Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since you are discussing the ACA now and have been for multiple pages, why don't you answer your own question? What does it have to do with the OP?
I've been trying to understand why it was even being discussed by asking you, but then you went into a tangent about less produce states providing for more productive states and businesses being burdened.
Some. But the evil in those who end up paying a fine out of pocket above and beyond their income taxes.
There's nothing evil about it.
Either employer offer insurance or pay the tax fine. No one's holding a gun to anyone's head to choose one or the other. Some employers have even gotten around the mandate by transitioning many of their employees from full time to part-time (as it only applies to businesses with 50 full-time employees).
I've been trying to understand why it was even being discussed by asking you, but then you went into a tangent about less produce states providing for more productive states and businesses being burdened.
I have nothing against less produce states. NJ is called the garden state and while it has a great deal of produce in terms of density, it produces much less produce than the much larger midwestern states. Also, NJ's farming season is limited due to the weather.
Collegeguy35 and I were discussing the impact of the ACA on employer benefits. You decided to completely switch up the topic and go off-topic by asking what a better alternative to ACA is. Like I said, you belong in the political forum.
Either employer offer insurance or pay the tax fine. No one's holding a gun to anyone's head to choose one or the other. Some employers have even gotten around the mandate by transitioning many of their employees from full time to part-time (as it only applies to businesses with 50 full-time employees).
How you don't see the bold part as evil is beyond me. You're punishing good employers and forcing them to choose between paying a fine, changing the way the do business, or taking on a hefty burden. It makes no sense. When you put an employer in this position, of course they are going to have to cut other benefits.
I have nothing against less produce states. NJ is called the garden state and while it has a great deal of produce in terms of density, it produces much less produce than the much larger midwestern states. Also, NJ's farming season is limited due to the weather.
When I said "produce", I was referring to "production", as in economic output.
As in your post below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
It's funded from within the state (premiums and tax). ACA is set up so that productive states like MA, CT and NJ support unproductive states like SC, MI, etc. It's economically deteriorating states that contribute to the majority of the GDP.
Collegeguy35 and I were discussing the impact of the ACA on employer benefits.
But why?
Nothing in the OP mentioned anything about the ACA (except as it relates to HSAs being used to pay for health insurance employees purchase on the exchange).
How you don't see the bold part as evil is beyond me. You're punishing good employers and forcing them to choose between paying a fine, changing the way the do business, or taking on a hefty burden. It makes no sense. When you put an employer in this position, of course they are going to have to cut other benefits.
Employers don't *have* to do anything but either offer insurance or pay a tax fine under the ACA, if mandated.
Lone among developed western nations the United States relies heavily upon businesses to supply employee "benefits" that elsewhere come from the state.
Health insurance began as a way for companies/businesses to get around WWII wage restrictions and morphed into the system we have today. However offering these benefits puts American companies at a disadvantage in the global market. That it the cost of such benefits are passed along in the cost of goods sold/services provided. That and or the costs must some how be absorbed by the business and or shared with employees.
This system causes all sorts of distortions and problems some of which are now being magnified by the ACA.
Young healthy and or single employees often gripe about how much money they must pay into employee healthcare schemes that they do not use. OTOH you have married employees, those with children or expecting , older employees (and their spouses) and so forth that are heavy users of healthcare and benefit from the fact *all* employees pay into the scheme which spreads costs among a large pool.
For all full time employees the true cost of their wage and benefit compensation package is more, far more than what is seen in paychecks.
Long story short American businesses often do not have the luxury of raising their prices to cover employee benefit costs. So they are either shoving more of that burden upon employees and or reducing or even getting shot of them altogether where possible. This was one of the largest worries Democrats and the liberal left had about how to craft Obamacare. The thing simply will collapse if large numbers of employers cease offering healthcare coverage and instead send their employees into the newly set up exchange markets to purchase health insurance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
