It shouldn't take a sitting Democrat Governor to make this obvious connection, but maybe it's for the best:
"For a person starting a business in 2014, it will be logical and responsible simply to plan from the outset never to offer health benefits ... the eventual penalty for not providing coverage, of $2,000 per employee, is still far less than the cost of insurance it replaces."
We've made this same argument, of course, but it's startling to hear it from a Democrat governor.
But is it accurate?
You betcha:
That $2000 fine comes to about $166 per employee (per month). Under almost any scenario, that number is less than (often substantially less than) the actual insurance premium for that employee. Add in the cost of administration, and it becomes even more lop-sided in favor of the fine. Add in the intangibles (employee meetings, annual renewal reviews) and the cost savings are obvious and compelling.
That "thud!" you hear is the sound of your current employer-based coverage going under the bus.
"For a person starting a business in 2014, it will be logical and responsible simply to plan from the outset never to offer health benefits ... the eventual penalty for not providing coverage, of $2,000 per employee, is still far less than the cost of insurance it replaces."
We've made this same argument, of course, but it's startling to hear it from a Democrat governor.
But is it accurate?
You betcha:
That $2000 fine comes to about $166 per employee (per month). Under almost any scenario, that number is less than (often substantially less than) the actual insurance premium for that employee. Add in the cost of administration, and it becomes even more lop-sided in favor of the fine. Add in the intangibles (employee meetings, annual renewal reviews) and the cost savings are obvious and compelling.
That "thud!" you hear is the sound of your current employer-based coverage going under the bus.
Posts
