Quote (blind_chief @ Thu - Jul 26 2012 - 21:24:51)
Quote (sardoniclysane @ Thu - Jul 26 2012 - 17:19:47)
Quote (cardoors32 @ Wed - Jul 25 2012 - 16:41:25)
Quote (Jp. @ Wed - Jul 25 2012 - 13:53:53)
Quote (blind_chief @ Wed - Jul 25 2012 - 12:40:06)
Quote (Jp. @ Wed - Jul 25 2012 - 09:17:17)
even taken out of context obama was a retard for saying that
dont let your ego get in the way of reality
meaning that that's an easy way to piss off a lot people people who own/started businesses and could hurt him this close to an election...
especially when he's being out fundraised by romney for the last 3 months
oh, the white, ex ceo, horse dancing, millionaire is out-fundraising the black guy campaigning to the middle class
im shocked
Unless his health care plan gets tweaked, he's going to hurt a HUGE amount of working and middle class individuals. He's also going to essentially kill the staffing industry.
i highly doubt this
Numbers don't lie. As it stands they won't let mid level staffing agencies pool together to have the amount of employees needed to be able to purchase the coverage levels required (from insurance companies)
So what happens? They have to take a fine per employee they have out.
Under the current version of the bill, any employer with over 50 employees will be considered a large employer. As such there is a certain level of coverage that is required, and while most staffing firms offer inexpensive mid-med coverage, it's clearly enough to meet PPACA requirements.
The way the coverage amounts in terms of dollars to the employer stand, no current offering will be cost effective for staffing firms or their clients.
On the flip side, the penalties as an employee for refusing coverage is so low. In fact, only $295. I've yet to see any health insurance offering where the employee can pay so little for insurance coverage, meaning on an individual level, it doesn't make sense to clearly opt out.
Now, what will really be the deterministic factor here are how are they going to define full time employees. There are going to be 2 look back periods, we'll have to wait to see how they use this to determine full time employees, the longer the look back, the more affordable coverage can and should become.
That, and what sort of secondary market (if any) arise from insurers to help smaller businesses who still fall under the "large employer" category as currently defined. It's theorized that the insurance market will offer some coverage that meets the federal minimum standards, but because the temporary staffing workforce is constantly changing (being hired perm, changing assignments, leaving the workforce for periods of time), temporary employees haven’t been considered an attractive market. Meaning I don't see it as something that will honestly change, leading back to staffing firms clearly being able to purchase the appropriate coverage levels, and being forced to pay a fine.
At a possible 2k per employee, you quickly start losing money placing people out.
Refs:
http://www.nfib.com/research-foundation/cr...ividual-mandatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PPACA_Premium_CRS.jpgWhile I believe changes will be made leading up to the implementation, there is a long way to go as it stands now. 50 employees is a very, very small number to reach the "large employer" gap. Meaning essentially ALL staffing firms are going to be put there.
This post has been edited by sardoniclysane on Thu - Jul 26 2012 - 20:43:36