Printable View
...and as such employ a number of people; this circumstance gives rise to my question:
By what historical reason, rationale or imperative am I charged with the responsibility to not only pay my employees what is somewhat amorphously referred to as a "living wage", I am expected to provide health insurance coverage, and assume financial responsibility for this provision.
Where/how did this custom begin?
I believe it began as a perk, a way to entice qualified people into the sweatshop you ran.
Well, I don't run a sweatshop.
Besides which, you didn't answer my question.
I thought I answered the "how" part and have no idea of the "where".
Perhaps it was Henry Ford, who famously doubled his workers daily salary in order to feed the expanding maw of the FMC.
What difference do "where and how" make anyway?
Okay, never mind the where or how.
How did it become a requirement?
I understand perfectly the perceived "convenience", and do not necessarily object to being the conduit by which coverage is procured, but how did it become an expectation that the business foot the bill, in part or in full?
Well I think it's the ideal that people should be entitled to health care, it is a right of nature that they receive so. Other countries have some form or way to provide health care for a lot of its citizens, so it seems the same is being done here. It was said before that US was the only developed country that had not provide "universal health care" I believe.
Dunno, I haven't had health insurance since 1983.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The practice of employer provided health insurance was actually started by larger companies to prevent their employees from leaving.
Your question has been answered by Clocker. If you want the right staff you have to pay them what the other chappie pays or lose them. Anyway you don't pay for it. Your customers pay for it, unless you are the first capitalist in the world to absorb all the costs and not pass them on to the customers, plus a wee bit extra for yourself and investors.:whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Maybe you need to eat more.
You should take up mind reading.:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Snee
It was pointless posting this.:whistling
And at the point my customers decide the cost of my services has surpassed their value and terminates the contract, putting us all on the breadline...what, then, Robert?Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboabYour question has been answered by Clocker. If you want the right staff you have to pay them what the other chappie pays or lose them. Anyway you don't pay for it. Your customers pay for it, unless you are the first capitalist in the world to absorb all the costs and not pass them on to the customers, plus a wee bit extra for yourself and investors.:whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
And at the point when a meteorite hits your car...what then, Kev?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Have you reached this hypothetical worst-case scenario yet?
Do your customers actually have a competitor to lever against you?
At what point do customer demands overwhelm your willingness to do business with them?
Is it acceptable for your customer to demand sacrifices from you that they are unwilling to make themselves?
They will only terminate the contract if they have somewhere else they can get the service cheaper or your rise in prices forces them out of business. If they can get it cheaper somewhere else then the fault lies with you. I understand where you are coming from.:) The only thing that stops socialism and capitalism working hand in hand is greed on one side and laziness on the other. To pretend that their is no fault on either side is delusional.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4And at the point my customers decide the cost of my services has surpassed their value and terminates the contract, putting us all on the breadline...what, then, Robert?Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Why would anyone be "at fault" here?Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
What if the low-bid competitor is able to work more cheaply because he's importing slave labor...would Kev be "at fault" for not following suit?
Is the entire point of being a businessman simply being in business?
Sorry I was of the assumption that all business men paid their staff a fair wage as per Governent guidelines( thinking of the UK).:cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerWhy would anyone be "at fault" here?Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
What if the low-bid competitor is able to work more cheaply because he's importing slave labor...would Kev be "at fault" for not following suit?
Is the entire point of being a businessman simply being in business?
Assuming all companies concerned are playing by the rules the latter part of this is only valid to a limited point in other cost areas, but the subject at hand is the cost of providing healthcare benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
To an unconcerned onlooker one might assume that competitors would have the same costs. As it stands right now that's not always the case. Two competing firms with the same amount of staff can have very different premiums. There is a case that has been highlighted (I will try to confirm it) where one company with 30(ish) employees had the company health insurance premium increased by 170% because they had one sick employee.
We shall see if this new bill rids us of this kind of thing.
I wonder why this was not pointed out when people were comparing the two health systems(UK and USA). That is a massive burden on the business section.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocateAssuming all companies concerned are playing by the rules the latter part of this is only valid to a limited point in other cost areas, but the subject at hand is the cost of providing healthcare benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
To an unconcerned onlooker one might assume that competitors would have the same costs. As it stands right now that's not always the case. Two competing firms with the same amount of staff can have very different premiums. There is a case that has been highlighted (I will try to confirm it) where one company with 30(ish) employees had the company health insurance premium increased by 170% because they had one sick employee.
We shall see if this new bill rids us of this kind of thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboabThey will only terminate the contract if they have somewhere else they can get the service cheaper or your rise in prices forces them out of business. If they can get it cheaper somewhere else then the fault lies with you. I understand where you are coming from.:) The only thing that stops socialism and capitalism working hand in hand is greed on one side and laziness on the other. To pretend that their is no fault on either side is delusional.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboabI wonder why this was not pointed out when people were comparing the two health systems(UK and USA). That is a massive burden on the business section.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Allow me to clarify-
My work is not production-critical, it is elective; if the corporate entity decides my services are too expensive, the tasks I perform (let's call me a peripheral-process engineer - I lube all the gears that are not made of metal) either do not get done, or they fall to salaried staff who would be less-than-happy at the prospect, and less effective at their assigned tasks.
Nonetheless, if corporate decides I am too expensive, the likelihood of my being replaced is nil, because my "in" is already the economy I bring.
The net may very well be a dozen people out-of-work and on the dole.
I described all this to a liberal politician of some recent note (he figured substantially in the health-care fiasco - in fact, you might call him the linch-pin) back in the early winter; he suggested to me that I was "under-capitalized".
The pol's name is Bart Stupak.
It sounds that the most likely danger to your contract associated with healthcare costs would be due to the company you contract to making savings to cover its own rising healthcare cost.
It is no secret here at least, in fact it was one (among many) of the main reasons given for reform was needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
I haven't found confirmation of the 170% increase, however examples of obscene increases are not hard to find.
I know employees pay national insurance for pension and healthcare, but do employers have to pay an employee health insurance in the UK as well? If this is the case is the amount the same per employee across the board?
Here companies that have healthcare packages pay a percentage of the premium and the employee pays the rest. The coverage and copays vary wildly depending on which policy the company offers. Just because a company offers health insurance doesn't mean the employees can afford to participate in the plan. More and more companies are reducing or dropping their plans.
Stupak is a Democrat but hardly a liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
During his reelection he will be targeted by both the left and the right, neither of whom are very happy with him.
Stupak is a democrat and a liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerStupak is a Democrat but hardly a liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
During his reelection he will be targeted by both the left and the right, neither of whom are very happy with him.
He sold his vote on the abortion thing pretty cheaply; about 800K for improvements at a couple of podunk airports.
I have known him for years, since he was a state cop in the late seventies, then a lawyer, and a state rep.
Actually, he did me a favor back in '87 that...oh, nevermind.
The outfits I currently contract with aren't going to finance any health-care coverage with the value of my tiny contract, trust me.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
By your definition, not by mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Well, he's not Nancy Pelosi, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerBy your definition, not by mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Neither are you, so what?
Stupak is a Republican masquerading as a Democrat and his positions on abortion and gun control show that he is nowhere close to being liberal.
I realize than in your neck of the woods that Attila the Hun is considered slightly "pink", so I understand your confusion.
Here is the table for NI contributions in the UK. Remember that this covers a lot more than health insurance:- Family Allowance, Unemployment Benefit and trillions of other benefits.*Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocateIt is no secret here at least, in fact it was one (among many) of the main reasons given for reform was needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
I haven't found confirmation of the 170% increase, however examples of obscene increases are not hard to find.
I know employees pay national insurance for pension and healthcare, but do employers have to pay an employee health insurance in the UK as well? If this is the case is the amount the same per employee across the board?
Here companies that have healthcare packages pay a percentage of the premium and the employee pays the rest. The coverage and copays vary wildly depending on which policy the company offers. Just because a company offers health insurance doesn't mean the employees can afford to participate in the plan. More and more companies are reducing or dropping their plans.
Well it did when I was working.:whistling
Rates and allowances - National Insurance contributions
National Insurance - rates and allowances
£ per week
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Lower earnings limit, primary Class 1
£90
£95
£97
Upper earnings limit, primary Class 1
£770
£844
£844
Upper accruals point
N/A
£770
£770
Primary threshold
£105
£110
£110
Secondary threshold
£105
£110
£110
Employees’ primary Class 1 rate between primary threshold and upper earnings limit
11%
11%
11%
Employees’ primary Class 1 rate above upper earnings limit
1%
1%
1%
Class 1A rate on employer provided benefits (1)
12.8%
12.8%
12.8%
Employees’ contracted-out rebate
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
Married women’s reduced rate between primary threshold and upper earnings limit
4.85%
4.85%
4.85%
Married women’s rate above upper earnings limit
1%
1%
1%
Employers’ secondary Class 1 rate above secondary threshold
12.8%
12.8%
12.8%
Employers’ contracted-out rebate, salary-related schemes
3.7%
3.7%
3.7%
Employers’ contracted-out rebate, money-purchase schemes
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
Class 2 rate
£2.30
£2.40
£2.40
Class 2 small earnings exception
£4,825 per year
£5,075 per year
£5,075 per year
Special Class 2 rate for share fishermen
£2.95
£3.05
£3.05
Special Class 2 rate for volunteer development workers
£4.50
£4.75
£4.85
Class 3 rate
£8.10
£12.05
£12.05
Class 4 lower profits limit
£5, 435 per year
£5, 715 per year
£5, 715 per year
Class 4 upper profits limit
£40, 040 per year
£43, 875 per year
£43, 875 per year
Class 4 rate between lower profits limit and upper profits limit
8%
8%
8%
Class 4 rate above upper profits limit
1%
1%
1%
(1) Class 1A NICs are calculated using the previous year’s benefit figure and the rate appropriate at the due date – July.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/nic.htm
Well that's about as clear as mud, which probably means it's accurate government figures.
So basically both the employer and employee pay and the amount depends on earnings? It's not a fixed price?
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Got it in one. Just like income tax. They changed Naional Insurance Charges from a fixed amount a few years back. Unfortunately a lot of the money is going into private companies thanks to Thatcher and Blair with their private finance initiative (PFI) . Since the introduction of PFI everything in the UK has gone down hill.:cry:
For small businesses, the effects of the now-passed health reform law include:
* By no later than 2014 , states will have to set up Small Business Health Options Programs, or "SHOP Exchanges," where small businesses will be able to pool together to buy insurance. ("Small businesses" are defined as those with no more than 100 employees, though states have the option of limiting pools to companies with 50 or fewer employees through 2016 ; companies that grow beyond the size limit will also be grandfathered in.) The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the exchanges would ease small business insurance costs, albeit only marginally: premiums in the small- group market are forecast to fall between 1 % and 4 % under the exchanges, while the amount of coverage would rise by up to 3 %.
* For the next four years, until the SHOP Exchanges are set up, businesses with 10 or fewer full-time- equivalent employees earning less than $25 ,000 a year on average will be eligible for a tax credit of 35 % of health insurance costs. (Companies with between 11 and 25 workers and an average wage of up to $50 ,000 are eligible for partial credits.) The tax credit will remain in place, increasing to 50 % of costs, for the first two years a company buys insurance through its state exchange. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the tax credit will affect about 12 % of individuals covered via the small-group insurance market, lowering their cost of insurance by between 8 % and 11 %.
* Insurers will no longer be able to set rates or exclude coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and can vary premiums only by geographic location, age, and tobacco use. These restrictions, however, would not kick in until 2014. Going into effect immediately: a ban on lifetime limits on coverage, and on "rescission" ( canceling policies already issued) except in cases of fraud.
* Starting in 2014 , businesses with more than 50 employees will be required to either offer healthcare coverage or pay a penalty of $750 a year per full-time worker. The coverage offered will also have to meet minimum benefits -- covering both a specific set of services and 60 % of employee health costs overall -- or else employers will face additional penalties.
* So-called "Cadillac" plans costing more than $10 , 200 a year for individuals or $27 ,500 for family coverage (not counting dental and vision plans) will be subject to a 40 % tax on the portion of the cost that exceeds the limit. Though the tax would actually be paid by insurers, it's expected that it would be passed along to plan holders in the form of higher premiums. Furthermore, if the House amendments approved Sunday pass the Senate intact under the reconciliation process, some other small business provisions will change:
* Part-time employees would be counted toward the 50- employee minimum on pro-rated basis based on hours worked, bringing more small businesses into the group required to provide coverage.
* The $750- per-employee penalty for not providing insurance would rise to $2 ,000.
* The Cadillac tax would be delayed until 2018 and apply only to the most expensive plans, making it more of a "Maserati" tax, in the words of Kaiser Health News .
* Individuals earning more than $200 ,000 a year, or couples earning $250 ,000 or more, would be hit with a 3.8 % surcharge on investment income to help pay for the bill.
Okay, so what's it gonna cost me?
Does the term "insurer" include the government?
Let's say my expansion does not occur within the next four years-
I will be eligible for a 35% credit against the cost of insuring my employees.
Such credits are absolutely meaningless until I have some idea of the actual cost of coverage, and, since costs have not been addressed in any way, shape, matter or form, let me assume a median cost of $500 monthly for each employee (this would be an educated guess based on my own research to date for very basic - and negligible - coverage that does not include any dental, vision, or pharmaceutical coverage).
This would come currently come to $5000/month, reduced by 35% ($1750) to a net cost of $3250/month.
Not knowing how (or at what calender point) I can access the credit, I must assume I will carry the $5000/month burden until the government reimburses me.
Even if I were somehow reimbursed instantaneously, the yearly increase ($39,000-$60,000) to my clients would be plenty to sink me.
By comparison, taking the penalty sounds like the way to go, but sure wouldn't be very productive, and, given my margins, might be enough to make me say, "fuck it; this isn't worth my time", in which case (I suppose) fie on me, right?
You better get used to this kind of thing Kev. I am only judging from what I see on the news etc, but I think like the UK a large part of the electoral roll will soon be 'the new immigrants' who want something for nothing or undercut wages and vote for the party that will supply it. So goodbye Republican Party. It is happening everywhere with the possible exception of the likes of Sweden. Where I believe, if qualifications are the same the Swede get picked first. Also you must be able to speak Swedish or English as an immigration qualification. I could be completely wrong about this. if I am, surely someone will correct me.:whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
So, small business is on the way out?
That won't work.
We're back to republicans in November, then.
So, you're in favor of- and adamantly predicting reelection for-the very same people who MADE SURE their was no meaningful cost control included in the bill.
Way to vote against your best interests.
Oh, excuse me-Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
'We're back to not-incumbents-or-democrats in November, then. '
So, Tea Party Republicans.
Nope, not gonna happen.
We'll see.
I don't know. Faux News and the like have managed to manipulate a lot of people into believing this crap. And they do it in such a way that it looks like a grassroots effort. Could be very damaging to incumbents.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
The impact of Fox News on actual voting trends is highly overrated...especially by Fox News.
Besides, the outcome of the next mid-term election cycle is almost irrelevant- the Republicans face a historical trend that no amount of whining or lying can overcome.
Look at a crowd pic of any right wing gathering and see how many blacks, Hispanics or any other non-white persons are in it.
The simple fact is that the right caters to older, white audiences and they are in the decline (non-white births in the US will outnumber white births by the end of the year).
Couple the shrinking fan base with the muddle headed decision to "resist" the Census (which determines congressional redistricting) and you have a naturally decreasing voter base actively seeking to render themselves politically invisible.
Not exactly genius level political strategy but probably the best the GOP could come up with in a LA strip club.