Seeking Alpha

The bottom line for employers of the Supreme Court healthcare opinion is that most companies...

The bottom line for employers of the Supreme Court healthcare opinion is that most companies won't drop coverage for workers, but some might rework their plans and smaller ones could delay hiring. That's because firms with 50+ workers will be liable for a fine starting at $2K per employee if they don't provide insurance. "That will flat out limit us to 49 employees," says one small-business exec.
Comments (27)
  • Skyler Greene
    , contributor
    Comments (274) | Send Message
     
    Ironically, the SCOTUS decision may end up tipping the scales in favor of Romney. (http://bit.ly/MD0uq1)
    28 Jun 2012, 12:04 PM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3080) | Send Message
     
    Curious. Supposing a President Romney, he could not use an Executive Order to strike down the Affordable Care Act. That would place the ability to repeal within Congress and Senate. Does the SCOTUS ruling tip the scales towards a Republican super-majority in Congress and Senate?
    28 Jun 2012, 01:06 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10278) | Send Message
     
    Romney has already said he would provide "waivers" to all 50 states. It will be interesting to see what he does.
    28 Jun 2012, 07:03 PM Reply Like
  • Clayton Rulli
    , contributor
    Comments (2521) | Send Message
     
    Right. Then they'd open a second entity and higher the 50th person on up til they hit another 49, or 98 total. Whats to stop companies from doing this?
    28 Jun 2012, 12:05 PM Reply Like
  • TWagen
    , contributor
    Comments (143) | Send Message
     
    Right now none but the fear is that the loophole will be closed. My guess is that you open the next company not in USA. That is harder to stop.....

     

    So stupid and nonproductive this healthcare game that is being played.
    28 Jun 2012, 12:32 PM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (9545) | Send Message
     
    Some employers will pay the 2000 fine...
    28 Jun 2012, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (867) | Send Message
     
    $2000 fine, cheap. I'll pay.
    28 Jun 2012, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • TWagen
    , contributor
    Comments (143) | Send Message
     
    No way. Either it comes out of workers or they avoid it. This is not just an inconvenience for employers it is personal and they will fight it until they have bastardized it beyond recognition. Walmart/MCd, others still ahve their exemptions in place as well.
    28 Jun 2012, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • TWagen
    , contributor
    Comments (143) | Send Message
     
    To clarify. You are correct they will get out of HI game, but the payer will be the employees.
    28 Jun 2012, 12:34 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4271) | Send Message
     
    Very true. Our company currently has under 30 employees, so it would not affect us as currently written. However, we currently pay 2/3 of the insurance premiums for employees, and our annual cost per employee is now over $2400.

     

    Choosing to pay the fine for us would be a no brainer.
    28 Jun 2012, 03:17 PM Reply Like
  • Clayton Rulli
    , contributor
    Comments (2521) | Send Message
     
    I guess all employees who work without benefits will be seeing a paycut.... TY Obama!
    28 Jun 2012, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (867) | Send Message
     
    Only if Conservatives vote to pay Americans the same wages as they pay there China workers.
    28 Jun 2012, 12:29 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4271) | Send Message
     
    Yet another totally nonsensical post by Terry.

     

    Please expalin to us how exactly "conservatives woujld vote" to set wages for private companies?
    28 Jun 2012, 03:19 PM Reply Like
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1435) | Send Message
     
    drop coverage??? how about drop workers, how about drop plans for hiring, how about drop compensation

     

    amazing to see people celebrating their own demise
    this weekend there will be an army of accountants and planners reworking company budgets to shift spending away from business and toward healthcare costs
    28 Jun 2012, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4271) | Send Message
     
    I think this will also just add more incentive to move jobs overseas and/or Mexico.

     

    On the the hand, it may just increase the incentives for more automation and fewer workers, so companies like (ROK) might benefit.
    28 Jun 2012, 03:22 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10278) | Send Message
     
    Montana....you and Twagen above have hit the nail on the head. We AMERICANS have a long, long history of figuring ways to get "around" the system. And, you can rest assured that are millions of people today who are trying to find a loophole(s) in the law so that they avoid the requirements. Rest assured there are probably plenty of loopholes. And, rest assured the will be discovered.
    28 Jun 2012, 07:07 PM Reply Like
  • jeanewight
    , contributor
    Comments (342) | Send Message
     
    Rest assured there are likely plenty of contingencies in the laboriously long law that Obama and Pelosi have forgotten to mention, that were hidden and sneaked in because the bill was too long to be READ before it was passed.
    28 Jun 2012, 07:54 PM Reply Like
  • Yokyok
    , contributor
    Comments (326) | Send Message
     
    how about if we just don't cover republicans?
    28 Jun 2012, 12:19 PM Reply Like
  • jeanewight
    , contributor
    Comments (342) | Send Message
     
    Is that the price Republicans pay for disagreeing?
    28 Jun 2012, 12:52 PM Reply Like
  • Johann Galt
    , contributor
    Comments (235) | Send Message
     
    That's a great idea! If we conservatives can give some $$ to the Obama campaign, maybe we can get an exemption from the ACA just like Unions and other dem supporters.
    28 Jun 2012, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (867) | Send Message
     
    Another big win for President Obama and 95% of American families.
    28 Jun 2012, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • torahislife
    , contributor
    Comments (400) | Send Message
     
    Another big win for Obama - like the Nobel Peace Prize he won (and kept!) ?
    28 Jun 2012, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • jeanewight
    , contributor
    Comments (342) | Send Message
     
    They may "win," as you say, but on a one-dimensional level; it's a "win" if you do not look beyond the immediate gratification to the expense and tax implications and arguably the hardly inocuous expansion of the role of the federal government
    28 Jun 2012, 12:57 PM Reply Like
  • jeanewight
    , contributor
    Comments (342) | Send Message
     
    sp
    - innocuous
    28 Jun 2012, 01:06 PM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3080) | Send Message
     
    California tried this with a similar health care law. There were exemptions put into the law for under 50 employees, part time workers, and temporary agency workers. In the first year of that, over a decade ago, growth in temporary agency workers exploded nearly 90%. Give companies exemptions, and they will take them any way they can.

     

    It is disappointing that simple things were not done that could have helped with insurance expenses. One was the idea of co-ops, so that small groups of individuals could pool their resources and get better insurance deals. The other was to make insurance portable across state lines.
    28 Jun 2012, 12:40 PM Reply Like
  • Adam Jackson
    , contributor
    Comments (30) | Send Message
     
    It's easy to quantify negative aspects here for small businesses, but I wonder about the benefits of the ruling that are harder to assess because their economic effects show up elsewhere or are difficult to measure.

     

    I'm thinking of:
    -- The increase in productivity from happy, motivated employees who are no longer worried about the risks of not having insurance.
    -- Will some industries see an uptick in hiring, for example, because employers will be required to cover health insurance for workers doing risky jobs?
    -- An increase in entrepreneurship among the self-employed and those who want to found startup companies, who can buy into the new health exchanges because of ACA, but who otherwise could have found coverage too expensive or simply unavailable.
    -- A greater ability for small businesses to compete with larger organizations in hiring, as potential employees deciding on the merits of multiple job offers move away from preferring larger employers just because they offer better health benefits.
    28 Jun 2012, 02:09 PM Reply Like
  • TWagen
    , contributor
    Comments (143) | Send Message
     
    You are a dreamer..... An uptick in employment, Employers offering insurance in risky industries (Only if it is subsidized by others. Stop, Stop, you are killing me !
    29 Jun 2012, 08:46 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|