Michael Tanner, senior fellow at the Cato Institute: Under ObamaCare, employers with 50 or more full-time workers must provide health insurance for all their workers, paying at least 65% of the cost of a family policy or 85% of the cost of an individual plan. Moreover, the insurance must meet the federal government’s requirements in terms of what benefits are included, meaning that many businesses that offer insurance to their workers today will have to change to new, more expensive plans. ObamaCare’s rules make expansion expensive, particularly for the 500,000 US businesses that have fewer than 100 employees. Suppose that a firm with 49 employees does not provide health benefits. Hiring one more worker will trigger the mandate. The company would now have to provide insurance coverage to all 50 workers or pay a tax penalty. In New York, the average employer contribution for employer-provided insurance plans, runs from $4,567 for an individual to $ 12,748 for a family. Many companies will likely choose to pay the penalty instead, which is still expensive — $2,000 per worker multiplied by the entire workforce, after subtracting the statutory exemption for the first 30 workers. For a 50-person company, then, the tax would be $40,000, or $2,000 times 20. That might not seem like a lot, but for many small businesses that could be the difference between survival and failure. Under the circumstances, how likely is the company to hire that 50th worker? Or, if a company already has 50 workers, isn’t the company likely to lay off one employee? Or cut hours and make some employees part time, thus getting under the 50 employee cap? Indeed, a study by Mercer found that 18% of companies were likely to do exactly that. It’s worth noting that in France, another country where numerous government regulations kick in at 50 workers, there are 1,500 companies with 48 employees and 1,600 with 49 employees, but just 660 with 50 and only 500 with 51. Overall, according to the Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare could end up costing as many as 800,000 jobs. The article goes on to state that the loss of anything near this will severely deepen the recession we've lived in for the past 4 years. And how will those people pay the Obamacare tax? I am not totally opposed to national healthcare, but this is shaping up to be a real mess. How do you think this will all shake out?
if there is demand for a 50th worker in the market, then another company should theoretically sprout up and hire that worker if he is let go. now maybe they only hire 49 people, and the process repeats, but the market should determine the demand for workers in any field, not obamacare
The country voted for Obamacare; it's what we want. There are those of us who warned against it, but everyone else knew better. I hope people enjoy healthcare being turned into the DMV.
My understanding is that Congress can amend the regulations to change the cutoffs. Hopefully it will. The idea was never to put forward a final bill that would solve all health care problems forever, but rather put forward a major step that would then get modified with further legislation as we go along. Like we do with pretty much everything else. Those who rejoice whenever Congress is in gridlock may want to re-think that. Absence of Congressional activity does not automatically translate into smaller government.
Absence of Congressional activity means no DHS, no ObamaCare, no Bush prescription drug benefit for medicare, etc. I'd be happy to give those things up for whatever gridlocked govt. grows by. Bush's last budget was $3T. $3T + $3T + $3T + $3T = $12T Obama's budgets have been $3.6T (increased to $3.8T, but I'll use the $3.6T figure): $3.6T + $3.6T + $3.6T + $3.6T = $14.4T A difference of $2.4T. There was no gridlock when Obama's $3.6T budget passed. There've been no budgets passed by congress since. I'll take the gridlock that would have kept spending at $3T. But you are on to something. The spending might say $3.6T, but when TARP money is repaid by the banks and spent elsewhere, they play games with the accounting to keep the spending figure down. That is, the money was spent in 2008/2009. A gridlocked congress or not wouldn't have prevented Bernanke from printing near $3T in money from thin air and spending that, too. It doesn't show up on the govt. spending figures either. It shows up on the balance sheet of the Fed, though we can't audit it.
Ouch. Does not bode well for America in a global economy where we're fighting tooth and nail for jobs.
you need to also take into account the tax to be applied to each person that does not or can not afford to purchase the level of insurance required under obomacare. The last figures I have seen is as high as 4700.00 depending upon income.
BP - I find myself repeatedly going back to this Reddit thread to understand the impact of the ACA. To clarify this issue:
QT Mook BP - I find myself repeatedly going back to this Reddit thread to understand the impact of the ACA. To clarify this issue: Nice link, although I consider the suorce. Writer does a good job of putting a happy face on stuff...
The guy seems pretty liberal, but he also seems to try very hard to present things in as non-partisan way as he can. It's the simplest, most concise, best-referenced and least partisan explanation I've yet seen. I'm always open to something better, though, so if you have something you prefer I'd love to read it.
