| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Trading Rights for Protections; Corporations protect fortunes | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 26 2014, 09:10 AM (401 Views) | |
| colo_crawdad | Mar 27 2014, 04:53 AM Post #21 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh, according to your posts, it is exactly what the law requires. |
![]() |
|
| Berton | Mar 27 2014, 04:55 AM Post #22 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, I think you will find that the law requires for the company to provided insurance, not money to buy insurance, or be fined $2000 per person per year. |
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Mar 27 2014, 05:01 AM Post #23 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sorry, double post.
Edited by colo_crawdad, Mar 27 2014, 05:03 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Mar 27 2014, 05:04 AM Post #24 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I take it that Berton believes that there is only one way for "a company to provided insurance." I have already demonstrated another method for a company to provide insurance. It is not an uncommon practice. |
![]() |
|
| Berton | Mar 27 2014, 07:09 AM Post #25 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I take it that Colo_crawdad does not believe what I told him. Large firms that employ full-time workers who obtain subsidized health insurance in the new health insurance exchanges — rather than employer-sponsored coverage — will be required to pay a penalty. That is the fine I am talking about. Doing it "HIS' way will end up with the employer paying $2000 per person per year for every employee over 30 employees. While like he says it has been common practice, things have changed. Obamacare was passed. |
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Mar 27 2014, 07:28 AM Post #26 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You are correct, Berton, I do not believe your narrow interpretation of what it means to "provide health insurance." My employer several years ago "provided me health insurance" through flex benefits. On edit, where did I say anything about government subsidized insurance? Edited by colo_crawdad, Mar 27 2014, 07:30 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Berton | Mar 27 2014, 10:17 AM Post #27 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Perhaps, but I am begining to doubt it, you will believe Justice Elena Kagan: "There’s one penalty that is if the employer continues to provide health insurance without this part of the coverage, but Hobby Lobby would choose not to provide health insurance at all. And in that case Hobby Lobby would pay $2,000 per employee, which is less than Hobby Lobby probably pays to provide insurance to its employees." |
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Mar 27 2014, 10:37 AM Post #28 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Where did you get the impression that I am suggesting that Hobby Lobby would or should "choose not to provide health insurance at all?" |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Mar 27 2014, 11:23 AM Post #29 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This is the can of worms that was opened in trying to preserve employer paid health care. IMO, it was a big mistake giving the tax credits for it in the first place. The widespread benefit has been partially responsible for the outrageous costs in the first place. Taxpayer funded single payer is the way to go. And, then Hobby Lobby could just pay it's taxes, and get it's nose out of their employees health care. Of course they would probably object to their tax money going for things that were against their religious beliefs. What next? "It's against my religion to pay taxes?" |
![]() |
|
| Berton | Mar 28 2014, 07:32 AM Post #30 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You keep insisting that providing money to the employees for them to pay for Obamacare insurance could be done without the employer paying a fine. That is simply not the case: The Employer Mandate Fee / Employer Shared Responsibility Payment The annual employer mandate fee (officially called an Employer Shared Responsibility Payment) is a per employee fee for employers with over 50 full-time equivalent employees who don't offer health coverage to full-time employees. • The employer mandate is based on full-time equivalent employees, not just full-time employees. • The fee is based on whether or not you offer affordable health insurance to your employees that provides minimum value (explained below). • The annual fee is $2,000 per employee if insurance isn't offered (the first 30 full-time employees are exempt). http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-employer-mandate.php |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




10:19 PM Jul 11
