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"

15 of 671 comments (clear)

  1. Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the things the haters don't get is how big an implicit tax we pay because we don't have universal health care. Other countries pay far less per person, with far less risk. You may not be thinking about it when you're 20 something and healthy, but in a moment you can lose everything because you're not covered.

    1. Re:Exactly! by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes it does. It requires insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions (which can include mere weight), which is a major problem for anyone trying to buy individual coverage. It also provides rebates for people who make under a certain threshold, reducing costs.

      It's not perfect by a long shot, but it's better than what we had.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. Re:Exactly! by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And if you had any sense of decency, you would feel that bankrupting people or dooming they to die because of pre-existing conditions was morally wrong.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Exactly! by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You'll be paying exactly $0 for my insurance. I'll be paying for it, and I don't qualify for (or deserve to qualify for) reduced rates due to income. What this law does is force them to sell it to me, for the same rate they were quite happy to sell it to my employer at 3 years ago when I last worked for a company that provided insurance. Instead you'll be forcing them to do what insurance is supposed to do- mitigate risk of a population by spreading it between all of them, whereas before you only got that benefit if you qualified for a group plan.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    4. Re:Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is it right to make people buy national defense?

      Is it right to make people buy a national highway system?

      Is it right to make people buy federal inspections to ensure safe water supplies and food?

      Here's the answer... unless you are an anarchist, it is perfectly alright to make people take responsibility for themselves and not allow them to shift the cost of their health care onto the rest of the public by getting it for free from emergency room services, who then bill the rest of us with insurance to make up for it. It is perfectly reasonable to make the public participate in a program which will allow people to feel like visiting the doctor before they start an epidemic will not bankrupt them.

  2. Sounds plausible by onyxruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't begin to imagine how many people I've worked with over the years that have only worked somewhere because of the health benefits. Make the health benefits no longer an issue and you gain better competition in the market for where people can work. Remove the barrier and all of a sudden a lot of places that previously would not have attracted enterprise class talent open up.

    The fact that some of these places are starts ups is largely incidental. Think of it this way, something like 40% of fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants. Why? Because they were hardworking and didn't have anything holding them back.

    I know I've turned down employment opportunities for a lack of viable health insurance for my family, I have to imagine that I'm far from the only one. What happens when people are no longer held back by this very practical concern and can go for broke like the immigrant entrepreneur?

  3. Re:Really by seebs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh, sure. And we had prosperous booms without computers, too. That people succeeded without something isn't evidence that having it won't help them.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  4. Re:Unmitigated bullshit by Telvin_3d · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Like any other form of tax, Obamacare's net results will be negative in employment

    As a truism, that's bullshit. And it's not even entertaining bullshit.

    Let's pretend it was taken to it's logical extreme, aka a society with zero taxes. Also known as a society with no roads, no enforced laws, no food inspection, no building codes, etc. You really thing that's a better functioning society with increased employment? Now, obviously a society at the other extreme (100% taxes) is equally dysfunctional. Arguments can be made for lower taxes (and certainly better spent taxes), and arguments can be made for raising taxes in some circumstances (certainly worked in California lately), but to say lower taxes are always better is so stupid it's not even wrong.

  5. Re:yep by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I do have the impression at this point that ACA does not do enough to decouple health care financing from employment

    Hear, hear! Health care should be completely decoupled from employment. That would be pro-business, and I'm always amazed it hasn't been promoted as such. It works for Canada and many other countries.

  6. Re:yep by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, there's 48 million uninsured in America, by the latest estimates I can find. HHS finds that 129 million americans would be considered to have pre-existing conditions. With about 300 million americans, that's 43%. Assuming that those two are independent (they aren't, you're more likely not to be insured if you have a pre-existing condition) that's 21 million people who are now able to get insurance who couldn't before. As they aren't independent, it's more likely to be 30 million. So 1 in 10 to 1 in 15 people. That's a pretty dramatic positive benefit.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  7. Taxes by manu0601 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The level of the taxes is not really important. What is at stake is what you get for the taxes. If taxes pay for education and healthcare, businesses get educated and healthy workers. If it pays a war in Iraq, it just benefits businesses linked to defense (well.. I should say war instead of defense).

  8. Re:yep by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because this whole thing is not only ridiculously absurd (people afraid to start up a business because they can't afford health care -- yah r-i-i-i-i-g-h-t)

    You know that one of the top reasons people give for not quitting their job is that they need to provide health insurance for their family, right? And if they're getting health insurance from an employer they're not likely to give it up and take a chance.

    You bet being able to get reasonable insurance on your own is going to have more people quitting jobs to start a new business.

    I started a business when my daughter was 4 years old. The only reason I was able to do it was because that was when my wife went back to work and got insurance for us through her job. Now I have a business that provides insurance to my family and the families of my three employees (two full-time, one part-time).

    It's really not that hard when you think about it beyond "Goddamn Obama/DNC!". Put aside your AM radio thinking for a minute and think about how people actually live.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. From a UK perspective. by thechanklybore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All of you guys arguing about a system that makes healthcare available to those who don't have it - assume the vulnerable as it seems they are most likely to benefit - sounds like base savagery. I can't begin to imagine that you think the free market is a better fit for such a basic human requirement.

  11. Re:yep by mjr167 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why should our health care be tied to our employer?

    My employer can't tell me what grocery store to shop at, why do they get to dictate my doctor?