Did the requirement that construction firms had to provide coverage no matter the number of employees get left in?
In other words, there are going to be a whole lot fewer small businesses after this goes into effect.
Again, the idea is to set the table for single payor.
This can destroy many small businesses. I suggest that where necessary wages be reduced to cover the cost of insurance.
Doom.
Well, hopefully small businesses have time to prepare somewhat. In the past decades Americans salaries haven’t gone up as much as they could have because more people were receiving more generous benefits. I think businesses are going to obviously price this into their product while it will naturally be much harder to raise employee salaries.
This is a question to whomever might know the answer. If a business that currently has 80 employees splits into two separate companies, does this avoid the requirement? If so, there will be a LOT Of companies with 49 employees.
The 50th employee will be joining the unemployment line.
Our wonderful Senator Suzie Collins* has mustered the courage to state that she’s going to call for an amendment that would make the penalties to small businesses that don’t provide insurance basically a tiny bit smaller.
*There’s a great line at the end of the third scene of Rimsky Korsakov’s opera, Sadko where the hero bemoans the small mindedness of his wife, basically - “women, long of hair and short of brains.” Fits Collins to a tee.
LLS
Who defines affordable?