Slashdot Mirror
Obamacare Could Help Fuel a Tech Start-Up Boom
dcblogs writes "The arrival of Obamacare may make it easier for some employees to quit their full-time jobs to launch tech start-ups, work as a freelance consultant, or pursue some other solo career path. Most tech start-up founders are older and need health insurance. 'The average age of people who create a tech start-up is 39, and not 20-something,' said Bruce Bachenheimer, who heads Pace University's Entrepreneurship Lab. Entrepreneurs are willing to take on risks, but health care is not a manageable risk, he said. 'There is a big difference between mortgaging your house on something you can control, and risking going bankrupt by an illness because of something you can't control,' said Bachenheimer. Donna Harris, the co-founder of the 1776 incubation platform in Washington, believes the healthcare law will encourage more start-ups. 'You have to know that there are millions of Americans who might be fantastic and highly successful entrepreneurs who are not pursuing that path because of how healthcare is structured,' said Harris"
That is a load of bull. Any startup would have to have 50+ employees before being required to offer health care. And then the cost under ACA is much less. Stop spreading your misinformed lies.
I have a friend who had breast cancer, and who went through the entire course of treatment without paying a penny.
AND
I have another who suffered kidney failure and went through years of dialysis -- without paying a dime.
you are lying. Stop it. That not how it works. They only have to be sure you aren't dying right at that moment.
" provide essential care."
Incorrect, emergency care not essential care.
" If they take you to court, you can tell the judge: I was out of work for a year, I can afford to pay them $25 a month and that's it. The judge will almost always agree."
This is why hospitals have started selling their debt to 3rd parties. These 3rd parties can claim more, sue you, destroy your credit, garnish you wages.
"I've been in court and have watched it happen.
since everything else you say is factually wrong, I'm not going t believe this either.
I am a Former ER billing specialist, Now ER nurse.
Healthcare is one major reason I decided to move back to Canada and work in a self employed situation. Here people can work two part time jobs if they want, or start a business and not worry about having to buy into basic health care plans. Many companies do offer supplementary insurance though. Even our own family company is thinking of doing that.
Obviously freedom means different things to different people. Guess at least half the republican party sees things differently.
Read the laws again. The law merely requires facilities that accept Medicare and provide emergency care to provide "stabilizing" treatment to emergency conditions without regard to ability to pay. Once you are stable, it is perfectly legal to toss you out the door. Your friend likely found a facility that was willing to cover her cancer under their charitable care program (some level of unpaid care is required in most states for non-profit hospitals.) If your friend had needed a transplant, she would have discovered the limits of that care. (People routinely die due to inability to get transplants covered; they are just too expensive for most hospitals to write off.) Dialysis is ALWAYS covered by Medicare as soon as four months elapse, no matter your age. But you need to find somebody to cover those four months, unless you want to head to the ER every time you crash. This is by no means guaranteed. You most certainly can be refused "essential" care, as long as you are not in danger of dying right there in the lobby. (As in, they'll treat you if you are about to fall into a diabetic coma, but aren't at all required to provide you with a monitor and strips (much less insulin) long-term to keep it from happening again.)
Next, there is no law saying that hospitals (or anybody) cannot collect on debt as long as you are making minimal payments. They can pursue debt collection equal to the efforts of any other unsecured creditor. And yes, if you show up and offer up what you can, the judge may take you up on your payment plan... but that's not set in stone and varies widely by state.
And yes, being out of work drives people to bankruptcy, but so do unaffordable co-pays and deductibles, policies with horrible annual limits, policies with limited coverage, unaffordable drugs, sudden catastrophe without insurance (it doesn't take much), etc. The paths to medical bankruptcy are many.
Most Silicon Valley startups offer healthcare.........if they don't, they are horrifically underfunded and you should avoid them.
It takes time to obtain funding. The article is talking about the people who take a risk and actually launch startups, and their health insurance during the time that they are pitching their ideas to investors to obtain the funding to offer insurance to new employees, not people like you, who only join after the funding is secured.
Shouldn't you be doing something useful?
Basically you are telling us your employer sucks and really doesn't care about their employees.
Say what you will about Starbucks and their burnt coffee, but here's what Howard Shultz had to say about the subject:
Starbucks wonâ(TM)t use the new law as an excuse to cut benefits or lower benefits for its workers...
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021922111_westneat29xml.html
Apparently, cutting your employee's health insurance is so low Starbucks will not stoop to it. But there are plenty who will, and it is the sign of a shitty employer.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Some citations for my numbers:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/pre-existing/
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/health-reform/pre-ex-conditions-findings.html
Notice that the non-government site posits a much higher number. I have more faith in the HHS numbers though.
Census data for the uninsured numbers: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb13-165.html
Logic. If they won't sell it to you if you have a pre-existing condition, then you're more likely to have a pre-existing condition if you don't have insurance than if you do. This is a direct result of Bayes theorem. Look into conditional probability.
Yup, that's a real impartial source there. ROFL. Actual studies, government or by a respected university (public or private) or STFU.
Also, use numbers that aren't most of a decade old and from before the worst financial crisis of the last 60 years.
Mostly because people didn't know about it at first- it wasn't well marketed. But FYI, the Maryland plan was sold out for the year months ago. I tried applying for it and was put on the waiting list. And told not to expect to get it this year (I haven't).
Not a single person will lose insurance due to this law. Blatant fearmongering.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Reagan and Bush both proved that taxes are already too high. They both lowered taxes and the result was an increase in funding to the government.
Only in your imagination. The only time the deficit has gone down (in fact completely eliminated) was during the high tax years of Clinton. The economy did great and unemployment went to a record low.
Yup, because that raise in premiums was really the effect of the ACA. Newsflash: health insurance premiums rose an average of 13% every year from 1999-2009. Source: http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2009/7937.pdf
Also out of pocket costs were increasing 5% a year on top of that. Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62O1DJ20100325
So yeah, I HIGHLY doubt that the ACA caused even a penny of that increase. If it did, it was because some exec there said "Hey, we can claim the ACA is causing us to raise rates and raise them even more than usual."
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Oh, and they get between 5 and 9.5 weeks holiday, lot's of employment rights and protections and tasty cheese. The last time I saw an American commenting on France's productivity and employment laws it was the head of a tyre company - I think the French pointed out that Michelin is 20 times larger and 35 times more profitable than the US company. Also if you think the French are more concerned about money than quality of life then you have no idea what they are about. At least remember to thank them for scaring the British out...