So, how many small opticals are going to lay off staff rather than be forced to buy helath insurance?
The small Optical and Obamacare
So, how many small opticals are going to lay off staff rather than be forced to buy helath insurance?
"Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde"
There is no mandate for small business. www.whitehouse.gov for more details on the impact of The Affordable Care Act and its impact on small business. Facts first, rhetoric last.
First of all, there is a minimum number of employees you need to have before you are required to have insurance. I'm not sure of the number, but I believe it is around 10 or so. Next, you will get a tax credit for having insurance. And last but certainly not least, if your employee is already covered under a spouses insurance, they are exempted from the requirement.
Calmly, calmly...
When the bill passed, the taxes were front loaded and the benefits backloaded. Now that we are two years closer to full benefits, ten year cost estimates have essentially doubled.
I googled "the impact of the Affordable Care Act on Small Business" to find the PDF explanation.Originally Posted by MikeAurelius
Only time will tell. The fun and games have just begun.
The exemption number is 50.
That's a pretty big "small business", IMO.
Bide your time, if the election doesn't change things, something else may change things. The US Supreme Court is only the third highest court.
Chip
Since 2009, I've opened 3 new offices. Because of the uncertainty of what was to come, I made it a point to hire more people, but no full-timers. In the old days I would have hired full-time, and not given it another fault. Today, I do not regret keeping it to PT, as today has shown you never know what can happen. No, I probably won't lay anyone off, but I won't be hiring any full timers anytime soon.
Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry
The coming Zombie Apocalypse?
If it were single payer (Medicare for all) would you have hired any differently?
It's not just one issue, but rather the uncertainty of not knowing what they are going to tax small business on next.
Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry
So wouldn't your life as a small businessman be easier and more profitable from a strictly business point of view if health insurance was handled by the Fed's?
Also as someone from where Romneycare originated and where it is working now I think you'll find business opportunities in what will now become a nationwide program. Right now we see weekly several patients who we wouldn't have seen in the past due to the financial constraints lack of health care presented.
No, being "handled by the feds" means they are directing it, and I am paying for it. Where's the freedom in that? Where's my choice?
Also, I am not looking from this as an eyecare provider. Perhaps we might make more (most likely not if you're an optician, particularly an independent), but I am talking about businesses in general. This is a HUGE, HUGE, tax on businesses. We've been calling it a tax for a year now, and "they" have been saying it's not. Now they admit, it's the largest tax ever forced on a country.
If you own a business, and this stands...not good.
Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry
So, until yesterday, when your part-time staff without health care benefits need healthcare, we all get to share in the expense through increased premiums and skyrocketing fees?
Actually, Johns, there is NO additional tax on business, save for one, which is paid if and only if you have employees whose personal purchases of insurance are subsidized by the federal government. That only happens when you don't provide insurance, or you pay less than 60% of your employees' insurance cost, or your employees pay more than 9.5% of family income for insurance, AND those employees receive a subsidy. Even then, the employer penalty is way less than the cost of insurance, which may actually be a defect in the law - it may be that it creates an incentive for employers to stop paying for employees' insurance, and pay the penalty instead, and save lots of money. Of course, I wouldn't expect that situation to last for too long.
The significant additional taxes in the ACA are imposed on high wage earners (individuals earning over $200K and couples over $250K), in the form of an increase in the Medicare tax rate on amounts over those thresholds, and a tax on unearned income - again, only on persons over those income thresholds. Note that these are people who have seen (for the most part) their capital gains rates cut in half over the last 15 years.
No one is admitting that the penalty that the Court held to amount to a tax is by any measure the "largest tax ever forced on a country." It could amount to nothing, if everyone were to play fair. Of course, not everyone will, but the penalty is NOT imposed on business, but on individuals, and even in the long term, doesn't exceed 2.5% of income - and ONLY on persons who can afford insurance, but refuse to obtain it.
In fact, I would expect lots of opticals to qualify for the tax credits offered under the ACA to offset the cost of providing health insurance (25 or fewer employees and average wage up to $50K).
Actually, 3 of them and/or their spouses have their own businesses on the side, and we allow them to be under our HSA (they pay into it, not us). The 4th is married to an MD, and he has insurance through the hospital.
Why would you assume that they would be causing your rates to skyrocket?
Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry
Because someone is going to have to pay for their care. Health care providers bill insurance carriers and in order to cover their costs and maintain an attractive ROI for investors, insurance carriers are going to increase rates. Insurance carriers increase their rates and health care providers need to increase their fees to cover the increased insurance costs.
I guess I assumed you have more than 4 employees.
Judy,
1.No, they pay their own way.
2.You specifically asked about my " part-time staff". Yes, of course I have a much larger staff that that, but have only hired part time since 2009. That would be 4 people.
3. The original question was:"So, how many small opticals are going to lay off staff rather than be forced to buy helath insurance?" I answered it.
4. If you are a small optical owner, feel free to answer the question. If you want to argue, then maybe tmorse will take the bait in the "What is more important..." thread.
5. I am not an expert on this, but from what I have read, everyone (except the non-business owners here) seems to be saying that it will cost us more than it is costing us now.
Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry
I'm not interested in an arguement either. I do, however, believe that the closest legal expert we have here is Shanbaum and he's weighed in with a pretty succinct interpretation.
Why do we use the euphemism "single payer?" Why not call it what it is, socialized medicine?
Who cares what anyone calls it. As a married father of 6 children(please don't start in with why I had so many kids) I can tell you that we have lived our entire lives completely in fear of illness of any kind due to the ridiculously high expenses for medical care in this country. I am in my fifties and we are constantly BROKE because our insurance, which my OD employer pays in full for my family, has such high out of pocket expenses that we essentially pay for almost everything ourselves. And every calendar year it starts all over again. Their are 2 diabetics in the family and that is all it takes to ruin a families finances- AND THAT IS WITH INSURANCE!!! I'm willing to try anything that may lower the cost of health care AND insurance and I don't care what it is called.
Chris Beard
The State of Jefferson !
I'm a Medford man – Medford, Oregon. Up in Medford, we take our time making up our minds."
For the same reason the Democrats didn't wanted to call the penalties in the ACA "taxes." The right wing has managed to make certain words toxic in the political sphere. Spending, debt, taxes, socialism, government, Europe...
I would very much favor socialized medicine, paid for by taxes.
Yes, Shannbaum was succinct on his interpretation. And that's exactly what everyone else is doing, interpreting.
Here's another interpretation: (warning: it's from Forbes.)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaeb...-year-earners/
And also from the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1637916.html
That's all I have to base my opinion on, what I read. I'll read more, but not now. My weekend's about to start, and I'm not going to let anyone get in the way of it...
Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry
From Forbes:
Obama’s pledge against any form of tax increase on Americans making less than $250,000 a year “was thrown out the window” when he signed the healthcare law, says John Kartch, communications director with Americans For Tax Reform (founded by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist).
And from The Huffington Post, which was pretty much a rehash of the WSJ's editorial:
To recap: conservative politicos and liberal jurists agree it's a tax, while conservative jurists and liberal politicos say it's not.
Have a wonderful weekend!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks