<p>You know the answer, we keep explaining it. “Avoid the expense of the mandate” is not legit. You can try BlueBayou’s excerpt. Why would a competent business person say that? </p>
<p>I make the distinction between, “Business is down at the auto shop, I just don’t have enough repairs to keep all 57 employees busy, I’ll have to sorrowfully let 10 go, oh, look, now I’m not subject to the employer mandate,” and, “All my 57 employees are busy and working, but I’d have enough money for a new fishing boat if I fired ten people, took on less work, and saved having to pay that pesky employer tax penalty.” </p>
<p>The first one is legal, and the second is tax evasion, the way I read the law.</p>
<p>GP and Busdriver… do I have to write using smaller words so you guys can get the point? </p>
<p>The Obama administration doesn’t have to offer employers any relief at all. They can just say, tough luck, all companies with 50+ employees need to provide insurance.</p>
<p>Instead, they decided that they would allow businesses with 50-99 employees apply for an extension. This is a big favor the government is doing to help medium size businesses. </p>
<p>But this favor is not intended to help big businesses (100+ employees). </p>
<p>Now, they could have written the rule to say that any company that employed 100+ in 2013 would not be eligible to apply for the extension until 2016. They don’t have to give special favors to everyone. But that could have been a hardship for some businesses that are facing hard times economically… so they added a provision that let the companies who had a good reason to downsize to also qualify, as long as they explain their reason.</p>
<p>Because they are ASKING the government to give them a break on possibly paying thousands of dollars because their failure to insure their employees means that YOU (GP and Busdriver) will have to subsidize those employees through the taxes you pay and the tax credit those employees are eligible for because they can’t get employer-provided insurance.</p>
<p>Now the government did this to be NICE to the middle-size companies. But if they had just flung open the door and said that any company could qualify, then the government would be in the position of giving financially healthy, bigger companies a big incentive to lay off a bunch of employees in 2014. </p>
<p>Now the last thing the government wants to do in a time of high unemployment is invite financially healthy companies to lay people off. So they wrote the rule to make it clear that big companies don’t get to shirk their financial responsibility solely to take advantage of the special break that is intended to smaller companies.</p>
<p>And even NICER, they are allowing the companies to simply fill out at a form, rather than having so submit some sort of application to an agency that could be approved or denied. The companies don’t have to submit to an advance audit, or submit evidence from their books – they simply have to check the boxes certifying that they meet requirements #1, #2, and #3. </p>
<p>“How would that be different from telling the IRS that you want to increase your profits by not paying the employee part of payroll taxes?”</p>
<p>It isn’t. If I reduced my workforce, guess what, I don’t have to pay their payroll taxes. Nothing illegal about that. </p>
<p>“the second is tax evasion”</p>
<p>I am also glad you’re not running the IRS.</p>
<p>It should be enough to say,“you don’t get it; take a look, educate yourself to the complexities.” Frankly, that should already be self-evident… We shouldn’t get back an endless stream of what ifs or spurious predictions, based on just “I think.” Or so and so said. Or parsing words or coming up with new scenarios, ad infinitum.</p>
<p>Nolo mentions this, which was easy to find and applies: Given the risks, companies should carefully consider whether they really need to conduct layoffs and whether they can do so legally…Have a legitimate business reason. Your company should have valid, business-related reasons for the layoff. A decrease in sales, loss of a credit line, or overstaffing are legitimate reasons for a layoff; trying to get rid of older workers or punishing union supporters are not. [Or wanting to circumvent a law, any law that applies.]</p>
<p>They also suggest the following are logical and sometimes effective first steps. A savvy owner or manager would try them or determine feasibility- and record their efforts:
a freeze on hiring, promotions, or pay raises
a freeze on filling positions left vacant when employees leave voluntarily
cutting other costs
pay cuts
asking employees to take time off or reduce their hours
reducing authorized overtime, or
providing voluntary termination incentives to allow employees to decide whether to quit in exchange for a package of benefits.</p>
<p>But all need to be done within the frame of the law. </p>
<p>Humor break</p>
<p>Jimmy Kimmel’s take on the enrollment numbers.</p>
<p>ConsumerWatch: Many Reasons For Inaccuracies In Covered California Directory</p>
<p>“The reasons range from doctors opting out faster than insurance companies can update their lists, long-standing issues with accuracies on insurer’s provider lists, to confusion over whether doctors are required or not to participate.”</p>
<p>dstark, I know you don’t live in Menlo Park but I found this guy’s comment interesting:</p>
<p>“I feel like a baseball player that’s waiting for the season to start” Covered California customer Guda Venkatesh told KPIX 5 ConsumerWatch. The Menlo Park resident said with all the problems with the list, he has not been able to find a doctor willing to accept his Anthem policy."</p>
<p><a href=“ConsumerWatch: Many Reasons For Inaccuracies In Covered California Directory - CBS San Francisco”>http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/02/11/consumerwatch-many-reasons-for-inaccuracies-in-covered-california-directory/</a></p>
<p>Okay, so is an individual shuffling money around to get subsidies cheating? Just curious. Because it seems as though some of the people who think that’s just adapting to the law are being very hard on a business doing the same thing, basically. Neither is really anything new.</p>
<p>Don’t California people sleep anymore? </p>
<p>LOL Texas!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps calmom can explain, from a legal perspective:
1 ) that actual written laws exists about the no-no of bribing a building inspector
2) where in the ACA is it written that reducing one’s workforce is illegal (if to save money due to the cost of ACA)
3) how being “NICE” then yields executive rule-making that results in illegalities (and perjury), particularly since I’m guessing that (2) doesn’t exist</p>
<p>I see many incongruencies in what has been stated thus far so would like it cleared up by whoever is most upto date on it.</p>
<p>The employer mandate has been pushed out to next year with no conditions - Yes or No?</p>
<p>The new rules that came out this week allow a push out to 2016 - Yes or No?</p>
<p>The push out to 2016 has to be requested by employer and not automatic - Yes or No?</p>
<p>If it is requested, it order to get the extension waiver and not to have a tax burden, people need to certify that they have not downsized due to ACA?</p>
<p>I thought the employer mandate was delayed for 3 years. Yes, clarification, please.</p>
<p>I had many life threatening scenarios running through my head when my now diagnosed condition was undiagnosed. I did keep my sanity in check enough to not blame it on OCare though! 
</p>
<p>Isn’t the delay it just for businesses with 50-99 workers?</p>
<p>There are two parts to the delay. </p>
<p>Businesses with 50-99 employees have the mandate delayed for a year. Meanwhile, businesses with 100+ employees only have to cover 70% of full-time employees in 2015 (instead of 95%), but still have to cover 95% of full-time employees in 2016 and later.</p>
<p>But companies are not allowed to reduce insurance coverage in response to the delay. </p>
<p>Can dstark write a parody on how those 70% get picked at the whim of the managers?</p>
<p>Texaspg, I am dying here as a flesh eating bacteria destroys me and you would like me to write a parody about how those 70 percent of the people get chosen? :)</p>
<p>Texaspg, I am glad you liked my post. Emilybee too.
Thanks.</p>
<p>Texaspg, you write the parody. I will read it. :)</p>
<p>The companies can’t reduce coverage, though. For example, if 90% of full-timers are covered in 2014, the company can’t drop coverage to 70% in 2015. </p>
<p>I Liked the now-vanished flesh eating bacteria post. What happens to Likes when the post gets deleted?</p>
<p>You know who is responsible for flesh eating bacteria.</p>
<p>Visit with my doc today. He said he is happy about ACA. (He used that word- “happy.”)I mentioned the thread talk about docs and he said that was not the experience he is aware of here.</p>