Skip to main content

View Diary: 5 Million to Lose Health Coverage Under ACA? More Like 10,000 (95 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Small businesses (21+ / 0-)

    I guess we have different ideas about what a small business is. If your business is facing the employer mandate, coffeetalk, that means you have more than fifty full-time employees.

    That sounds a lot bigger than a "small business" to me.

    •  France... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, patbahn

      ...has a comparatively high proportion of 49-employee companies because no one wants the onerous requirements associated with having 50 employees (French law exempts sub-50 employee companies).

      The ACA has similar 50-employee cutoffs. If I was a 52-employee US company (say), I would be thinking long and hard about how to get to be 49 employees and not have to comply with the ACA. Do I really need the extra 3 employees?

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 08:29:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, if I were the owner of a small business (20+ / 0-)

        I'd think about how to improve the product so that more people purchase it so that I have to hire more full-time employees at a living wage

      •  If you were a 52-employee US company (15+ / 0-)

        I would be thinking long and hard about whether or not I would want to work for someone who obviously doesn't give enough of a shit about their employees to provide them with healthcare.  

        This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

        by DisNoir36 on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 10:09:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Economics trumps everything (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nextstep

          Maybe I can't afford it.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 10:21:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  DisNoir - I agree (4+ / 0-)

          That's the beauty of the free market. No one is ever required to work for a specific employer. If an employee does not believe they are receiving adequate pay and benefits they are free to find a job where they are valued more in line with their expectations. It's a beautiful thing.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 10:36:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  In a good market that's working (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bwintx, Tonedevil

            it is a beautiful thing.  Problem is there is NO such thing as a free market in our world.  Unemployment is high and large corporations have tilted the market so much in their favor that employees no longer have much of a choice in jobs.  Labor is not valued whatsoever by the capitalists.  With globalization it's even worse because now you're not only looking for jobs competing against equally qualified candidates in this country but now you have to compete with people overseas who can either come here on H1B visas and work for less or you have to directly compete with employees in other countries with lower costs of living and lower wages.  

            I pray for the day when an employee can walk into the Walmart corporate office and demand better wages and benefits or they'll walk and get a better job elsewhere and Walmart will actually give a shit if they do.  

            This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

            by DisNoir36 on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 02:49:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Sparhawk - we will be seeing a lot of small (5+ / 0-)

        businesses slimming down to 49 employees by using overtime, contractors and temps. My guess is that everyone below 60 employees is at least looking carefully at the mandate and making a decision about what they can afford and how to manage their small business in a way that keeps the doors open.

        We will also see a lot of workers with hours not to exceed 29 hours per week.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 10:33:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I can make predictions too! (9+ / 0-)

          I predict that a some companies that are owned by doctrinaire Republicans, or by people like you and Sparhawk, will indeed do this... not necessarily because it is good for them, but because it causes physical pain for them to spend any more money than is legally required on their employees, regardless of whether it would actually make their company more profitable or not. (C.f. Costco, which found that treating its employees like human beings actually made it significantly more profitable (by making it much more productive per capita), but which was heavily penalized by the stock market, which is incapable of believing that such a thing could be possible.)

          I also predict that the actual number of companies doing this will not be statistically significant, because most companies are not owned by zealots. And I further predict that the Republicans, and, again, you and Sparhawk, will find a few of these companies and wave them around excitedly and imply that they are the majority, dammit, the majority of small businesses!

          •  You do not understand (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coffeetalk, VClib

            You psychoanalyze everything and there is no need for it. Businesses do not leave money on the table out of spite. Business owners would have to be extremely stupid to do what you are suggesting.

            And Costco's business model is completely different than for example Walmart. I suspect you can't pay $15/hr at a company that tries to operate like Walmart.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 11:57:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Inappropriately personal (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib
          •  Fred - have you ever run a business (0+ / 0-)

            made a payroll, or worried about keeping a company solvent? I have never met a business owner who made difficult decisions in a manner to intentionally hurt his or her employees. I have met many who didn't take a salary so they could pay their employees or skipped a paycheck to pay the health insurance premiums. I have run companies and took two of them public. I have been fortunate in that my companies have always been able to provide top tier benefits, but others are running on the margin. I have met hundreds of business owners and their view of their employees is the complete opposite of your perception. I take no pleasure in people losing their jobs, or having their hours cut, or not having health insurance. However, when you have a law that has specific cliffs where your mandatory expenses spike there will always be people who out of economic necessity will adjust to those limits.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 04:00:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  i think a lot of 49 person companies will bleed (6+ / 0-)

          1) Overtime is expensive and lowers productivity.

          2) Temps don't give a crap, i've hired a few, they
          are awful when you are on deadline.

          3) Contractors tend to not be much better.

          4) laying off 5 employees to get to 49 to hose
          the workforce out of benefits will do two things.

          a) Slam morale as everyone wonders who is next and
          the workers mourn their colleague.

          b) Slam morale as everyone realizes this was done to hose
          them out of health care.

          5) Replacing full time workers with a bunch of part timers
          gives you a work force with zero dedication to their jobs.

          Historically big business hates hiring part timers, they don't think part timers are dedicated. Compare part time job listings to full time, there is a reason there is so few of them.

          Think it's hard to make it on 40 hours/week, try making it on 29.  Try Scheduling your life at 29 hours at Job 1 and 15 hours at Job 2.  WHat happens when the 2 schedules conflict?
          a full time gig, is dominant and able to be planned for, work 9-5 and then work a few evening shifts at Bob's Corner store, so he can sit in the back and do paperwork.

          but how do you schedule 2 29 hour jobs?  

          Talk to any store that has a lot of P/T employees.
          what happens to stock shrinkage, what happens to morale,
          what happens to reliability.

          training costs increase, turn over rises,  management effort
          increases.

          What's easier to do?  Manage 12 Full Time Employees
          or 16 part time employees?  Do you think supervisors
          need to deal with 30% more work?

          that also applies to all the back office functions, HR, Training, safety, inventory control, security, LP,....

          And with more turnover, more of the company gear walks out. you think LP is easy, with the staff you got, what happens when Bob quits, gives his hat and uniform coat to his skeezy buddy.  Think it's easy to manage LP if you have Skeezy Sam, going around and changing price tags on gear in the back?  

        •  This will include a lot of places you might (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sparhawk, VClib, Creosote

          Not even think about.

          I work for a college. I know our hr dept is being really careful about how many hours temp/part time workers get. It used to be you could have someone in two part time non benefit positions, effectively giving them full time hours but limited benefits. No more. In some instances that means no part time job but a full time one, but more often it means only part time. And two people, making half the money that the one person used to.

          I suspect you'll see a lot more of that, and a lot more overtime, because it's cheaper to pay somebody overtime than to hire a new person.

      •  Different in Massachusetts (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ericlewis0, patbahn, worldlotus, Tonedevil

        In Massachusetts, more businesses offered health benefits after the law changed there--not fewer.

        For true small businesses--such as the ones in which the owners are the primary workers--ACA opens up possibilities for the owners and their few employees to finally get health insurance they can afford.

        As I recall, about 95% of large employers offered health benefits long before ACA came along.

    •  The major small business issue is for those (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      who provided health insurance prior to ACA.  While not required to provide health insurance, the insurance they offer is to become ACA compliant - which frequently results in significantly higher premiums and higher deductibles - for plans that most certainly were not "junk" insurance.

      Many such small businesses have chosen to take early renewal of their policies in Dec 2013, to delay the price increase of going to ACA compliant insurance for 2014.  For example, in my case early renewal resulted in a monthy premium of $1950/mo instead of the ACA compliant policy for $2390/mo. In my case ACA resulted in 20% higher premiums and higher deductibles.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 12:12:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There is more than one definition (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      of "small business", but I don't think what it means to you personally is particularly relevant.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (129)
  • Community (64)
  • Elections (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Environment (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Culture (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Law (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (18)
  • Economy (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Ireland (16)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Rescued (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site