Obamacare Is Killing Small Business. Here's How To Fix It.
Obamacare was back on trial this month, as the U.S. Supreme Court heard a challenge about the constitutionality of the panel that determines which preventive care services health plans must cover.
According to the Commonwealth Fund, 'The case has consequences for the Affordable Care Act's guarantee of coverage for a wide range of free preventive care.'
Preventive care is not free, even if Obamacare attempts to paint it as such. We all pay for mandated benefits in the form of higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs. And a new report from the JPMorganChase Institute shows that small employers are increasingly responding to the rising cost of health insurance by dropping it altogether.
One-third of businesses with fewer than 50 employees drop health insurance coverage year over year largely because of rising insurance costs, the financial firm's research outfit found.
Restaurant employees were hit the hardest. Thirty-six percent dropped insurance coverage between 2018 and 2019. Thirty-five percent of repair and maintenance businesses dropped coverage in that window, as did 34% of construction firms.
The JPMorganChase study found that a 10% hike in monthly premiums increases the probability that a firm will drop health insurance coverage by just over 1%. For restaurants, a 10% premium increase raises that probability by 5.5%.
And while some small businesses stop offering health insurance coverage as they prepare to close their doors, the study found 'most small businesses that stopped paying health insurance premiums continued to operate in the following years.'
That's bad news not just for American workers but for the country. As the JPMorganChase study notes, 'inconsistent health insurance coverage can hinder the success of small businesses by potentially stifling entrepreneurship, with implications for aggregate job and economic growth.'
Fortunately, there are several things lawmakers can do to help businesses struggling to provide health coverage to their employees. Namely, they can expand access to two types of health insurance plans that are exempt from Obamacare's costly rules and regulations—and as such are considerably cheaper.Association Health Plans allow small businesses to join with self-employed individuals and independent contractors in their industry and purchase health plans in the large-group market.
Because associations function like large employers, they have more leverage to negotiate with insurers. More importantly, AHPs are exempt from Obamacare's mandates. That gives them the freedom to tailor their offerings to members' needs—offering bare-bones catastrophic coverage to a group of young waiters, for instance—which in turn lowers costs for enrollees.
In 2018, the Trump administration relaxed Obama-era restrictions on association health plans in an effort to expand access to them. Under the 2018 rules, employers could form associations with any small business in their geographic area, regardless of whether they were in the same industry.
The Biden administration reversed those rules shortly before President Trump returned to the White House. Now that he's back, the president has a chance to reimpose his earlier guidance.
The Trump administration could also loosen Biden-era restrictions on short-term, limited-duration insurance. These health plans are also exempt from Obamacare's cost-inflating mandates and so are much more affordable than the coverage for sale on the exchanges, with premiums that can be half as much.
During his first term, President Trump green-lit rules that extended the maximum term for these plans to 364 days and allowed insurers to renew them for up to three years. Biden also rolled back those rules, capping short-term plans at 90 days with an option for a one-month renewal.
It's time for a return to the Trump 1.0 regulation of short-term plans. Doing so would expand access to affordable coverage—something that would be particularly valuable to the increasing number of small-business employees whose employers have discontinued coverage.
Whether by expanding options for small businesses or for individuals, lawmakers have plenty of avenues to relieve the burden of the increasingly expensive insurance coverage brought about by Obamacare. For workers' sakes—and for the good of the American economy—let's hope they seize the moment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
EMCOR Group (EME) Sees EPS Surge as Net Income Climbs to US$241 Million
EMCOR Group recently announced a regular quarterly cash dividend of $0.25 per common share, to be paid on July 31, 2025. This steady dividend approach aligns with the company's robust quarterly performance, which saw net income rise to $241 million and EPS increase substantially year-over-year. Additionally, the ongoing share buyback program has strengthened shareholder returns. Despite the broader market's moderate growth of 1.4% over the past week and 17% over the past year, EMCOR's notable share repurchases and solid financial outcomes appear to have amplified investor confidence, contributing to the company's impressive 55% stock price surge last quarter. We've spotted 1 risk for EMCOR Group you should be aware of. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 22 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. EMCOR Group's recent announcement of a quarterly dividend and the implementation of its share buyback program underline its commitment to enhancing shareholder returns. Despite a potential downside to the current share price of US$635.06, which exceeds the consensus analyst price target of US$549.57 by 13.46%, these actions could continue to buoy investor confidence. The company's performance over the past five years, with a total return exceeding 844.60%, showcases its robust long-term trajectory. In the last year, EMCOR's share performance exceeded both the broader market's 17.2% and the US Construction industry's 54.2% return, highlighting its strong standing relative to peers. The successful integration of acquisitions and strategic diversification into sectors like data centers and healthcare is anticipated to impact future revenue positively. This, coupled with operational efficiencies and strong revenue collaboration, may reinforce earnings projections. However, EMCOR's earnings forecasts of a 6.2% annual growth rate lag behind the broader market's 14.9% forecast, which could present challenges in meeting broader industry expectations. The company's impressive share price rise of 55% last quarter signals optimism, though its current value being above the target may indicate overvaluation concerns. Nevertheless, the consistent cash flow and healthy margins underscore its potential resilience against margin pressures, supply chain challenges, and other economic uncertainties. As analysts estimate revenue growth to 7.9% annually over the next three years, any tangible improvement in operational metrics could shift the valuation outlook positively. Unlock comprehensive insights into our analysis of EMCOR Group stock in this financial health report. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Companies discussed in this article include EME. This article was originally published by Simply Wall St. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Boston Globe
3 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
No proof Hamas routinely stole UN aid, Israeli military officials say
Now, with hunger at crisis levels in the territory, Israel is coming under increased international pressure over its conduct of the war in Gaza and the humanitarian suffering it has brought. Doctors in the territory say that an increasing number of their patients are suffering from -- and dying of -- starvation. More than 100 aid agencies and rights groups warned this past week of 'mass starvation' and implored Israel to lift restrictions on humanitarian assistance. The European Union and at least 28 governments, including Israeli allies like Britain, France, and Canada, issued a joint statement condemning Israel's 'drip-feeding of aid' to Gaza's 2 million Palestinian residents. Advertisement Israel has largely brushed off the criticism. David Mencer, a government spokesperson, said this past week that there was 'no famine caused by Israel.' Instead, he blamed Hamas and poor coordination by the United Nations for any food shortages. Advertisement Israel moved in May toward replacing the UN-led aid system that had been in place for most of the 21-month war in Gaza, opting instead to back a private, American-run operation guarded by armed US contractors in areas controlled by Israeli military forces. Some aid still comes into Gaza through the United Nations and other organizations. The new system has proved to be much deadlier for Palestinians trying to obtain food handouts. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, almost 1,100 people have been killed by gunfire on their way to get food handouts under the new system, in many cases by Israeli soldiers who opened fire on hungry crowds. Israeli officials have said they fired shots in the air in some instances because the crowds came too close or endangered their forces. The military officials who spoke to The New York Times said that the original UN aid operation was relatively reliable and less vulnerable to Hamas interference than the operations of many of the other groups bringing aid into Gaza. That's largely because the United Nations managed its own supply chain and handled distribution directly inside Gaza. Hamas did steal from some of the smaller organizations that donated aid, as those groups were not always on the ground to oversee distribution, according to the senior Israeli officials and others involved in the matter. But, they say, there was no evidence that Hamas regularly stole from the United Nations, which provided the largest chunk of the aid. A Hamas representative did not immediately respond to requests for comment. An internal US government analysis came to a similar conclusion, Reuters reported Friday. It found no evidence of systematic Hamas theft of US-funded humanitarian supplies, the report said. Advertisement 'For months, we and other organizations were dragged through the mud by accusations that Hamas steals from us,' said Georgios Petropoulos, a former UN official in Gaza who oversaw aid coordination with Israel for nearly 13 months of war. The senior military officials and others interviewed by the Times spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on behalf of the military or government. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In a statement, the military said that it has been 'well documented' that Hamas has routinely 'exploited humanitarian aid to fund terrorist activities.' But the military did not dispute the assessment that there was no evidence that Hamas regularly stole aid from the United Nations. The Israeli government and military have often clashed over how to conduct the war in Gaza. Early last year, top commanders urged a cease-fire with Hamas to secure the release of hostages. Netanyahu's government instead expanded the ground operation in southern Gaza. Israel used the rationale that Hamas steals aid when it cut off all food and other supplies to Gaza between March and May. In March, after a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel collapsed, Netanyahu said: 'Hamas is currently taking control of all supplies and goods entering Gaza,' and he declared that Israel would prevent anything from entering the territory. That blockade, and problems with a new aid system that launched in May, brought hunger and starvation in Gaza to the current crisis levels. For most of the war, the UN was the largest single source of aid entering Gaza, according to data from the Israeli military unit that oversees policy in the territory. Advertisement Now, the new aid system is managed instead by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a private American company led by a former CIA agent. It was intended to eventually replace international aid organizations and the UN role. But it has only a few distribution hubs, compared with hundreds under the former UN-run operation. The new system's rollout at the end of May was quickly followed by near-daily episodes of deadly violence near distribution sites. Desperate and hungry Palestinians must go to the few aid distribution sites located in areas controlled by Israeli forces. The hours of operation are limited and supplies run out, so crowds arrive early, with some walking for miles to get there. Since May 19, when Israel allowed emergency supplies to resume entering Gaza after its two-month blockade, half of the aid has been distributed by the United Nations and international organizations, with the other half coming through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the Israeli military says. Petropoulos welcomed the notion that some Israeli officials had recognized the UN-led aid system as effective during the war. But he said he wished that endorsement had come much sooner. 'If the UN had been taken at face value months ago, we wouldn't have wasted all this time and Gazans wouldn't be starving and being shot at trying to feed their families,' he said. This article originally appeared in
The Hill
3 minutes ago
- The Hill
How much does it really cost to own a car in the US?
Driving is probably the most consistent way Americans get from point A to point B across the country. And while it's well known that buying a car is a significant investment, most of us don't typically factor in the day-to-day or annual costs associated with keeping our cars running and operational. Not to mention the cost of insurance for your vehicle, and for those who live in larger cities, the cost to park your car each and every day. Adding this all together, the average American pays roughly $12,828 a year to own a car, roughly $1,069 per month, says a new study from Way. The initial number probably seems eye-popping for sure, but when you break down the various payments on your vehicle, it slowly starts to add up. The first and largest is the depreciation of your car. While this isn't physically money that you're spending, it's money that you're losing every time you use your car. As with age and usage, the price of your car will continue to drop until the day you finally sell it or trade it in. On average, the value of your car drops about $4,600 a year, according to Way. Next is gas and insurance, which can vary depending on your location, but typically Americans spend about $2,200 on gas every year and $1,700 on car insurance. After that, there's the maintenance of your car that you end up doing every year. These include oil changes, tire rotations, brake pad replacements, new air filters, new windshield wipers and anything else that potentially goes wrong with your car in a given year. The prices on this can obviously vary drastically depending on what is going on with your car, but on average, a typical U.S. citizen will spend roughly $1,500 on car maintenance every year. Going a little more unnoticed is the various financing charges and taxes and fees that you end up paying each year on your car and probably don't even realize it. Combined, the two can add up to about $1,600 a year. Finally, there are parking costs, which probably only apply to people who live in larger cities. But on average, the typical American spends around $1,000 on parking. This can vary drastically obviously for someone who lives in the suburbs versus someone who lives in a major city in California or New York. Separately, all these payments may not seem too crazy, but when combined, it's a bit more than the normal person may expect to pay on a car year after year.
