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"

6 of 671 comments (clear)

  1. yep by geekoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If th e US has a civilized Health Care system, I would start my own business much easier. Or join a start up without worrying about health care.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a small business owner, I cannot agree. I do have the impression at this point that ACA does not do enough to decouple health care financing from employment, but even so, it looks like ACA will help most small businesses, including mine.

    2. Re:yep by Minupla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      *shrugs*

      I know GPs who have done a stint in the US and moved back here to practice. When I ask them, the answer boiled down to "Money aint everything kid."

      I guess a few years later I can understand. My (US citizen by birth) wife and I are here in Canada with our daughter. I've had offers to go down to the US at substantial salary increases. I run them by my wife and she thumbs down them all. "Not worth it - after you calculate in health care and private school for the kid, the extra money goes quick".

      At one point she was paying 500$/mo out of her 10$/hr job for health insurance. Her huge crime? She was born with a congenital heart defect (e.g. a preexisting condition).

      Incidentally - her Dad was a vet. They went bankrupt on her infant open heart surgery.

      I don't know if Obamacare is the right answer or not, but I gotta tell you folks, I wouldn't trade ya. Sorry.

      Min

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    3. Re:yep by Arterion · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The idea of your employer being in any way connected to your health care is just vile. I am sorry to hear about your personal situation, most of the analysis I've done shows that the exchanges are competitive with employer-provided health care, and in many cases cheaper with subsidies. If it turns out at the end of the year your employer insurance over-charged, I believe they have to refund you some of your premiums. They can't just pocket the difference and call it a day anymore. This is totally new. How well it will work remains to be seen. There is also the somewhat shady option of just paying the penalty for no insurance, and if something major happens, sign up then since you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions now...

      As for the poor, the law was written so that anyone making 138% FPL or less would get Medicaid. From there up to 400% would get subsidies. But half the states aren't doing the Medicaid expansion. This is a pretty big wrench in the cogs, and it remains to be see how it plays out. The idea was to get people with no insurance out of the ER and into preventative medicine, which is much cheaper to provide. Plus the moral arguments about helping the poor and sick, etc.

      I've been saying the same thing about the Republicans. If Obamacare is so awful, why not just sit back with a smug grin and let it fail for two years, then rake up in 2016? I have this suspicion they're afraid it might actually work. If all the poor, white people that voted for them suddenly can do see a doctor and get medicine and take care of nagging ailments under the auspices of "Obamacare", that's gonna devastate them at the polls with that demographic.

      As it stands for my family, there is myself, my brother, and my nephew who I know off the top of my head could get in on the Medicaid expansion. We currently have no health insurance. My brother actually has diabetes, so he needs it pretty badly. As it stands here in Tennessee, Obama is still evil and those damn liberals, etc., since we STILL won't have coverage in 2014. But if the expansion had went in, the three of us would have Obamacare, and it would be a hard argument for any of us (or my parents) to say Obamacare is bad when we're suddenly getting medical treatment we've needed for a while.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
  2. Actually by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Interesting
    He's right. The present system ties people to their jobs. Aside from all the hate by certain groups, there is something to be said for some of the provisions.

    If you say, have some disease, and it is cured, and you want health coverage, you are stuck in your present job with it's present health coverage. Change jobs, and ooopsies, it's a preexisting condition. So a friend of my spouse who had breast cancer, is stuck in her job. Because if it recurs, which isn't likely at this point, but possible, she is bankrupt.

    And despite all the hate, there is a lit fuse in the present system. People without health care do get treatment for their illnesses and minor issues. They go to the Emergency room. There, they get the most expensive treatment available to people - emergency room care. Before my father passed away last year, he was in the emergency room three times. And it was a little strange. Most of the people there just seemed to have minor problems, like sore throats, colds, sick kids. I'd asked about that, and the eanswer was "it's poor folk with no insurance." But rest assured that it is paid for, by your's and my premiums, and by Government.

    The problem is, as insurance costs go up, and people drop off the rolls, the emergency room will become more and more used for more and more people. A real positive feedback loop, Eventually no one except people who can pay for their medical bills out of hand will afford health insurance. Then, unless we are going to force peole to go without medical treatment, we'll have a bizzare form of universal coverage. Not a good idea at all.

    Reading the opposition plan, it is some bafflegab about doing the same thing as we are doing now, except for more bafflegab about affordability.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  3. Re:Absolutely ridiculous by JayBean · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The answer to this is a MSA + a high deductible insurance plan. You use the MSA to cover smaller expenses and the insurance plan for situations like yours (which sounds like it was bad).

    The added benefit of an MSA is that it causes people to shop around a little.

    Insurance is not a bad thing by any stretch. Even that dream of single payer is really just an national insurance plan. It starts to get problematic when large numbers of people want insurance to cover smaller issues ("insurance covers birth control? I want my Viagra free!"). This leads to the costs going up on everyone.