I work for a small firm (about 60 employees). I was talking to my CEO and asked him how Obamacare would affect him/his company. He told me the following (in a nutshell): -beginning 2014, he will be required to offer everyone in the company a healthcare plan. If he does not, he will pay the US Govt a fee of $2K per employee for a penalty. -he is opting to pay the penalty of $120,000 at the end of every year because it is much cheaper than offering his employees an insurance policy due to the high cost of health insurance Is this accurate? I honestly don't know enough about Obamacare and reading about it makes my brain hurt. I would appreciate it if someone could break down the pros and cons of Obamacare on a 60-employee firm.
There was a healthcare forum in Baton Rouge recently about this, and this is one of the points they made. I didn't go to it, but I read a report on it. Most of the small business owners said that they would actually pay nearly the same if not more by accepting the fine.
The fine seems a bit harsh. That being said, if the employer DOES opt to offer a healthcare plan, are there incentives from the Federal Govt (huge tax breaks,etc) ?
If he would get rid of 11 of you, he would not have to provide insurance and would owe no penalty. I think his penalty is going to be more like $60,000 http://www.healthcare.gov/using-insurance/employers/large-business/index.html#provide http://www.healthcare.gov/law/information-for-you/small-business.html
I don't really know the answer to the second question, but I think it's really douchey not to provide your employees with healthcare benefits. As for the first statement, the penalty is supposed to be harsh so people will want to provide insurance.
No, it's real douche y to require employers to provide it. Let the free market rule. If I choose to provide it, the health insurance can be an incentive to get and retain quality employees. Too force me to buy it for you is BS.
So does the law require that he pay for the healthcare as well as set up an employee program? Can you set up a program but not cover any of your employees costs? Let me try to answer my own question. I think the problem becomes that you can't offer an employee health plan that only a handful of your employees participate in. To get the plan to work, you have hto have 50% or so participation so employers get that by paying for some of the plan. Is this why it would cost him money?
You're not responding to a point that I made. It's douchey, whether by mandate or not, to not provide your employees with group coverage, and people should refuse to work for the fuckers that don't. Having to buy individual plans has gotten so insanely, ludicrously expensive that your job would have to be paying some serious jack for you to even be able to afford it (provided you don't have some other means of coverage).
See, you are making my point for me. If you think a company is bad for not providing health insurance, you have the right to not work for them. I really didn't think I would have to spell this out. Job A pays $X Job B pays $X but also provides insurance. All things being equal, the free market will dictate that Job B gets filled easier. Now, throw a little real world in. Job B will pay $X minus the cost of the insurance then give you the insurance. People expect Job A's pay, but they want the benefits too. There is only so much money an employer can pay for a given employee and still make the profits he wants to make. Yes, the profits he WANTS to make. If you WANT to make those same profits, start your own business.
Employers are definitely looking at all the costs. They know how much it costs them to employ you through direct salary and benefits. Assuming companies don't have to pay these costs has created a misunderstanding of the whole process. Some would even say it is the zyme of the negative perception towards employers.
