 2020, after everything is in effect.
Cossey is right NOW, but upstate and vlad will be right come 2015.
Business owners with employees are obligated to pay for social security tax, unemployment tax and others. NOT health, vision, dental, etc. So now the owner has that choice to spend $6K a year to offer benifits, or not to. Want better workers, to produce better products, chances are you need to offer benifits.
Come 2015 Vlad and Upstate are right. Now the owners have to pay ATLEAST $2000 per employee. So Company A with 10 employees at a part time coffee shop that has employees who dont need coverage if it was offered by the shop has to for over $20K a year to the gov now. But Company B with 1000 employees that spend $6K a person on benifits ($600K total) now can say go fuck yourself and get COBRA if you want insurance to all their employees and pocket $400K a year. (an probably loose alot of employees, and have crappy product produced by pissed off employees).
Once again, fucking over the little people trying to make a living in a community, and aiding the big bussiness tycoons. Go fuckyourself once again government.
This also brings up a good point. What if the employee has insurance under their spouse? Does the Employeer still face a penalty?
So again, I state that the companies give their employees benefits right now, pay what you estimate to be $6k/employee. If they take their benefits away right now will face a fine of $0… If they take their benefits away in the future, will face a $2,000 penalty per employee. So right now they can either pay $6k, or pay nothing, and they still CHOOSE to pay the $6k. But somehow you feel that they’ll be more apt to pay the $2k penalty under Obamacare, than paying $0 now?
In other words:
Right now, it’s more cost effective for them to pay $0 over the $6,000. But they choose the less cost effective route.
In 2015, it’s more cost effective for them to pay $2,000 over the $6,000, but at that point they’re more likely to pay the $2,000?
I can’t be the only one thinking that you’re point is completely invalid.
You’re not understanding this correctly though, let me rephrase.
I own a business and I have 30 employees who I offer insurance to now. The reason I offer them insurance is because I want my workforce to be healthy and happy. It costs me on average $10,000 per employee for this benefit. Now suddenly everyone gets insurance regardless of whether I offer it or not, so there’s no need for me to do so any longer. It is easier and cheaper for me to simply pay the fine now rather than provide insurance because I know that my workers are still going to be covered.
Businesses provide insurance now because it’s the right thing to do and a healthy workforce is a productive one. But if someone can get similar coverage from an exchange and it saves the business owner a lot of money, they are very likely to do that.
I think I need to address and clarify the exchanges here as well. The state’s are required under ACA to setup an insurance exchange where people without coverage can go and purchase low cost insurance. Businesses can choose to not offer health insurance to their employees and instead pay them $4,000, which they can then go and use to buy insurance on an exchange. This is what I mean by it being more cost effective to not offer it in the future, I should have explained that better. Hopefully this makes more sense now.