Over at PowerLine, Paul Mirengoff writes that "[e]mployers thus have a strong incentive not to employ more than 50 workers. By avoiding that threshold, they won't have to provide health insurance and will gain a cost advantage over competitors." That's because ObamaCare© requires employers with 50 or more employees (which includes, mathematically, even part-timers) to provide health insurance. Now, regular readers know that employers don't actually pay for health insurance anyway, but I'd like to expand on Paul's point a bit.
If it's a given (and it is) that employers don't pay health insurance or taxes, it follows that they won't pay any fines, either. We noted some weeks ago (far in advance of the MSM) that "employers may consider exiting the employer health market and send employees to state-run insurance exchanges;" so the effect is actually magnified.
Hunh?
Let's revisit that 2006 post on unintended consequences:
"When Joe was hired, his employer budgeted $60,000 for Joe's compensation; $50,000 is paid to Joe as wages, and the other $10,000 is sent to the insurance company and various government agencies (and, of course, some is to defray the costs of vacation and sick days, etc)."
Now let's presume that the cost of insurance has increased, say, 30% in the past 4 years (a reasonable supposition), and Joe's total cost of employment (what his employer puts in his paycheck plus sends to Washington and the insurer) has increased to $66,000 (a modest 10% over 4 years). If $13,000 of that represents his insurance costs, then the $2,000 "penalty" represents an 85% savings. Paying Washington an additional $2,000, but saving $13,000 in insurance premiums is an easy $11,000 net gain to his employer.
Now that's a good deal.
If it's a given (and it is) that employers don't pay health insurance or taxes, it follows that they won't pay any fines, either. We noted some weeks ago (far in advance of the MSM) that "employers may consider exiting the employer health market and send employees to state-run insurance exchanges;" so the effect is actually magnified.
Hunh?
Let's revisit that 2006 post on unintended consequences:
"When Joe was hired, his employer budgeted $60,000 for Joe's compensation; $50,000 is paid to Joe as wages, and the other $10,000 is sent to the insurance company and various government agencies (and, of course, some is to defray the costs of vacation and sick days, etc)."
Now let's presume that the cost of insurance has increased, say, 30% in the past 4 years (a reasonable supposition), and Joe's total cost of employment (what his employer puts in his paycheck plus sends to Washington and the insurer) has increased to $66,000 (a modest 10% over 4 years). If $13,000 of that represents his insurance costs, then the $2,000 "penalty" represents an 85% savings. Paying Washington an additional $2,000, but saving $13,000 in insurance premiums is an easy $11,000 net gain to his employer.
Now that's a good deal.
Posts
