undefined | Better HN

0 pointsNrsolis9y ago0 comments

I'd offer you the opportunity to do your own research into the subject if you'd like to investigate the implementation of ACA in NY state:

https://nystateofhealth.ny.gov/

Let's start with how much money you need to make to see your subsidies completely extinguished: $50,000. That's the limit no matter if you live in Buffalo or Westchester.

Let's then get into the regulations associated with ownership of a company. Did you know that as the owner of a company no matter the size or organization, you're NOT considered an employee of your own company? Nor is your wife?

From the NY state website:

"Under 29 CFR 2510.3-3, an employee would not include a sole proprietor or the sole proprietor's spouse. The definition for Common Law employee can be found here.

The structure of the business does not matter. For example, the business could be a corporation, LLC or d/b/a.

Employees (1) An individual and his or her spouse shall not be deemed to be employees with respect to a trade or business, whether incorporated or unincorporated, which is wholly owned by the individual or by the individual and his or her spouse, and (2) A partner in a partnership and his or her spouse shall not be deemed to be employees with respect to the partnership.

Specifically, 29 CFR 2510.3�3 states the following: (c) Employees. For purposes of this section: (1) An individual and his or her spouse shall not be deemed to be employees with respect to a trade or business, whether incorporated or unincorporated, which is wholly owned by the individual or by the individual and his or her spouse, and (2) A partner in a partnership and his or her spouse shall not be deemed to be employees with respect to the partnership."

So it does matter that the self-employed seem to get screwed a bit harder than the popular opinion acknowledges.

So, tell me again, which part of shifting costs from people who didn't go to law school and dropped out to work at McDonalds to those who finished school and did sounds like a fair deal to you?

Does shifting costs to those more conscientious sound like a great plan for national unity? How do you feel when your co-workers play hookey, sleep in, and write bad code? Do you think those folks deserve the same promotion opportunities you do? Do you think that any society that punishes achievers is one that is set up for success?

Let's discuss facts and not opinions. Show me the costs for insurance and where the subsidies end and tell me if you think it sounds like a good deal to you in a county where the property taxes for a small condo run about $25K per year.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

fencepost9y ago· 2 in thread

> [link to NY Exchange, 50k cap for subsidies]

Great, so he's making more than $50k/year, I'd hope that to be the case if he was able to make it through college and get a J.D.

> [ownership of a company & employee status]

I'm not disputing that, though I suppose if he really wanted to he could form a C Corporation and give or sell a small percentage of the shares to someone else to make it possible for him to become an employee. He's an attorney, he'd have a far better idea of the legal issues surrounding that kind of thing than I would. It seems logical to me (though possibly not in NY law) that if by law he's not an employee that it then follows that he is also not an employer since there are no employees.

I don't see how any of the above is actually relevant. All it really means to me is that he'd be purchasing coverage in the "Individuals & Families" portion of the exchange. I've never lived in NY, but in my experience with the Illinois/Federal exchange I don't think I've never been asked whether I was an employer, only whether I was an employee of a company that provided health insurance (or was required to provide health insurance by virtue of being >50 people).

And quite frankly if he's paying more than twice my annual mortgage amount just in property taxes, my sympathy over his premium increasing from $175 to $450 is very limited.

Admittedly, I'd be perfectly happy to see a return to Kennedy-era tax rates for incomes over $4 million/year and I'd be ecstatic to have those rates apply to me (because it'd mean I was making at least that much in annual income, but my needs and wants are simple and easily met with less than $100,000/month of income), so maybe I'm not the kind of person likely to be incredibly sympathetic here.

NrsolisOP9y ago

Guess what, you can't just "form a C corp" and go from there. The rules specifically exclude that kind of structure.

Look, it all looks great but when you REALLY DIG down into the rules, what you see is a recipe for disaster. The plans in NY that had to shut down were staffed by a roster of amateurs because the laws SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED people who had worked in the healthcare insurance industry from splitting off and starting their own companies.

They quite literally expected a bunch of community activists to run an insurance company and it failed MISERABLY.

Facts are sometimes inconvenient things.

fencepost9y ago

Regarding C corps, that's why I noted diversifying the ownership of the company and "he's a lawyer, he'd know better than I."

Exchange-created co-ops bit the dust elsewhere as well. In Illinois it was Land of Lincoln Health, which was closed by the state because it was going to be unable to make a required payment into the program designed to help keep the newly-created companies stable. I believe whatever remains of LLH may actually still be suing the Federal government, because part of what drove them under was not getting ~$70m that they should have received through those same cost-sharing systems. (caveat: Not an insurance industry person and I didn't watch it that closely). Still, I'm sure that there were a lot of amateurs who got involved. I'm also sure there were a lot of professionals and investors who got involved and in many cases lost money because even minor fixes became impossible after the law was passed. NOTHING that was going to make the ACA's implementation better was going to make it through Congress, particularly the Senate.

The problem is that when you dig down into the rules you may find a recipe for disaster, but you also found the only way it could possibly work. There are minor nuances, but when you really dig down you find that the "liberal dream of Obamacare" is really "Romneycare" is really at its core a design created by the Heritage Foundation[1]. That's not to say that it's great or terrible or doomed because it was championed by Democrats or doomed because it was written by Republicans, it's just the only viable structure that doesn't have single-payer as its core. If the Republicans in Congress actually do come up with a replacement it's going to look almost identical to the ACA except for cosmetic differences and name changes, and if Democrats stick with "You broke it, YOU fix it" then it'll also never pass and we'll be right back where we were in 2008.

[1] http://americablog.com/2013/10/original-1989-document-herita... And a countervailing argument that "[The ACA is from the Heritage Foundation is bunk]" http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2016/02/15/where-did...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse