Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Incitatus who wrote (110011)	3/28/2010 12:51:01 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 116555

You could have saved $607k by terminating coverage before HCR, now you'll only save $407k after the fine, so eliminating insurance is now deterred and less likely. Logically speaking, you make a very good point. Psychologically speaking, small and mid-size businesses are already choking on health care costs and looking for any excuse to cut costs and survive. This may provide them that excuse. What I related was a conversation with a gentleman I've known for some time and how it would impact the bottom line of their business. But he's a "number cruncher" and, of course, doesn't make the final decision on whether they cut health care coverage or not. His boss is a very good guy and I'm not sure he'd have the heart to cut the health care program. But I also know that his business is really struggling and he may not have a choice. And if there's the impression that the Feds are going to involve themselves in providing health coverage to the uninsured, it creates an incentive for small and mid-size businesses to opt out and just pay the tax/penalty. I'll bring up your point though, the next time I see him. Hawk

To: Incitatus who wrote (110011)	3/28/2010 1:35:17 PM
From: mishedlo	1 Recommendation Respond to of 116555

Sunday Funnies 2010-03-28: Good News For College Grads globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com Mish

To: Incitatus who wrote (110011)	3/28/2010 6:15:11 PM
From: Little Joe	Respond to of 116555

One of the great problems of the ram it through policy that was used to enact this health care plan is that there was never really time to examine each provision in depth. However, I would assume from what I think I know about the bill, that if you have employees that are going to be heavily subsidized by the government if you do not provide health care, it might make more sense to take the penalty and let the government pay. For example, if the fine it is costing you 7500 per employee and the government will subsidize your employees 6,000.00 of their health care cost. It might be cheaper to pay the fine, pay the employee an extra $1,500.00 to cover their share of their health care insurance. Your employee is no worse off and you out the fine which I think is $2,000.00 plus the extra $1,500 in wages and lets say another $500.00 for payroll and unemployment taxes. That comes to $4,000.00 and leaves the employer with an additional $3,500.00 per worker as profit. Seems to me from their perspective it is a win-win. The loser is the taxpayer. So it all depends on the numbers and they will vary from employer to employer. lj