PORTLAND, Maine — With the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold most parts of President Barack Obama’s health care reform law , Maine businesses must start planning for when the law goes into effect.
“The first thing is for companies to acknowledge now that this is going to happen,” said Steve Gerlach, a labor/employment attorney with Bernstein Shur. “You need to have a person or committee responsible for developing strategies and making decisions around reform, around pay or play, with folks from finance, legal, tax and human resources. They should be identifying strategies to address short- and long-term issues on cost, compliance, how this is going to affect the overall compensation package of the company, and the tax picture, as well.”
The court’s decision, announced Thursday morning, upheld the centerpiece of the health care overhaul law, which requires that most Americans get insurance by 2014 or pay a financial penalty, known as the “individual mandate.”
David Clough, Maine state director for the right-leaning National Federation of Independent Business, said Maine companies already worried about the increase in cost and administrative work from the act will see the decision as a “major disappointment.”
Clough said companies are concerned the provision of the law that means companies with 50 or more employees will need to provide “minimal essential coverage” for health insurance or pay a penalty for not doing so. Another worry is that the health insurance tax imposed on insurers will get passed down to policyholders, he said. And for individuals who own small, one- or two-person businesses, their concern is how to afford the individual mandate, he said.
Ralph Wallace, chief financial officer at Trask-Decrow Machinery Inc. in Scarborough, said he was surprised at the ruling but didn’t think it would affect his business. The company has 36 employees and already provides health insurance benefits, he said. The economy has been tough for industrial-components suppliers such as Trask-Decrow, he noted, and it will take a serious recovery to push the company over 50 employees.
If the firm has a chance to expand beyond 50, it would do so without worrying about extra costs, he said.
Beth Fitzgerald, owner of the Portland-based Maine Wedding Co., an online directory of venues and services for planning Maine weddings, said when she read the news on her computer this morning about the decision, she started crying.
“It just feels so monumental. As a businessperson, we struggle all the time, trying to figure out health care,” said Fitzgerald. “We want to hire good people, we want to provide health care, but it’s so expensive. It’s our biggest concern.
“Anything that gives business owners a break on it is fantastic.”
Fitzgerald said she didn’t think the individual mandate would survive the Supreme Court.
The company employs only her, but Fitzgerald said as the economy turns around, she’d hope to be able to hire some people — and afford to give them a decent benefits package. She hopes that will become possible with the competition prompted by the health care exchanges.
Fitzgerald said she and her husband pay for their own insurance, $12,000 to $15,000 a year that “covers nothing.” She said she hopes rates will go down for her family’s coverage as a result of the act. She added that she knew some businesspeople were unhappy with the mandate.
“It rallies competition and will bring down the cost for everyone,” said Fitzgerald. “We have to start somewhere.”
Gerlach, the attorney, said the “pay or play” aspect of the law likely will have the biggest impact on employers in Maine.
A plan providing “minimal essential coverage” is basically a typical health insurance plan, said Gerlach. But it must be affordable, he added, which is measured as not being more than 9.5 percent of an employee’s household income. That will create some administrative work for employers, he said.
Companies of that size will need to do a cost-benefit analysis to see whether it would cost less to provide insurance or pay the penalties, he said. While he expected the answer would be that the penalty likely would cost less, there are other factors at play, he noted. There’s a generally held expectation in the labor market that health insurance is a provided benefit and this may increase that expectation.
Companies also could use such provision of benefits as a work force attraction and retention tool — making them more competitive in that arena than other companies that choose to opt out.
Gerlach said companies approaching 50 people will need to carefully analyze whether further growth makes sense, given the added costs of expansion past that point. He also said there may be increased pressure on companies already that size to lay people off or recharacterize some employees as independent contractors, which he suggested was “very dangerous” given the amount of litigation at state and federal levels about misidentification of employees.
In the short run, the act has and will continue to create administrative problems for companies, but that likely will lessen with time as the law is adopted and accepted. The theory is the state exchanges will bring down costs by introducing more competition to the marketplace as individuals band together in the exchanges to buy health insurance. That could benefit the smaller, one- and two-person shops that dominate Maine’s landscape.



Worried? Yup, I’d say so. While people are worried and employers are worried and workers are worried, Washington is not worried. Because theirs’ is payed for…by you…and me. Any HOPE that will CHANGE?
NONE! And actually, you and I will be paying for everyone’s coverage now. Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy!
”
Maine businesses worried about cost of health reform ruling”
Talk about a deceptive headline. The story quoted a spokes person from a right leaning group and a left leaning group and an attorney. I didn’t see anything about business people being quoted in the article. Maybe if you had taken the time to actually talk to people who run businesses it would have been a good idea.
One third of small businesses are considering dropping insurance for
their employees. This cost will be passed on to the taxpayers.
This is just the math of it as the true cost is shifted from large companies to smaller ones. It is plainly cheaper to drop it and raise wages a little bit and have the employee and the government pay for coverage. Simple math and survival.
We aren’t dropping our employee’s health insurance plan or even modifying it. Are you planning on dropping your company’s?
Good for you. Helping workers acquire health insurance coverage is what all good employers will do. Employers that do that are assured of getting the cream of the crop from the labor pool. We all know employees will have to pay a share of the cost. It will not be borne by the employer solely. I am also tired of my rates being higher because of those using the health care system and not contributing to the costs of receiving care. That should not be hard for conservatives to understand. Our health care system was already a welfare system.
Momma. I have tried to care for my employees faithfully for decades. I have seen the government drive up the cost of healthcare over the last 20 years here in Maine. There was a time when I covered my employees (and their families) at 100% with a $250 deductible. Those days are long gone because of the State of Maine instituted the community rating system. That made our insurance rates the second highest in the country. We just couldn’t afford it. We endured 20% annual increases in our premium rates for 5 consecutive years.
The ACA made the community rating system national. There will be no reduction in cost the math just isn’t there. Do nationally what we did in Maine and add millions to the roles how could there be? In order for that to work costs will have to rise. The big companies still have the advantage with pools. The cost will be shifted to the small business, even with the pools set up by the state. The money has to come from somewhere and in Maine there is no one else.
It may well be more realistic for a small business to give the employees a raise and send them in the direction of state pools as individuals.
You touched a raw nerve. I too have walked down your road. Large national organizations that self-insure their health insurance benefits don’t have to worry about Maine mandates with respect to the benefits that they offer employees, but you, as a small business operating in Maine have to adhere chapter and verse to Maine’s insurance mandates if you are purchasing a group policy for your employees. You are at a competitive disadvantage right out of the box. I don’t believe that ACA is going to give you any relief in this regard.
Thanks and that is my point.
So Maine law is the problem. Well, that can be fixed, can it not?
But, lookie here: http://maineoptions.org/2012/03/28/news-release-cms-awards-maine-co-op/ . This just may be the solution.
I agree. It’s what I will be looking into. My company’s rates mirror yours. I think many on here don’t understand because they don’t own/run small businesses themselves. It’s really easy for them to sit back and say ‘Let the businesses pay for it’. Some small businesses will not survive this hit. Others will dump their healthcare in favor of letting their employees fend for themselves. No matter what, this will have a much larger impact on business than it’s supporters know.
But as long as it makes them ‘feel good’ , that’s all that matters.
I believe small businesses will receive a 50% tax credit for providing health insurance for their employees.
I’ll believe it when I see it! Remember, obama told us the Mandate was NOT a tax!
Sorry, Insurance is already an expense item anyway and as with many Obama programs for small business you need to qualify for other benefits. It turns out most small business doesn’t qualify for the credit despite the press.
The law states that if you as owner pay 1/2 the cost of minimum health care insurance for your employee and your employee makes less than $50,000 a year, you as owner, may be eligible for a tax credit.
Here is an opinion that differs from yours: http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/28/12461371-small-business-sees-advantages-in-health-care-ruling?lite . Some businesses actually understand the employer-employee relationship to be a mutually beneficial relationship.
But I would wager that you, yourself will not enter a pool. You and your management will continue on with your current coverage. Much like Paul LePage did with Marden’s.
It sounds like the poster is afraid that her costs will increase and it will protect her business and jobs if her employees are covered by the government. I think the poster would have to go to the more expensive individual market so overall it must be cheaper.
Cheesy….. was that back when Maine had a not-for-profit health insurance program? It is governments, I agree, that seem to cater to the for-profit health industry to the disadvantage of everyone. And, because of all the above you cannot provide 100% coverage. We know
that. Most sensible workers see the need to contribute to the costs of
the plan their employers offer. And, your solution may be the most sensible for you and your workers. Those are all choices. But reform is needed. It may look very different in the end, but this is a start. I am not one to shoot the horse at the starting gate.
And here is one result of this reform effort: http://maineoptions.org/2012/03/28/news-release-cms-awards-maine-co-op/
Did you look into this? http://maineoptions.org/2012/03/28/news-release-cms-awards-maine-co-op/ . Now you might even be able to get back to that 100% coverage. Well, maybe not, but it might just be a solution.
You haven’t seen the numbers yet. Have you?
edit: Sorry my original post should have said 2014.
He is full of baloney!
You must be one of those that has had enough of the American Socialist and are going to move to Canada!
LOL
No, just more active this November voting the clown out.
Voting will not be enough. With the healthcare ruling, Obama’s next phase of implementing Socialism is in effect. The GOP is already reacting violently, the way that he wants it. There will be some major riots and demonstrations, enough for Obama to implement the NDAA, and he will use it to strike fear into conservatives, branding them as “traitors” and “extremists”. As long as he can say that there is a threat to national security posed by conservatives, he can remain in office indefinitely. Congratulations. We just elected Emperor Palpatine as President of the United States.
Thanks for the laugh.
Considering is not doing. We will have to wait and see who does. Until then it is all simply threats to achieve a political goal.
Ralph Wallace CFO of Trask-Decrow and Beth Fitzgerald of Maine Welding were both quoted.
I am guessing you do not nor have ever owned a business. Maine business are already taxed to death. This is a sort of blessing to many who do furnish heath care now. Why because now they can DROP the insurance and pay the much smaller “TAX” fine saving money. All those people will have NO insurance now welcome to Omama care.
I am curious what that young man would do if his parents did not have health insurance for him to be on until age 26? This law would most certainly bankrupt him, or at best prevent him from starting up a new business.
I think you had better check the facts. No one will be bankrupted by this law. Bankruptcy occurs when you are unable to run your business well. Everyone knows that labor costs are factored into what the consumer is charged for product/service. If your product/service has little value to the consumer you will not be a successful business. This law will if allowed to do its work actually reduce health care costs.
KayakMomma, I was referring to Jake Daniele, the young man in the article, who stated he is relieved he can stay on his parents plan to start up his new business. His words. I asked what if his parents didn’t have insurance? Will he be able to afford insurance and start up his new business?
We have a bankruptcy health system now. If you can’t afford insurance and get sick or injured you either lose your house or file for bankruptcy. This new law is supposed to increase the pool and bring insurance costs down so working people can afford it. It sounds too good to be true though.
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t true, a Liberal pipe dream or a campaign promise they never intend to keep!
You are living in a Liberal La-la land, Momma! Sometimes outside factors like Government intervention causes price increases that are unsustainable. At the very least, this will cause inflation. Now we all know that Libs enjoy paying premium prices, but you will be hurting the very poor you say you want to help. Just over the last year, our healthcare costs have doubled, while the coverage was cut in half. How I wish gullible individuals like you would pay double for our goods to defray the costs of bringing them to market!
But I doubt even you would pay double for everything, just to make obamacare work. Your talk is cheap if you won’t back it up by action!
I presume that if your beliefs play out in the real world, then corrections will be made. As far as I am concerned the only health care program that would satisfy me is a non-profit system like the one that was in place when I came to Maine. So the Affordable Care Act did not go quite far enough for me. But it is step in the right direction. I’ll stick to my world view. I like it better than yours.
So in YOUR world no one pays for anything? That’s some interesting world you live in! If everything is non-profit, who works? Or is work banned in your world too?
I’ll take reality, thanks. It may have it’s drawbacks, but at least it’s reality!
Do you understand what a non-profit business is? Workers are hired to do the work that needs to be done. Costs are covered by charges to the consumer. There is no profit motive. The worker and the consumer win. That is how Blue-Cross Blue Shield started. When I came to Maine in the 80’s it was indeed a non-profit business. Here is how Forbes explains it: “We lost the positive aspects of affiliation health insurance starting in
the 1960s and through the 1980s when Wall Street discovered there was
money to be made turning nonprofit health insurers, hospitals and
nursing homes into investor-owned companies. What we got was a massive conflict-of-interest–profit vs. public good–that has culminated in a dysfunctional health delivery system that has undermined our economy, reduced our national wealth and torn our social fabric.” Pretty succinct I think.
But apparently they do not play out in the real world: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/20/romney-care-massachusetts-healthcare-reform/
No because the tax is going to cost less than buying insurance. That way the feds take money from the young to pay for the rest of us. Gotta love it, eh?
The small amount folks of any age will be charged will not pay for you or me. Unless of course you make lots and lots of money, then you might see a sizable ‘penalty’.
Why do people praise the 26 year-old provision as something good? Hey Jake, how do your parents feel about having to pay for you on their health insurance for the next 5 years? (How many 21 year olds are worried about getting cancer?) This law means that your parents have to pay another $20k or so that they would otherwise be able to spend buying you a car for graduation or helping with your business.
Talk about deceptive! Just because parents can carry kids til 26 doesn’t mean they have to! Get your facts straight. A deception is the same as a lie!
I am not sure of your point. The law states that either Jake or his parents have to pay for him. Either way, someone has to pay the additional $5k or so per year. Liberals trumpet this provision as if it were the greatest thing since sliced bread. However, I don’t know of any insurance company that would oppose to this to begin with. It’s not free for the 25 year old despite what many liberals would have them believe.
Business costs going up? Ya think?
The stock market is tanking today. What does that tell the geniuses on the left and in the media?
Vote Romney! Repeal Obama/Pelosicare!
24 points is Tanking?
That, sir, is a VERY interesting concept of what a Tanking is.
There should be a lawsuit against congress by every state. Congress’ health care & retirement is so out of whack with what they demand everyone else have. They feel that they are above the average citizen & that laws do not apply to them. It’s time that the citizens of this country demand they fall in line with what they decree others should have. It’s time that we decree that they must also follow any law they pass, no exceptions.
Good luck getting Democrats to go along with that! And if the Dems won’t, the Republicans won’t.
Health Care Reform ( Obama Care ) fact is going to cost the tax payers thousands of dollars. Anyone that thinks when the Gov. gives you something it is a great deal, is in a dream world. Your P.C doctors will be hard to find in five years, they are already the lowest paid on the scale, and it is going to get worse for them.
This is a reform package. Initial costs will be balanced by later savings…. for everyone except maybe the excessive profit-takers. CBO projects a tidy sum reducing the deficit from this law.
Now all people will have to have a change in their way of thinking. Now, they need to think about how they make this program work for them.
Not at all. This decision sealed Obama’s fate.
You are right, Cheese. Few Dems and libs realize it, but the SCOTUS decision gutted the Commerce Clause (meaning regulatory powers of Congress will lessen); energized the anti-Obama forces of Republicans, Libertarians and Independents; made the Dems now have to defend Obamacare as a huge middle class tax increase in this election cycle; AND takes the Dems’ talking point of a politicized SCOTUS out of the equation for the fall election.
Sean Trende on the topic.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/28/the_chief_justices_gambit_114646.html
Exactly! But fortunately for us, most Dems are too dumb to see it.
Shhhhhhhhhh! They’re listening!
Actually, no, it preserved the Commerce Clause. Did you read the decision? Would you like to? My favorite quote from it was: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” Justice John Roberts . I think we can all agree with that. But, you know, what I have heard the talking heads say is that it would cost too much money to repeal this law, which will in effect keep the Republicans from doing so should they find themselves in control. So they are just spitting in the wind at this point. So that leads me to conclude that this law will save us money if it is allowed to do what it is designed to do.
Sealed Obama’s fate?? Have you read what you have posted? First, it sealed small business’s fate, then it sealed the middle class”s fate (which the repubs. have pretty much done a great job at that), then it seals YOUR business’s fate, and now it seals the President’s fate? Does it seal the Chief Justice’s fate? Does it give Romney a boost? and Obama a demerit? A Chief Justice, appointed by a Republican President decided that the law was constitutional, call it what you want label it as you wish, but he saw the need to step forward on the issue and not continue with a way that is unfair, untrustworthy, and not addressed. It was time to put the issue to rest, he did that. It (the Supreme Court) has demonstrated that there IS a third branch of government, that will no longer be silent on the issue.
If you honestly think that… then when is it that you realize that health care IS an issue in this country, and we cannot continue to have people carry on without it? Where do you draw the line? Does grandma who needs a heart bypass, but has no insurance continue to get sent home with a fist full of pills and an appointment? Who’s fate is sealed then Cheese?
Good now I can retire. Why work 40 plus hours a week making $100k when I can just hope on the dole. The Obamacare was all I was waiting for. Yippeeee!!!
Sure that is the responsible thing to do.
Obamacare
will result in fewer jobs. The new
law will require companies with 50 or more employees to provide health
insurance for all their employees or pay a penalty for not doing so. Small businesses
owners in your town will be faced with hiring help at a greater expense or surrendering
to the big businesses that already have employee health care programs. Making life harder for small businesses does
not add jobs: you can’t have it both ways.
I have heard that some companies with more than 50 employees may look into splitting into smaller companies to avoid the mandate.
Did Obama really want this ruling? Had this been ruled unconstitutional, the economy would have thrived. Businesses would not have been worried about the effects of this legislation when fully implemented. (The major taxes don’t even go into effect until next year.) They would have been unleashed to hire without this hanging over them. That has all changed now and the economy will stay the same, or get worse, until Mitt is elected.
Did you check the Stock Market today?
The stock market is up based on happenings in Europe, not the healthcare decision. The effect of the healthcare law so far is a wash. Some companies are down on the news and some up. It shouldn’t impact stock prices in the full market until maybe six months before the full law takes effect in 2014. News out earlier is all “baked in” already.
Here is an opinion that differs from yours: http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/28/12461371-small-business-sees-advantages-in-health-care-ruling?lite .
kayak momma…….it’s you that better check your facts.. this law will absolutely not reduce health care costs.. well at least not if you want the quality of health care to remain where it is… costs are going up not down.. inflation is coming like a freight train.. you cannot stop it .. this health care bill comes with an enormous cost and a huge drain on business across the nation.. if you think other wise you haven’t read it or your liberal skirt is showing.. one of the other.. your cost are going up and up and up and your health care quality is going down down down.. and it’s worse if you are a senior .. wait and watch.. you may not be so giddy when you ” check your facts”
Check fact/flackcheck.org: http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romney-obama-uphold-health-care-falsehoods/. And here is an opinion that differs from yours: http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/28/12461371-small-business-sees-advantages-in-health-care-ruling?lite . And I am a senior and do not see anything threatening in this law.
And you are just being silly about quality of care. St Joseph’s does a fine job of providing the care I need and I expect the quality will remain at its current levels or even improve. Checked with a cousin who is a pediatrician. She says “Obamacare” is a very, very good thing on multiple levels. I trust that from someone who deals with the issues every day much more that a politician that is using an issue to get votes. And I mean that to cover all politicians, liberal and conservative.
I have to agree with Paul for the most part. I look for many States to get waivers, such as large companies already have. A lot of twists and turns ahead!
As a small business owner who made the conscious decision to provide health care to the employees of Broadreach Public Relations, I have one concern that warrants discussion. There are many who are touting the “tax credits for small businesses”. Please know that the math does not work. We paid out tens of thousands of dollars last year for health insurance and when our 2011 taxes were done,we did not qualify for the infamous credit. I ask here, who qualifies and has anyone figured out the math?
My friend, an accountant, says that very few qualified for the credit.
If you pay your employees more than $35k, as I do, you don’t qualify for anything under Obamacare. You start getting benefits under that amount which increases for the lower you pay. Basically, it is not worth it if you pay them more than $20k or so. It was designed to help companies with minimum wage employees. Basically, it would incentivize you to pay your employees less. Brilliant, huh?
As most of us will discover if this is not repealed, it is much better to drop coverage for your employees. (Not to mention that it is also better for the individual to simply pay the tax instead of paying for insurance until they get sick.)
Why are certain companies getting exemptions? There shouldn’t be any.
Anyone who believes that this Obamatax boondoggle will reduce healthcare costs is either a fool or……well, they are a fool. Buckle up and hang on….it is going to be a rough ride.
In fact those in the know say repealing it will cost too much and no matter what the Republicans say they won’t do it should they get control. So the conclusion is, this reform package will bring down costs and thereby reduce the deficit. You can squawk all you want, but you are correct…. we won’t really know until all pieces are in place. Many are benefiting already. And, Obama was forthright in one statement he made….. it will need tweaking here and there. It can be improved upon. But reform in some form is needed. So this is a start, imperfect though it is.
At 9.5 percent of one’s income, that means for over half the country it is still unaffordable, since almost half the people for two years did not make enough money to pay federal taxes and make less than $50,000 a year, and since no health insurance plan for a family costs less than $5,000 that means most of the people of the country cannot afford health insuranc.
Even the premium an employee pays is close to that $5,000 mark a year. Does that mean they can opt out since they cannot afford health insurance?
I highly doubt that a $15,000 health plan would suddenly be lowered to less than $5,000 a year even with more people paying into the system.
This also still leaves people behind between jobs.
We are having a hard enough time with the economy, we do not need more businesses getting smaller and hiring less people.
Here is a business owner that sees it from a different slant: http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/28/12461371-small-business-sees-advantages-in-health-care-ruling?lite . You just cannot make sweeping statements like that and have it hold up under scrutiny.