“_Merkley also pushed for language that will exclude all but the very smallest construction industry companies from the bill’s small business exemption. In general, the exemption says that companies with fewer than 50 workers aren’t subject to penalties if they don’t ensure their employees. In the construction business, under Merkley’s change, only firms with fewer than five workers and a payroll under $250,000 would be exempt. Merkley’s spokeswoman said the change was needed to ensure that construction contractors, which are overwhelmingly small businesses, provide insurance for their workers.” http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSnc6xKS4IaEamw0pgkwIHaHXiYAD9CO7S403
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Listeners write in about continuing education, minisplit heat pumps, compact home shops, and building science.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
Nice, way to stick it to small business and help squash new businesses. Remind me why healthcare is tethered to your job?
"Remind me why healthcare is tethered to your job?"
The ONLY reason was because of government controls. Started in WW2 when there where wage controls. But they could add benefits to attract workers.
Now it is a NON-Taxable event if it is supplied by the employer. But if an individual buys it, then it is with after tax money.
For many reasons it is wrong to be employer supplied.
>>"Remind me why healthcare is tethered to your job?"
>>The ONLY reason was because of government controls. Started in WW2 when there where wage controls. But they could add benefits to attract workers
LOL
Please explain then how the current private sector insurers got into the game in the late 60's and 70's under your scenario.
Up until, almost all health insurance was thru mom-profit blue cross blue shield.
True conservatives would say - well, we tried this new fangled private sector health insurance for 40-50 years and it's been a freaking disaster, letrs go back to the old way."
Modern "conservatives" say, "hey, it's making a bunch of private sector companies boatloads of money so it's gotta be 'good,' regardless of how it helped costs to skyrocket and has rationed large segmnents of the population out of the the market. "
"Private sector profits" above all else!
WWWSTD?
(What would Wall Street do?)
"Please explain then how the current private sector insurers got into the game in the late 60's and 70's under your scenario.
Up until, almost all health insurance was thru mom-profit blue cross blue shield."
You are right. My scenario did not explain that.
The question that I was responding to had absolutely nothing to do with your question.
As to why that might have happened.
A) I have absolutely no information to indicate if that was true or not.
B) I have no information about what state or federal laws that might have been enacted that might have made it easier for for profit companies operate than non-profits.
C) I have absolutely no desire nor the time to investigate this.
"True conservatives would say - well, we tried this new fangled private sector health insurance for 40-50 years and it's been a freaking disaster, letrs go back to the old way.""
I don't know of any true conservative that advocates going back to blood letting and paying in chickens.
"Modern "conservatives" say, "hey, it's making a bunch of private sector companies boatloads of money so it's gotta be 'good,' regardless of how it helped costs to skyrocket and has rationed large segmnents of the population out of the the market. ""
Only in your imagination. I have never heard any say that.
But it is interest that Medicare was enacted during that time frame.
And speaking of non-profits and rationing care. BTW, the losses from medicare is one of the reasons that insurance cost is rising.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHoYSI84VdL0
"The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little. "
"Mayo’s move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday.
“Many physicians have said, ‘I simply cannot afford to keep taking care of Medicare patients,’” said Heim, a family doctor who practices in Laurinburg, North Carolina. “If you truly know your business costs and you are losing money, it doesn’t make sense to do more of it.” "
"The Mayo organization had 3,700 staff physicians and scientists and treated 526,000 patients in 2008. It lost $840 million last year on Medicare, the government’s health program for the disabled and those 65 and older, Mayo spokeswoman Lynn Closway said.
Mayo’s hospital and four clinics in Arizona, including the Glendale facility, lost $120 million on Medicare patients last year, Yardley said. The program’s payments cover about 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients at the Glendale clinic, he said. "
"Medicare covered an estimated 45 million Americans at the end of 2008, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the agency in charge of the programs. While 92 percent of U.S. family doctors participate in Medicare, only 73 percent of those are accepting new patients under the program, said Heim of the national physicians’ group, citing surveys by the Leawood, Kansas-based organization. "
Health Insurance is tied to your job because of WWII restrictions on wages. Companies were barred from raising wages to attract more employees (lest they draw employees away from other companies more important to the war effort but less profitable). So in response, some companies started offering health insurance to attract employees and the rest as they say is history.
and it also brings to mind the point that no matter what the government puts in place, somebody smarter will find a way around it.
Change to everybody being a subcontractor--no employees.
They can buy health insurance on their own. No workers comp. For yourself go to legalzoom to set up your company. Own nothing. Use a trust to hold title to tools, house, cars. Rent stuff from the trust. Get high deductible health and put cash in an envelope every week to cover the deductible, dental and annual exams. Buy a safe. If you are going to play the game then know the rules and go for it. Tyr
Tyr,
"Change to everybody being a subcontractor--no employees."
If by that you mean make all of your employees Subs?
Your gonna want to talk to a REALLY, REALLY good accountant. I think damn near everyone here knows someone who thought they had that riddle solved.............only to get nailed by uncle sam, with penalties AND interest.
not to mention... what is the next step if one of those "subs" gets injured on the job ?
how long will it take a personal injury lawyer to pierce that veil and lead the government to throw you in jail ?
"subs" and "independent contractors" as euphemisms for illegaly categorized employees is no way to run a business
instead of whining about having to provide health insurancre we should look at it as an opporetunity to attract and keep valuable employees with legally sanctioned benefits
as contractors we should always remember we are trying to build a successful business
unless you are a one-man-band, you need real employees to build a real business..
one can obfuscate and dodge anf prevaricate... but i don't see how that builds a reputation for fair dealing..
it just means your clientel would rather deal with a chiseler than a straight-shooter
always try to think long term...do the right thing.. that's how you get referrals.. your customers... your subs... your employees know who's on the up and up... and your reputation is one of the most valuable things you own.... or disown
""not to mention... what is the next step if one of those "subs" gets injured on the job ?
how long will it take a personal injury lawyer to pierce that veil and lead the government to throw you in jail ?""
I wasn't even going to open that can of worms.
I remain amazed at the number of people out there who are driving $50K trucks with their names painted on the sides, and yet expose themselves to all kinds of risk to save a few bucks.
Seperate from how you feel about Healthcare? Anyone with employees has an obligation to do the right thing and provide themselves AND the employee the appropriate protections.
One thing that always amused me about this business: There seems to be, other than bad mouthing the other guy, no form of self policing.
Even worse is driving a company truck when you pull a bank heist.
http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/39287/
"Video surveillance footage from a nearby business showed McAvinew leave the bank and walk toward a white van, which bore the company insignia of A.M. Heating and Cooling. McAvinew is part owner of A.M. Heating and Cooling, and was identified by his business partner from bank surveillance photos. McAvinew was also identified by his wife, the affidavit says, who told law enforcement officers that she had seen her husband’s photo in the media that day and called the TIPS hot line to report that her husband was the robber."
Do you plan on letting your "non-employees" come and go as they please? Are your "non-employees" going to have all their own tools? Are your "non-employees" going to do the work the way they want to or are you going to tell them how to do it? You need to be very very careful about classifying employees as independent contractors. The IRS will kill you when they catch you. You will owe both ends of social security instead of just 1/2 plus interest and penalties on every dollar you pay plus your smart/honest employees are going to figure out pretty quick you stuck them with paying their own FICA which means you either give them a 7.5% increase or one of them will turn you in.
IRS rules:
Types of Instructions Given
An employee is generally subject to the business’s instructions about when, where, and how to work. All of the following are examples of types of instructions about how to do work.
When and where to do the work.
What tools or equipment to use.
What workers to hire or to assist with the work.
Where to purchase supplies and services.
What work must be performed by a specified individual.
What order or sequence to follow when performing the work.
Degree of Instruction
Degree of Instruction means that the more detailed the instructions, the more control the business exercises over the worker. More detailed instructions indicate that the worker is an employee. Less detailed instructions reflects less control, indicating that the worker is more likely an independent contractor.
Note: The amount of instruction needed varies among different jobs. Even if no instructions are given, sufficient behavioral control may exist if the employer has the right to control how the work results are achieved. A business may lack the knowledge to instruct some highly specialized professionals; in other cases, the task may require little or no instruction. The key consideration is whether the business has retained the right to control the details of a worker's performance or instead has given up that right.
Evaluation System
If an evaluation system measures the details of how the work is performed, then these factors would point to an employee.
If the evaluation system measures just the end result, then this can point to either an independent contractor or an employee.
Training
If the business provides the worker with training on how to do the job, this indicates that the business wants the job done in a particular way. This is strong evidence that the worker is an employee. Periodic or on-going training about procedures and methods is even stronger evidence of an employer-employee relationship. However, independent contractors ordinarily use their own methods.
Significant investment
An independent contractor often has a significant investment in the equipment he or she uses in working for someone else. However, in many occupations, such as construction, workers spend thousands of dollars on the tools and equipment they use and are still considered to be employees. There are no precise dollar limits that must be met in order to have a significant investment. Furthermore, a significant investment is not necessary for independent contractor status as some types of work simply do not require large expenditures.
Unreimbursed expenses
Independent contractors are more likely to have unreimbursed expenses than are employees. Fixed ongoing costs that are incurred regardless of whether work is currently being performed are especially important. However, employees may also incur unreimbursed expenses in connection with the services that they perform for their business.
Opportunity for profit or loss
The opportunity to make a profit or loss is another important factor. If a worker has a significant investment in the tools and equipment used and if the worker has unreimbursed expenses, the worker has a greater opportunity to lose money (i.e., their expenses will exceed their income from the work). Having the possibility of incurring a loss indicates that the worker is an independent contractor.
Services available to the market
An independent contractor is generally free to seek out business opportunities. Independent contractors often advertise, maintain a visible business location, and are available to work in the relevant market.
Method of payment
An employee is generally guaranteed a regular wage amount for an hourly, weekly, or other period of time. This usually indicates that a worker is an employee, even when the wage or salary is supplemented by a commission. An independent contractor is usually paid by a flat fee for the job. However, it is common in some professions, such as law, to pay independent contractors hourly.
Written Contracts
Although a contract may state that the worker is an employee or an independent contractor, this is not sufficient to determine the worker’s status. The IRS is not required to follow a contract stating that the worker is an independent contractor, responsible for paying his or her own self employment tax. How the parties work together determines whether the worker is an employee or an independent contractor.
Employee Benefits
Employee benefits include things like insurance, pension plans, paid vacation, sick days, and disability insurance. Businesses generally do not grant these benefits to independent contractors. However, the lack of these types of benefits does not necessarily mean the worker is an independent contractor.
Permanency of the Relationship
If you hire a worker with the expectation that the relationship will continue indefinitely, rather than for a specific project or period, this is generally considered evidence that the intent was to create an employer-employee relationship.
Services Provided as Key Activity of the Business
If a worker provides services that are a key aspect of the business, it is more likely that the business will have the right to direct and control his or her activities. For example, if a law firm hires an attorney, it is likely that it will present the attorney’s work as its own and would have the right to control or direct that work. This would indicate an employer-employee relationship.
QUOTE
Change to everybody being a subcontractor--no employees.
They can buy health insurance on their own. No workers comp. For yourself go to legalzoom to set up your company. Own nothing. Use a trust to hold title to tools, house, cars. Rent stuff from the trust. Get high deductible health and put cash in an envelope every week to cover the deductible, dental and annual exams. Buy a safe. If you are going to play the game then know the rules and go for it. Tyr
END QUOTE
And get ready to pay a boatload of tax penalties and back taxes.
There are rules here that you have to follow - talk to a lawyer or tax accountant before contemplating this risky procedure.
Lets see as I understand it the health care bill originally said that "businesses with more than 50 employees would have to pay a $750-per-worker penalty to the federal government if any of their employees purchases subsidized insurance on their own" but then a "new version of the bill lowers that threshold to five employees for construction firms."
———————————————
Health bill hammers small construction firms
...The National Association of Home Builders contends the provision, reportedly suggested by the AFL-CIO, could put many small home builders out of business and derail the housing recovery.
“This narrow provision is an unprecedented assault on the construction industry and unjustly targets an industry trying to keep its doors open during the worst housing downturn since the Great Depression,” said NAHB Chairman Joe Robson, a home builder from Tulsa, Okla.
“This is a true jobs killer,” he said. “Thousands of small builder firms struggling to stay afloat could go under. We strongly urge the Senate to reconsider and pull this onerous provision.”
That sentiment was echoed by trade associations that represent construction companies.
[...]
———————————————
Okay I understand that these are trade organizations standing up for our interests as small construction contractors but just how is a ' $750-per-worker penalty' going to put "Thousands of small builder firms" under? That penalty works out to a measly $.42 per hour per employee if you decide as a contracting business owner not to provide health insurance to your employees. A small contractor with 5 employees would have to cough up $3,750.
"That penalty works out to a measly $.42 per hour per employee if you decide as a contracting business owner not to provide health insurance to your employees. A small contractor with 5 employees would have to cough up $3,750."
You just answered your own question Jerrald.
You and I both probably know a bunch of guys, in business for themselves, who have 5 employees but couldn't cough up $3750.00.
Off hand I can think of four. Now, we can also probably agree that those guys need to worry less about this issue and more about why their business isn't making enough money....
But the net end result is still the same.....SOME small guys will lay off all of their employees.
Then again, maybe those employees would be better off if they lost their jobs and had to find new ones.
Yes Robert I do know plenty of small contractors who probably can't come up with enough cash to cough up even that pittance of a penalty fee and I think clients of those contractors and and the employees they have will be better served if they do go out of business.
Jerrald,
I'm split on this
Jerrald,
I'm split on this issue.
On one hand I think that our government has well overstepped it's bounds in some of the legislation and regulation it imposes. Every day it gets harder and harder to run a legitimate small business.
I find a certain irony in the fact that we talk about how small business is the backbone of this country and how we admire the individualist and entrepeneurial spirits.
And yet year after year collectively we make it harder and harder to keep that spirit alive.
On the other hand? Every fly by night contractor who cuts corners and dances right on the edge of doing the bare minimum makes it harder for those who run a real business.
So where's the balance?
I do, by the way, think that any elected represntative who votes for the health care bill should be publically stoned. But that's a subject for the Tavern
Good points - almost every issue has pros and cons for an particular position
hey bill.... happy new year !