dave lackey
Veteran
How is a small photography business going to cope?
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/22/smallbusiness/small_business_health_reform/index.htm?hpt=T1
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/22/smallbusiness/small_business_health_reform/index.htm?hpt=T1
Thardy
Veteran
I guess it depends how many employees and their status. Another factor would be what SHOP exchanges your state sets up. Those tax credits look interesting. The business owners who commented on the article had some ideas you might look into.
40oz
...
How is a small photography business going to cope?
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/22/smallbusiness/small_business_health_reform/index.htm?hpt=T1
I think the textbook Republican answer is "if you can't afford to stay in business, you shouldn't be in business." I mean what do you want, a government handout?
It might surprise you to know that the current situation in many states requires businesses to offer health care plans to all employees working more than 32 hours a week.
I mean really, the cost of an employer group plan should fall and the ability of the employee to afford the plan should increase. So the end result is more covered individuals, more people paying into plans, and more money being spent on healthcare by more people. A sum increase in economic gain with a lower cost to any individual. I'm really struggling to see the downside.
dave lackey
Veteran
So far only two responses OT...please do not make light of this topic.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Dave,
OT?
Sorry, the rest of the developed world has a problem understanding why the richest and most powerful country in all the world can't afford health care for all its citizens. Hence a certain amount of 'making light of' objections that were dismissed decades ago elsewhere.
As Obama said, it's far from perfect, but it's a massive step in the right direction.
You can view this as partisan politics if you like, but the simple truth is that from a European standpoint, Democrats are often to the right of the moderate-right parties, and Republicans sometimes look a bit like the National Front. There is no significant American left-wing party.
If Europe can handle medical care for all, it's hard to see why Americans can't. Too poor? Too incompetent? Too doctrinaire? I have a higher opinion of the American people than that.
Cheers,
R.
OT?
Sorry, the rest of the developed world has a problem understanding why the richest and most powerful country in all the world can't afford health care for all its citizens. Hence a certain amount of 'making light of' objections that were dismissed decades ago elsewhere.
As Obama said, it's far from perfect, but it's a massive step in the right direction.
You can view this as partisan politics if you like, but the simple truth is that from a European standpoint, Democrats are often to the right of the moderate-right parties, and Republicans sometimes look a bit like the National Front. There is no significant American left-wing party.
If Europe can handle medical care for all, it's hard to see why Americans can't. Too poor? Too incompetent? Too doctrinaire? I have a higher opinion of the American people than that.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
dave lackey
Veteran
Ahhh...let me elaborate. This thread is not political...it is NOT intended to be political. Pardon my lack of communication (thread even got moved!), but I am trying to establish whether or not I can get a small photo business going in light of new regulations, this one being the Health Care bill, soon to be law.
I would appreciate if experienced people with small businesses can help me sort through the political garbage and get down to the nuts and bolts of what it will cost a small business owner...in other words, is it worth my time and effort to start a small business if the overhead increases dramatically even though I may have only one or two employees, part time, fulltime or whatever.?????
I would appreciate if experienced people with small businesses can help me sort through the political garbage and get down to the nuts and bolts of what it will cost a small business owner...in other words, is it worth my time and effort to start a small business if the overhead increases dramatically even though I may have only one or two employees, part time, fulltime or whatever.?????
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sorry to have misunderstood, Dave.
What you are asking is part of a business plan: capital equipment, salaries and social costs (insurances, including health). Speak to the IRS, who are normally astonishingly helpful and well informed, and get yourself a Democrat accountant who won't inflate insurance prices just to frighten you. If he/she is being unrealistic, you'll know as soon as you ask an insurance company. Or two or three companies, recommended by your accountant, anyway.
It's normally safe to disregard alarmist stories in the 'business' press.
Cheers,
R.
What you are asking is part of a business plan: capital equipment, salaries and social costs (insurances, including health). Speak to the IRS, who are normally astonishingly helpful and well informed, and get yourself a Democrat accountant who won't inflate insurance prices just to frighten you. If he/she is being unrealistic, you'll know as soon as you ask an insurance company. Or two or three companies, recommended by your accountant, anyway.
It's normally safe to disregard alarmist stories in the 'business' press.
Cheers,
R.
dave lackey
Veteran
Thanks, Roger...no problems...just a cluster with my bad communication and the thread being moved out of the Photo Bucks forum.
I am only looking for the missing part now, which is the increased costs associated with the new provisions of the Health Care bill...assuming it is not struck down as un-constitutional or something else. I have less faith in our federal government than you do, I'm afraid...
Perhaps I should just raise my prices extremely high, dress in black, and extoll my artistic flair to cover any increased costs? LOL...
I am only looking for the missing part now, which is the increased costs associated with the new provisions of the Health Care bill...assuming it is not struck down as un-constitutional or something else. I have less faith in our federal government than you do, I'm afraid...
Perhaps I should just raise my prices extremely high, dress in black, and extoll my artistic flair to cover any increased costs? LOL...
40oz
...
I apologize if I mistook your post as political in nature. But given your other post, I hardly feel like I was being unreasonable.
From what I have read, the only change relevant to the business owner is instead of group rates being based on your pool of employees, your rates will be based on a much larger pool of many small businesses. You will get a better price, in other words, as the insurer can spread the risk across a larger number of premium-paying insureds.
A factor that may complicate the "lower rates" assertion is that coverage can no longer be denied. For instance, if you hire an employee that has had long-term issues with heart disease, the insurer cannot flatly refuse to insure that person for any price. On the one hand, having them in a pool of insured workers drives up the total cost to the insurer and hence increases everyone's premiums. But on the other hand, the motivation for large pools is to spread the risk among lots of premium-paying insureds. This won't change, so the rate paid by the members of the pool will have minimal change.
Currently, a small business pays more per member for insurance than a large corporation because their pool is smaller. The creation of larger pools means that the actual rate for most people working for a small company will decrease. In addition, the new tax credit granted will offset the cost. I can't really see a situation where an individual would be better off under the current system than the newly proposed one. The employer contribution will be smaller per employee as a result, so even employers benefit.
In short, this is a great thing for anyone who is looking to start a small business, as health insurance costs can be prohibitive when you don't have a very large pool of workers for your employer group plan.
Keep in mind that in many states, you only need to provide a health plan if you have more than a certain number of employes and income higher than a set amount. And some states have long had the same kinds of provisions that are included in the new national health care bill. It's entirely possible that little will change for many people.
From what I have read, the only change relevant to the business owner is instead of group rates being based on your pool of employees, your rates will be based on a much larger pool of many small businesses. You will get a better price, in other words, as the insurer can spread the risk across a larger number of premium-paying insureds.
A factor that may complicate the "lower rates" assertion is that coverage can no longer be denied. For instance, if you hire an employee that has had long-term issues with heart disease, the insurer cannot flatly refuse to insure that person for any price. On the one hand, having them in a pool of insured workers drives up the total cost to the insurer and hence increases everyone's premiums. But on the other hand, the motivation for large pools is to spread the risk among lots of premium-paying insureds. This won't change, so the rate paid by the members of the pool will have minimal change.
Currently, a small business pays more per member for insurance than a large corporation because their pool is smaller. The creation of larger pools means that the actual rate for most people working for a small company will decrease. In addition, the new tax credit granted will offset the cost. I can't really see a situation where an individual would be better off under the current system than the newly proposed one. The employer contribution will be smaller per employee as a result, so even employers benefit.
In short, this is a great thing for anyone who is looking to start a small business, as health insurance costs can be prohibitive when you don't have a very large pool of workers for your employer group plan.
Keep in mind that in many states, you only need to provide a health plan if you have more than a certain number of employes and income higher than a set amount. And some states have long had the same kinds of provisions that are included in the new national health care bill. It's entirely possible that little will change for many people.
Last edited:
parsec1
parsec1
Of course the post is political. Wake up for Fraks sake everybody. I love America as much as many on here perhaps I have reason to love them more. A close friend and a close family member have their names on 'The Wall' ! and I wasn't that far away when they both 'Bought the farm'.
But I gave up wearing my coonskin cap and 'shootin Buffalo' for the railroads 150 years ago and as for them 'pesky redskins' well...........
Btw who was it built the skyscrapers in most American Cities..sure wasn't Republican Congressmen !
But I gave up wearing my coonskin cap and 'shootin Buffalo' for the railroads 150 years ago and as for them 'pesky redskins' well...........
Btw who was it built the skyscrapers in most American Cities..sure wasn't Republican Congressmen !
Last edited:
parsec1
parsec1
Forgot to mention ,how do you run a photographic business with a Leica M3 and a 50 mm summarit ? Not even HCB could do that alone.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Of course the post is political. Wake up for Fraks sake everybody. I love America as much as many on here perhaps I have reason to love them more. A close friend and a close family member have their names on 'The Wall' ! and I wasn't that far away when they both 'Bought the farm'.
But I gave up wearing my coonskin cap and 'shootin Buffalo' for the railroads 150 years ago and as for them 'pesky redskins' well...........
Btw who was it built the skyscrapers in most American Cities..sure wasn't Republican Congressmen !
Best ignored, Dave. Unhelpful.
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.