New Senate HCR bill forces construction firms with FIVE or more employees to provide

[bertman]

health insurance for all employees. No other industry is required to do this unless they have at least FIFTY employees. What is with this last-minute insertion to the bill?

Why would the Senate feel the need to include such a provision and burden companies that are already struggling. Small companies are usually the ones with the least wiggle room when it comes to overhead costs.

We always hear the ballyhooing about how small businesses are the engine of business in America. Well, small businesses can be any size from one employee/owner to 100 employees. This bill seems to be designed to thin the herd of smaller construction companies.

This healthcare deform process just gets weirder and weirder.

[Donnachaidh]

1. hey -- shoring up the construction business for the BIG campaign contributors

Is key, isn't it?

Why should they worry about those small construction companies who can be REAL pests about that competition thing.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Might have something to do with potential job injuries and disability, and/or

illegal immigration. Just a guess off the top of my head.

[Tansy_Gold]

4. Job injuries are covered by worker's compensation and that's

determined by state law, as far as I know.

Health insurance covers NON-job related illnesses and injuries only.



TG

[ipaint]

3. New definition of employee- independant contractor.

Weasels.

[Tansy_Gold]

5. As an "independent contractor," I have to agree, except

"weasels" is too nice a term for them.


TG

[napi21]

6. It was introduced my Merkley fron OR. Here's his exp.

The change, offered by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.), says construction companies should offer coverage if they have five or more employees and a payroll of $250,000 or more, or face fines of up to $750 per employee per year if the employees receive tax credits. The threshold for other types of companies is 50.

(snip)

Geoffrey Burr, vice president of federal affairs with the Associated Builders and Contractors, said about 95% of his group's 25,000 members offer coverage, according to surveys by the group. The remaining 5% say they can't in part because "their margins are so thin they can't afford to do so," he said.

(snip)

Julie Edwards, a spokeswoman for Mr. Merkley, said the topic had been under discussion since at least mid-November and the initial version of the amendment was filed Dec. 11. Ms. Edwards said the goal was to level the playing field for companies that have to bid against others who might not be providing health-care coverage. She said 90% of construction firms employ fewer than 20 employees, so with the 50-employee threshold, most of the construction industry would have been exempt, she said.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126153388406402389.html

[pnwmom]

7. In other words, why are the employees of construction firms more fortunate

than other employees?

I don't know, but it's too bad the rule isn't in effect for all companies.

[uncle ray]

9. i doubt we'll hear much excitement from those workers affected.

the result will be more under the table pay, more day laborers, more contractors, etc. not automatically more coverage for the workers. most importantly, the fine really isn't much to the employers if they do chose to pay it. some will simply pay the fine and bitch about big government taking all of "their" hard earned money away.

[eilen]

8. Some contractors can't afford to provide insurance for themselves

nevermind their crew. Particularly with this economy. When they run out of work, there is nothing coming in.

[bertman]

10. I would have LESS of a problem with this if there were a requirement for EVERY business

in the nation with five employees or more to purchase health insurance for its employees. Although, honestly, I think there are other better ways to cover everyone, but that's not what's being discussed here.

This seems bass-ackwards to me. The smallest businesses are the ones who cannot afford the overhead costs of this requirement. Senator Merkley has produced a real dud with this one.

By the way, I support universal health care in the form of Medicare for all or Single Payer, but as a business owner I would be more than willing to purchase medical coverage for all of our employees if that were mandated for ALL businesses and if there were mechanisms established to ensure that the premiums were capped and the coverage was full--along with no pre-existing conditions, no recission, no gouging of older people, no caps on coverage, etc.

[NNN0LHI]

11. Do you have a link to the actual wording of this?

Kind of hard to take a section out of context and answer any questions about it.

May have something to do with being a high-risk occupation? I don't know without reading the wording?

Don

[bertman]

12. No, I don't have a link to the actual wording of the bill, but here's a link to a WSJ

article explaining it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126153388406402389.html

Apparently this was inserted by Sen. Merkely at the last minute.

High-risk occupation should not apply here. Workers are covered by Workers Compensation insurance if they are injured on the job. For example, if I fall off a ladder and hurt myself on the job, I am covered by WC. If I fall off a ladder at home cleaning out my gutters on my personal time, I am covered (hopefully) by my health insurance.

I find it to be amazing--no appalling is a better description--especially since Merkely claims its to "level the playing field" between companies with more than 50 employees and the smaller companies with five or more. If this is a Democratic Senator's idea of looking out for the small businesses that make up most of the construction world, he couldn't have fucked up more.

Usually I am against most of the anti-government regulation/intervention stands that the National Association of Home Builders takes (kinda like the Chamber of Commerce) but on this one I am 1000% with them in trying to get rid of this.

What are the Democrats thinking?