But stop for a minute and think - we are seriously talking about commuting 2 hours to save a few hundred dollars a month on health care. Why?? Why do we even need to have that conversation? That's how broken things are.
I'm a non-smoking 34 year old marathon runner.. I go to the doctor once a year, if that. Companies should be fighting over the opportunity to insure me. It shouldn't be the #1 reason I can't grow a business.
It's great that you're healthy but business growth is going to involve taking other people on and I for one am not taking a job without health care while I have two other people depending on me. A single major health issue could bankrupt me!
I would assume you'd also save hundreds of dollars a month on rent and other living expenses in PA (or MA, though I can't speak directly for Boston). I don't think moving 2 hours away to save $1k or more per month is a bad move for a startup.
It's only insane if you believe that health insurance is a major barrier for startups. The fact that startups didn't relocate to MA en masse after Romneycare took effect suggests that perhaps access to capital/talent is far more important.
Health care clearly is a factor...
I wasn't disputing that it is a factor. I was disputing the idea that it is a larger factor than access to capital or talent. Look, we hear about people moving to the valley all the time. People move to NY as well, though it's less common. Are all of these entrepreneurs "insane" (to borrow sachinag's language) for chasing capital/talent rather than Romneycare?
Second: yes. Most of the people who are moving to NYC and SFBA are irrational. Most of their companies fail. Everybody knows that going in. To the extent that they move entirely in support of their startups, they are crazy. (The fact is, most of the people moving aren't doing so entirely for their startup; they want to live there.)
Third, I doubt most entrepreneurs even know about "Romneycare". I'm only peripherally familiar with its specifics, and, as you can probably tell, health care is one of my issues.
The problem with MassCare (and ObamaCare) is that their mix of guaranteed issue, mandates, community rating, minimum creditable coverage guidelines, and subsidies still inflates the price of health insurance, and state subsidies can't keep up. This was evident in Massachusetts as early as 2007, right after MassCare began to be implemented (see this report for exmaple: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=14237)
I think the Startup America concept is admirable. Would that the federal government understood the real problem with starting a business in the United States right now isn't the lack of a couple billion in government programs, but the regulatory barriers and inflation in commodities and products like health insurance that prevent new firms from entering the market, inflation that the federal government has in many ways helped create.
I really wish the administration had tried to take some baby steps instead of going for something they are giving waivers to avoid and really not explaining how their thing would be different from the VA or IHS.
A "flood"-style insurance to protect against the catastrophic, and changing the Health savings accounts to be easier and inheritable probably would have been good first steps.
At least, that's the argument. I don't claim to be an expert in these things.
I'd recommend that startups in Mass/looking to move just have everyone pay their own health insurance through the Connector until you raise angel funding and scale up in people. (I set up the group health insurance when I led Operations at oneforty.)