• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACA Running Thread

Wakeforest22890 said:
Those are also just expected parts of running a business. Changing policies on things like health care are part of the model that require flexibility from small business owners (and everyone) otherwise nothing could ever change policy-wise.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think any small business owner outside of the health care field expected to have to weigh through the differences between compliant and non-compliant healthcare plans, especially when the people who voted it for it didn't even read to know what compliant actually meant. There is plenty of red tape to expect to deal with when running any business, but this particular process goes well beyond customary red tape.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No, I don't think any small business owner outside of the health care field expected to have to weigh through the differences between compliant and non-compliant healthcare plans, especially when the people who voted it for it didn't even read to know what compliant actually meant. There is plenty of red tape to expect to deal with when running any business, but this particular process goes well beyond customary red tape.
Click to expand...

We're just not going to agree on this one. If you're running a business then you know you're subject to law changes governing various aspects of compliance whether it be the potential the minimum wage increases, health care changes, or any number of changes related to workplace conditions. I can't imagine that trying to sort through health care plans and seeking out what's best for your company, yourself, and your employees (even if it's a lot of "red tape issues") in light of the ACA is beyond any reasonable level of what one might expect when overseeing all operations of a small business.
 
2&2, why do you bother? Just sell your business, put the money in a college savings account for your kids, and maybe you can afford a semester or two at Wake down the road.
 
PhDeac said:
2&2, why do you bother? Just sell your business, put the money in a college savings account for your kids, and maybe you can afford a semester or two at Wake down the road.
Click to expand...

Defintiely thinking about it with one of them. Too much pain in the ass for not enough cash.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
We're just not going to agree on this one. If you're running a business then you know you're subject to law changes governing various aspects of compliance whether it be the potential the minimum wage increases, health care changes, or any number of changes related to workplace conditions. I can't imagine that trying to sort through health care plans and seeking out what's best for your company, yourself, and your employees (even if it's a lot of "red tape issues") in light of the ACA is beyond any reasonable level of what one might expect when overseeing all operations of a small business.
Click to expand...

Well then I would invite you to try it for yourself. Look back at Wrangor's posts throughout this thread as guidance.
 
I'm not interested in running a small business but if I were I would absolutely weigh future "hidden" costs which may arise when the political climate changes. Like I said, these are not unforeseen occurrences. The ACA passing was not a black swan event.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Well then I would invite you to try it for yourself. Look back at Wrangor's posts throughout this thread as guidance.
Click to expand...

Look back at the underlying reason...his state refused to fully implement ACA. In states that have, the same thing isn't happening.
 
Your failure to recognize that "political climate changes" are a hindrance to small business owners is baffling.
 
Liquid Karma said:
Your failure to recognize that "political climate changes" are a hindrance to small business owners is baffling.
Click to expand...

I'm not even debating whether it's a hindrance or not. I'm just stating the fact that it's something small business owners have to deal with and should be part of the calculus of owning a small business. To whine and moan about it and say that the "community organizer" bent you over and fucked you because you were blindsided by the change is just obnoxious. That's the only point. You know things like this will happen and that has to be part of the initial determination as to whether or not you want to get into the market in the first place. Obviously 2&2 is still in the market.
 
The "community organizer" cuts taxes and expanded depreciation benefits for small businesses. In states that have fully implemented ACA, costs have stabilized and in some cases gone down.

The blame about insurance rates and coverage is about the states that have nullified federal law. The person you should be blaming about this is John Roberts for his boneheaded ruling that states could opt out of a federal law.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I'm not even debating whether it's a hindrance or not. I'm just stating the fact that it's something small business owners have to deal with and should be part of the calculus of owning a small business. To whine and moan about it and say that the "community organizer" bent you over and fucked you because you were blindsided by the change is just obnoxious. That's the only point. You know things like this will happen and that has to be part of the initial determination as to whether or not you want to get into the market in the first place. Obviously 2&2 is still in the market.
Click to expand...

This is so far detached from reality that I don't even know where to begin. Do you know what most small business owners factor in to their "calculus" when starting a small business? Whether someone will buy their product/service. How to best market that product/service. Should they mortgage their house for the necessary capital, or just try to risk growing on receipts only. The identification of available space and rent. The cost of computers and paper and staples. The cost of property taxes. Where to find decent employees. How many employees they need. How to pay for those employees as the business, hopefully, ramps up. How many trash cans to buy for the office. Do we need a microwave? And about a million other operational questions.

I can guarandamntee you that not one single small business owner "calculated" the effect of a President enacting a nationwide law requiring not only that employers provide health coverage, but that said law would dictate the required contents of said coverage and force them out of their existing policies by driving up the premium to cover the fines for being noncompliant. Not one. Did they think that property or income tax rates could go up, sure. Did they think that they might need an extra use permit or zoning variance? Sure. Did they expext this? Not a chance in hell.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I'm not even debating whether it's a hindrance or not. I'm just stating the fact that it's something small business owners have to deal with and should be part of the calculus of owning a small business. To whine and moan about it and say that the "community organizer" bent you over and fucked you because you were blindsided by the change is just obnoxious. That's the only point. You know things like this will happen and that has to be part of the initial determination as to whether or not you want to get into the market in the first place. Obviously 2&2 is still in the market.
Click to expand...

I'm on 2&2's side here. This is dumb. Think it through to the logical conclusion, and what you get is Italy or France - places with such stifling workforce and business regulation that nobody wants to start a business or hire anybody, and if they do, they don't dare grow their business above some arbitrary number (in Italy, I think its 49 employees) to avoid having to comply. What you get is a stagnant economy that can't adapt to change and isn't capable of producing world-class firms.

Far better, IMO, for the government to simply tax at a level necessary to provide certain public goods (like healthcare) directly or through a single-payer social insurance scheme, and reduce the amount of red tape that businesses have to deal with. Using something easy to comply with like a VAT to finance the government rather than an incredibly complex income tax system also falls into this category.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I'm not even debating whether it's a hindrance or not. I'm just stating the fact that it's something small business owners have to deal with and should be part of the calculus of owning a small business. To whine and moan about it and say that the "community organizer" bent you over and fucked you because you were blindsided by the change is just obnoxious. That's the only point. You know things like this will happen and that has to be part of the initial determination as to whether or not you want to get into the market in the first place. Obviously 2&2 is still in the market.
Click to expand...

This is a poor excuse for bad policy. I hope you can see that. You could explain absolutely anything with this excuse. I mean anything.

"Government forces you to sell your wife to a sex slave market? Sorry - just the cost of doing business. Should have projected that."

"Govt raised your taxes 80%? Sorry - laws change. That is a part of doing business."

We all know policies change. That doesn't mean that you passively accept bad policy that truly damages small business.

I hope we go single payer very soon. Because that ACA did was burden small business even more in a time where many are already being swallowed up by a tough economy. ACA is just a foolish concept. It doesn't address the early issues. Cost control is number 1 and access to preventative care is number 2. ACA doesn't take any strides against preventative care and it actually puts the cost of the service further away from the patient. I feel like if this was truly a republican plan then I would maintain done sanity on this thread because then I would have a majority of people agreeing with me. At least I would have RJ PH and BKF.
 
Deacon923 said:
I'm on 2&2's side here. This is dumb. Think it through to the logical conclusion, and what you get is Italy or France - places with such stifling workforce and business regulation that nobody wants to start a business or hire anybody, and if they do, they don't dare grow their business above some arbitrary number (in Italy, I think its 49 employees) to avoid having to comply. What you get is a stagnant economy that can't adapt to change and isn't capable of producing world-class firms.

Far better, IMO, for the government to simply tax at a level necessary to provide certain public goods (like healthcare) directly or through a single-payer social insurance scheme, and reduce the amount of red tape that businesses have to deal with. Using something easy to comply with like a VAT to finance the government rather than an incredibly complex income tax system also falls into this category.
Click to expand...

+1. You are a faster Typer than I.
 
I'm all for government run health care and I agree it would make it easier for small business owners. My only point is that in the existing structure this is a legitimate concern that small business owners need to think about since that's the reality of the current climate. I've consistently been an advocate of detaching health care from employment for a host of reasons and this is one of them.
 
Deacon923 said:
I'm on 2&2's side here. This is dumb. Think it through to the logical conclusion, and what you get is Italy or France - places with such stifling workforce and business regulation that nobody wants to start a business or hire anybody, and if they do, they don't dare grow their business above some arbitrary number (in Italy, I think its 49 employees) to avoid having to comply. What you get is a stagnant economy that can't adapt to change and isn't capable of producing world-class firms.

Far better, IMO, for the government to simply tax at a level necessary to provide certain public goods (like healthcare) directly or through a single-payer social insurance scheme, and reduce the amount of red tape that businesses have to deal with. Using something easy to comply with like a VAT to finance the government rather than an incredibly complex income tax system also falls into this category.
Click to expand...

Except no industrialized country has a VAT alone. Germany routinely has the best economy in Europe. It has a maximum income tax rate of 45% (a huge percentage of people reach this due to their version of Social Security and healthcare). They also have a 19% VAT.

To have a VAT only on retail products, it would need to be over 40%.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I'm all for government run health care and I agree it would make it easier for small business owners. My only point is that in the existing structure this is a legitimate concern that small business owners need to think about since that's the reality of the current climate. I've consistently been an advocate of detaching health care from employment for a host of reasons and this is one of them.
Click to expand...

Oh we think about it all the time. Trust me. We think about how we can elect people to change it because in its current state it is a huge hindrance.

I agree with detaching HC from small business. I have been single payer base coverage for a while. Then let people supplement with additional insurance if they choose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top