Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[BigV]

Thanks for the reply. Let me unpack what I hear you saying.

The companies that might move to an employment model of independent contractor, they'll have some new "freedoms", like ability to fire you at a whim, and of course no benefits, and no taxes.

Ok, I agree that companies that hire independent contractors can do these things. But so what? These conditions are already in place practically everywhere. Washington is an "at-will" employment state.

Is it legal for a worker to be fired from their job without any notice?

The law does not require a business to give a worker notice before terminating their job. Nor does the law require workers to give notice before quitting. However, the business may make payment of benefits (such as vacation pay) a condition of the worker giving notice.

Is it legal to be fired from a job for no good reason?

Yes. Washington is what's called an "at will" state. Businesses may fire "at will." There are no laws regarding dismissal, so businesses are not required to give warnings or follow any particular steps.

Also in Washington, there's no requirement by law that benefits be offered to the employee. Lots of places hire people in circumstances that don't involve benefits, like scheduling the workers so they don't qualify as "full time" employees and are thus excluded.

I don't know any place that can hire employees, not contractors mind you, and be exempt from paying taxes. Some do, of course, but that's already a crime. Look at the cases of "nanny-gate" you hear from time to time about people who fail to *pay taxes* for their domestic help.

Yes, there are exceptions to this here in Washington and across the country, but mostly these conditions are already in place. My question is this: what does this have to do with the continuing rollout of PPACA requirements?

As for "dropping them" I think you mean, businesses dropping employees/contractors from the insurance rolls. And that these people will still want insurance. I think that ... I dunno. Might could happen, don't understand this well. But the core of what you're saying, that the law's intention is to get more/all people insured and that the structure for encouraging compliance via penalties for NOT having/buying insurance is flawed, since the offender will make a cost/benefit analysis of the decision to "pay or play", so to speak, and decide to pay instead of play. I agree. I think this kind of analysis happens every day for everybody. The decisions aren't always rational, and they're not always consistent, and they're not always made for the long term, and they're not always in the best interest of the decider. But they're always being made, by all of us.

Maybe getting full enrollment by making the penalty at some level isn't going to succeed. Perhaps we can talk about how to improve the result, but tossing out the law isn't the answer. We have the ultimate penalty--capital punishment--for some actions, and yet people still murder. That doesn't mean we should toss out the law making it illegal.

I agree with you friend that there are many unanswered questions about how the new law will affect businesses and employees, totally agree. It's a big goddamn deal, and we're working it out, as planned.