Somebody needs to write an article about how the current two bills will impact basement startups. Are there fines to pay because you can't afford insurance? If so, how much are they? Can full-time corporate-world employees move into a beans-and-rice startup and keep their old insurance? Indefinitely? If there are fines for bare-bones startups, how many will not start because of the financial overhead? None? A few? Does anybody really know?
You'd think one of the SV rags would pick this up and run with it, but I haven't read much at all.
I'm not so much interested in the medium-sized startups who view healthcare reform as a recruiting tool. Medium-sized startups have lots of problems already -- the field between initial success and large startup is littered with companies that could make the journey for one reason or another. It's the effect on itty-bitty startups, the seeds for the next generation of growth, that I want to know more about.
I don't know what it is in Reid's "manager's amendment" version that just passed, or obviously what will emerge in the end if some version gets passed, but the last time I heard a Senate figure it was $750/year.
That's way too low (see the comment about adverse selection). To make the system that's envisioned work, you need three things in balance: universal coverage, guaranteed issue and community rating.
Universal coverage, everyone must be in the system (a fine AKA tax about equal to what you'd pay, with criminal penalties for non-payment).
Guaranteed issue: no one can be turned down.
Community rating: the healthy (e.g. young) must pay for the higher costs of the not-so healthy (e.g. the elderly). Otherwise the latter won't be able to afford it.
Community rating: the healthy (e.g. young) must pay for the higher costs of the not-so healthy (e.g. the elderly).
That's rather anti-progressive, no? Force the young and poor to pay for the old and rich? It's great politics, however, since the young don't vote and the old do.
Under the Senate bill, insurers on the individual market are allowed to charge older consumers up to four times as much as the young. (Right now, of course, there’s no limit on how much of a surcharge you get on your insurance for age.)
If your family income is under 400% of the Federal poverty line, then you will get a partial subsidy to buy private insurance, and IIRC more people will qualify for Medicaid. So poor people, young and old, are not being screwed here.
You'd think one of the SV rags would pick this up and run with it, but I haven't read much at all.
I'm not so much interested in the medium-sized startups who view healthcare reform as a recruiting tool. Medium-sized startups have lots of problems already -- the field between initial success and large startup is littered with companies that could make the journey for one reason or another. It's the effect on itty-bitty startups, the seeds for the next generation of growth, that I want to know more about.