Do Affordable Care Act business requirements apply to “control groups?”
"Yes, it applies to control groups.  If I remember correctly common ownership rules are used to determine ""Applicable Large Employer"" status but if the time comes to owe a penalty, only the actual entity missing the mark will owe a penalty, not the entire control group. This is an excerpt from Section 4980H (the section that lays out employer requirements and penalties) (16) Employer. The term employer means the person that is the employer of an employee under the common-law standard. See § 31.3121(d)-1(c). For purposes of determining whether an employer is an applicable large employer, all persons treated as a single employer under section 414(b), (c), (m), or (o) are treated as a single employer. Thus, all employees of a controlled group of entities under section 414(b) or (c), an affiliated service group under section 414(m), or an entity in an arrangement described under section 414(o), are taken into account in determining whether the members of the controlled group or affiliated service group together are an applicable large employer. For purposes of determining applicable large employer status, the term employer also includes a predecessor employer (see paragraph (a)(36) of this section) and a successor employer. Link to the Federal Register"
"J Gruber's consulting reports for the various states (Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc).  * http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/jon-gruber-on-the-premiums-in-health-care-reform/2011/08/25/gIQAN0TUWS_blog.html  ...and the article it addresses (which included some numbers from the reports):  * http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/11/obamacare-architect-expect-steep-increase-in-health-care-premiums/  Note that Gruber has made a whole spectrum of claims (from initially claiming that premiums would go DOWN for a consulting agreement with the Obama administration, to later ""revisions"" showing significant increases {to varying degrees depending on the individuals specific demographic}), to wit:  &gt;Gruber’s new reports are in direct contrast Obama’s words — and with claims Gruber himself made in 2009. Then, the economics professor said that based on figures provided by the independent Congressional Budget Office, “[health care] reform will significantly reduce, not increase, non-group premiums.”  &gt;During his presentation to Wisconsin officials in August 2011, Gruber revealed that while about 57 percent of those who get their insurance through the individual market will benefit in one way or another from the law’s subsides, an even larger majority of the individual market will end up paying drastically more overall.  &gt;“After the application of tax subsidies, **59 percent of the individual market will experience an average premium increase of 31 percent,”** Gruber reported.  &gt;The reason for this is that an estimated 40 percent of Wisconsin residents who are covered by individual market insurance don’t meet the Affordable Care Act’s minimum coverage requirements. Under the Affordable Care Act, they will be required to purchase more expensive plans.  &gt;Asked for his own explanation for the expected health-insurance rate hikes, Gruber told TheDC that his reports “reflect the high cost of folding state high risk pools into the [federal government's] exchange — without using the money the state was already spending to subsidize those high risk pools.”  Note: Emphasis added.    Note 2: To begin with, an ""average"" increase of 31% qualifies as ""significant"" (hell, it's a lot more than merely ""significant"", that's a HUGE increase); and secondly, that is an AVERAGE, meaning that while some of the people in that ""59%"" will probably not see such a high increase, a fairly large segment {and per the provisions of the Act versus current premium calculation methods, we KNOW these will be ""young healthy singles"", and especially males} will face increases that are substantially HIGHER than 31%, and in fact will probably be in the nature of double or triple previous premiums {as would be required in order to meet another provision of the act, that highest premiums for older/sicker pool members cannot be higher than 3x that of the youngest/lowest tier premiums -- and if the company is to balance the books, it can only ""bring down"" the one end if it makes a compensating increase at the other end.})  None of that is ""rocket science"" and it is entirely predictable. (The only things that would be ""odd"" would be that anyone should expect anything different, and that Gruber's initial claims of across the board lower costs were ever accepted in the first place.)" I assume you are talking about a publicly traded company listed on a major stock exchange and the buyer resides in the US. (Private companies and non-US locations can change the rules really a lot.) The short answer is no, because the company does not own the stock, various investors do. Each investor has to make an individual decision to sell or not sell. But there are complications. If an entity buys more than about 10% of the company they have to file a declaration with the SEC. The limit can be higher if they file an assertion that they are buying it solely for investment and are not seeking control of the company. If they are seeking control of the company then more paperwork must be filed and if they want to buy the whole company they may be required to make a tender offer where they offer to buy any and all shares at a specific price. If the company being bought is a financial institution, then the buyer may have to declare as a bank holding company and more regulations apply. The company can advise shareholders not to take the tender offer, but they cannot forbid it. So the short answer is, below 10% and for investment purposes only, it is cash and carry: Whoever has the cash gets to carry the stock away. Above that various regulations and declarations apply, but the company still does not have the power prevent the purchase in most circumstances. "In the US, a private company with less than 500 owners can dictate who can or can't become a shareholder (this is true in general, but I'm sure there are loopholes).   Prior to Google's IPO I could not buy shares in Google at any price.   The reason Google was ""forced"" to go public is the 500 shareholder rule.   At a high level, with 500 shareholders the company is forced to do some extra financial accounting and they no longer can control who owns a share of the company, allowing me to purchase shares of google at that point.  At that point, it typically becomes in the companies best interest to go public. See this article about Google approaching the 500 shareholder limit in 2003. Further, Sorkin is not quite correct that ""securities laws mandate that the company go public"" if by ""go public"" we mean list on a stock exchange, available for general purchase.   Securities laws mandate what has to be reported in financial reporting and when you have to report it. Securities laws also can dictate restrictions on ownership of stock and if a company can impose their own restrictions. A group of investors cannot force a company onto a stock exchange.   If shares of Facebook are already for sale to anyone, then having >500 shareholders will force Facebook to file more paperwork with the SEC, it won't force Facebook onto the NYSE or NASDAQ.   When that point is reached, it may be in Facebook's best interest to have an IPO, but they will not be required by law to do so. Update:  CNN article discusses likely Facebook IPO in 2012. When companies have more than 500   shareholders, they're required to make   significant financial disclosures --   though they can choose to remain   private and keep their stock from   trading publicly. However, most   companies facing mandatory disclosures   opt to go public. The Securities and Exchange Commission   gives businesses lots of time to   prepare for that milestone. Companies   have until 120 days after the end of   the fiscal year in which they cross   the 500-shareholder line to begin   making their disclosures. If Facebook   tips the scale this year, that gives   it until April 2012 to start filing   financial reports." "1. Internet is not a regular product or service, it's a utility.  2. An unregulated utility market simply leads to regional monopolies, because the companies privately own the infrastructure.  That's exactly what we have.  The cable companies cut up the country and generally stay out of eachother's turf, because it's more profitable than competition.  This is the opposite of a capitalist market, by the way.  They are now all billionaires from providing bear minimum service and avoiding any real competition.  Instead of competing, they slowly build enough money until they can simply buy out their competitors.  Comcast has gotten so rich it bought NBC and is now looking to buy TWC.  3. Fair competition for utilities requires rules that prevent the reigning company from blocking out competitors. This is called ""[Open-Access](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_%28infrastructure%29)"", this is what they have throughout most of Europe. This doesn't happen here because the reigning monopolies use their billions to buy political influence in Washington DC via lobbyists, campaign fund raising, donations, etc...  It is so effective, that the former chair of the FCC, Michael Powell, made a PSA bashing Open-Access competition rules and praising our monopoly system, saying it has resulted in the best internet in the world, which is of course a bold-faced, demonstrable lie.  [Video used to be on youtube, can't find it anymore]  4. The root cause is an apathetic voter base who view Washington as too corrupt to even reform, which keeps the people who care about this issue the most away from the poles.  This simply strengthens the power of the corporate lobbyists to control politics even more.  5. To take on these giants, you need to be a giant yourself, with tons of money to burn and a big reason to do it even though you'll probably lose money, since it's more like charity than a great business opportunity.  The only ones who fit the bill are Google, and only because they have a vested interest in keeping the internet free, open, fast, robust and affordable.  It also helps that they spent the past decade buying up fiber optic infrastructure." "This shows that in each market (US and Canada) the company is registered with the appropriate regulatory organization. OANDA is registered in the US with the National Futures Association which is a ""self-regulatory organization for the U.S. derivatives industry"". OANDA Canada is registered in Canada with IIROC which is the ""Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada"".  The company does business in both the US and in Canada so the US arm is registered with the US regulatory organization and the Canadian arm is registered with the Canadian regulatory organization." Situationally, deregulating things is shown to help. Uber broke the artificial markets for Taxis and both consumers and employees have benefitted. The reason why certain industries are regulated vary.   1. To foster and grow the industry.  2. To prevent monopolies from forming 3. For safety and consumer protection.   If we heavily deregulated the healthcare industry, prices would definitely fall but malpractice would rise.   On the otherhand, if we deregulated the insurance industry and broke the regional monopolies that exist, it would help the consumer without changing much (besides the profitability of insurance companies).   Its very situational. I don't have preexisting conditions. I am only speaking of how *my own personal* healthcare situation got worse because of the ACA.   I did used to use the dental and vision portions of my company-provided insurance regularly but I don't have that as part of my ACA insurance because again, it is unaffordable. You're going to find a lot of conflicting or vague answers on the internet because there are a lot of plan design elements that are set by the plan sponsor (employer).  There are laws that mandate certain elements and dictate certain requirements of plan sponsors, many of these laws are related to record keeping and fiduciary duty.  There is a lot of latitude for plan sponsors to allow or restrict employee actions even if there is no law against that activity.   There are different rules mandated for employee pre-tax contributions, employee post-tax contributions, and employer contributions.  You have more flexibility with regard to the employer contributions and any post tax contributions you may have made; your plan may allow an in-service distribution of those two items before you reach age 59.5. While your HR department (like most -all- HR departments) is not staffed with ERISA attorneys and CPAs it is your HR department and applicable plan documents that will lay out what an employee is permitted to do under the plan.