Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare.

#601
#601
It requires the employers to pay the tax for the individual mandate (not other taxes -- the one for the individual not buying insurance)? Where are you getting that from?
 
#602
#602
lawgator1 said:
It requires the employers to pay the tax for the individual mandate (not other taxes -- the one for the individual not buying insurance)? Where are you getting that from?
Click to expand...

The way I understand it (don't know if anyone truely understands it) is with over 50 employees you will be "taxed" for not providing health insurance.
 
#603
#603
lawgator1 said:
It requires the employers to pay the tax for the individual mandate (not other taxes -- the one for the individual not buying insurance)? Where are you getting that from?
Click to expand...

I have never seen it stated on here the way you phrased it.

If the employer does not provide insurance they pay a tax (which is what I said). What's your issue with that statement?
 
#604
#604
utvolpj said:
I have never seen it stated on here the way you phrased it.

If the employer does not provide insurance they pay a tax (which is what I said). What's your issue with that statement?
Click to expand...


I do believe you have it wrong.

The mandate is on the individual to have insurance. They can get it through an employer, or buy it singularly, or buy it through a state run pooling mechanism. But, the employer is not required to offer it, nor does the employer pay a tax if he does not.
 
#605
#605
lawgator1 said:
I do believe you have it wrong.

The mandate is on the individual to have insurance. They can get it through an employer, or buy it singularly, or buy it through a state run pooling mechanism. But, the employer is not required to offer it, nor does the employer pay a tax if he does not.
Click to expand...

Technical Release No. 2012-01

Employer Shared Responsibility

The employer shared responsibility provisions, contained in section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), provide that an applicable large employer (for this purpose, an employer with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees) could be subject to an assessable payment if any full-time employee is certified to receive an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction payment.
Click to expand...
 
#606
#606
lawgator1 said:
I do believe you have it wrong.

The mandate is on the individual to have insurance. They can get it through an employer, or buy it singularly, or buy it through a state run pooling mechanism. But, the employer is not required to offer it, nor does the employer pay a tax if he does not.
Click to expand...

it's called the "Employer Mandate" counselor

CNNMoney: Circumventing Obamacare

While small businesses will be exempt from offering healthcare coverage to employees in 2014 because of Obamacare, defining a small business may be trickier than thought, CNNMoney reports.

Beginning in 2014, businesses with more than 50 full-time employees will be required to offer healthcare coverage to their employees or pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker above 30 employees.

Some businesses are aiming to get below 50 employees, the number that defines a small business in the healthcare law, by sidestepping the rule.

However, these actions will not work, according to CNNMoney.

Even by breaking a business into two or more separate businesses, the government would still consider the companies as one because the employer mandate penalty relies on “controlled group” provisions. These provisions focus on who controls the company, not what the companies do.
Click to expand...
 
#609
#609
lawgator1 said:
That's not the mandate.
Click to expand...

what mandate are you talking about?

from the WH:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/health_reform_for_small_businesses.pdf
The Affordable Care Act does not include an employer
mandate. In 2014, as a matter of fairness, the Affordable
Care Act requires large employers to pay a shared
responsibility fee only if they don’t provide affordable
coverage and taxpayers are supporting the cost of health
insurance for their workers through premium tax credits
for middle to low income families.
Click to expand...
what else does that mean?
 
#610
#610
What's the percentage of employers who have more than 50 employees that does not already offer their employees health coverage?
 
#611
#611
lawgator1 said:
What's the percentage of employers who have more than 50 employees that does not already offer their employees health coverage?
Click to expand...

once they drop it? A bunch. I would bet that fits now for businesses barely above 50 employees. There are requirements around what kind of insurance must be provided and its cost

and are you now agreeing with us mouthbreathers that there is a tax if you do not provide insurance for employees?
 
#612
#612
Also, not to get too far off the beaten track here, but did Romney's Mass. plan have a similar penalty on employers in that state that did not offer affordable coverage?
 
#614
#614
lawgator1 said:
Well, you've now changed what the mouthbreahters said.
Click to expand...

not really since I've never seen it stated the way you posted

you still haven't explained how I'm wrong

utvolpj said:
I have never seen it stated on here the way you phrased it.

If the employer does not provide insurance they pay a tax (which is what I said). What's your issue with that statement?
Click to expand...

lawgator1 said:
I do believe you have it wrong.

The mandate is on the individual to have insurance. They can get it through an employer, or buy it singularly, or buy it through a state run pooling mechanism. But, the employer is not required to offer it, nor does the employer pay a tax if he does not.
Click to expand...
 
#616
#616
holy cow, what did I find?

It seems clear from the construction of the law that the government wants employers to offer health insurance. To ensure this outcome, employers with more than 50 employees will pay fines if they do not offer health insurance or if the health insurance they offer is too expensive. If an employer does not offer health insurance, they will pay a $2,000 fine for each employee over 30 employees. So if you have 100 employees, your fine will be $140,000. Which is more expensive – paying for insurance for 100 employees or paying a $140,000 fine?
Click to expand...

I'll keep reading once you admit you have no clue what's in the ACA
 
#617
#617
nevermind, I lied. Did you read this part in your link?

BUT, the crafters know if the health insurance exchange is successful, it will be ludicrous for employers to continue offering coverage for their employees. And the absolute genius part? We know if employers punt health insurance coverage to the exchange, they will not be altruistic and give the entire savings to the employees to make the purchase, so the crafters of the ACA guaranteed the employers will foot part of the cost for the law in some way. Employers have to pay the fine for not offering coverage. This is a great way to reduce the taxpayer burden of premium tax credits and cost sharing subsidies! End result – everyone is moved to the open market of the exchange, and employers help defray some of the cost of that move.
Click to expand...
 
#619
#619
lawgator1 said:
Read this, it may answer some of these concerns:

Will Employers Dump Health Insurance Coverage? - Forbes
Click to expand...

So now you understand the big picture. Obamacare will raise premiums to a point where employers will drop HC, opting to pay the tax.

Employees will then get a "tax credit" to purchase health insurance thru an exchange on their own dime. Sounds great!!

Except, do you think the money saved by the "evil" corporations will go back to the employees in the form of raises? If not then this is just another hit to the middle and working class you claim the Dems are looking out for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#622
#622
Question:

The employers can use "temp service " employees and get around the mandate. correct?

This would put the mandate burden on the temp service I would think which will drive up the per hour rate they woold need to charge the companies using their service.

Is that correct?

If so this bill will drive the cost of labor up either way, which will drive the final price of product up.

This bill will also drive up retail prices. It will cost Walmart a small fortune that will be passed along to customers.
 
#623
#623
An employer now doesn't have to offer health insurance. Giving them the option to pay the $2,000 penalty instead doesn't change that. They do it now to attract good employees. The option to drop it is already there.
 
#624
#624
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top