Support the Jobs Act and ease regulations on startups and investors | Hacker News Reader

Support the Jobs Act and ease regulations on startups and investors

angel.co

59 pointsDanielRibeiro31 comments

A better jobs act would be "Healthcare that's actually affordable for someone starting out"

People would leave their deadend jobs in droves and start new companies if they didn't have to risk their health and that of their families by doing so.

As someone who has chronic back problems, I cannot agree with this more. I've wanted to start a company for some time, but my increased risk for significant medical care/procedures has somewhat anchored me to working for others.

IIRC, assuming Obamacare is still intact come 2014, health insurers will not be able to discriminate against pre-existing conditions.

<pedantic> Down voted for using for using the pejorative 'Obamacare'. The thing actually has a real name (and it doesn't even make some bad acronym), it is the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". </pedantic>

Odd. I know plenty of liberals/Democrats/etc who call it Obamacare. They don't mean anything negative by it. It's a hell of a lot shorter than call it the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".

Perhaps I am just sensitive to being fairly liberal in a pretty conservative area. The vast majority (read: all, until now apparently) of the times I hear the term, it's definitely used negatively. I understand the formal name is a bit cumbersome, but it's accurate and a lot less ambiguous. Of those I know who don't use 'Obamacare' or the actual name, using the simple healthcare reform act seems to work well.

My apologies for turning this into a political argument. My intention was to try to check some perceived bias. Looks like I over-corrected.

Don't particularly agree with this line of reasoning on two grounds:

(i) Greater access to capital means that more startups should be able to include health coverage in their pay packages.

(ii) The Affordable Care Act implemented plans in every state that cover pre-existing conditions until all plans will be required to do so in 2014[1].

P.S. Having dealt with chronic low back pain for the past decade, I can definitely relate... on the plus side, I recently found a traction device that has all but eliminated my issues. Feel free to reach out if you think it might help and I'll send details.

P.P.S. Regarding the OP's petition, while it's clearly helpful to show public support, this seems a bit too rigid: "We ask the Senate to act swiftly, without amendments that may weaken key provisions".

Amending the legislation would potentially help to address the opposition to this bill (at the very least, the petition should recognize the detractors point-of-view to demonstrate that signers are aware and have voiced their support regardless)[2].

[1] https://www.pcip.gov/FAQ.html

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumpstart_Our_Business_Startups...

Out of control licensing and regulations are why health care is so expensive in the first place.

While something like this bill would be a very good thing, I can't see it coming anywhere close to passing in the current cultural-political climate.

> People would leave their deadend jobs in droves and start new companies if they didn't have to risk their health and that of their families by doing so.

Having actually paid the relevant costs out of pocket, I disagree.

Yes, there are some people with chronic conditions who are "teathered" (but not all, as there are states where pre-existing conditions are not grounds for turning someone down and if you keep coverage, aren't even grounds for a waiting period), but they're a small minority. (And, if you have a chronic condition and don't keep coverage....)

I suspect that that the people actually willing to take the plunge are also the sort of people who actually look at what it will cost.

I'm guessing you're male. The number of females with medical histories (an important distinction from "pre existing condition! My daughter is perfectly healthy, but had a seizure [we think from a drug reaction] when she was four, and...) who are thus uninsurable on the private market is not small.

Our current health care system is not a problem for single twenty-something males; that is a win condition in the same sense as a memory allocator that never fragments memory as long as nothing ever calls free().

> The number of females with medical histories (an important distinction from "pre existing condition! My daughter is perfectly healthy, but had a seizure [we think from a drug reaction] when she was four, and...) who are thus uninsurable on the private market is not small.

If she's had continuous insurance, she's not uninsurable.

As I wrote, in many states, insured people can't be turned down when they want to switch.

In Washington State, yes. Not in New York or Illinois or Michigan.

Smells like libertarian BS.

Regulations aren't the problem.

Young, small companies are the job creators.

Not having affordable healthcare is the single biggest inhibitor to startups.

Single payer healthcare would be the single largest job creating boost. Lopping the 1/3rd of costs, decapitating the blood sucking "insurance" racket, would make a significant dent in everyone's overhead.

Single payer != free. Unless you manage to create massive efficiency gains in the health care sector you are going to replace health insurance premiums with health insurance taxes.

Single payer would lead to massive efficiency gains in healthcare.

http://www.medicaltranscription.net/cost-of-medical-paperwor...

http://www.modernmedicine.com/modernmedicine/Modern+Medicine...

Medicare efficient enough for you?

I'm okay up until Stay private if they have over 500 shareholders

Honestly, You're not a startup if you have over 500 shareholders, You're basically a public company with no disclosure requirements for investors. Why would anyone go public if they can just sell all their shares on secondmarket and not have disclose anything? That rule is in place to protect investors.

I was under the impression that the raising of the 500 shareholder limit was to allow the crowdfunding aspect to be meaningful; 500 investors at $100 a pop is only $50,000 that makes a certain amount of sense.

However, I'm not familiar enough with the securities law of 1933 to gauge what section 302 of the proposed bill ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3606eh/pdf/BILLS-112... ) means in practice.

Couldn't this be solved with one level of indirection, such that the crowd funding company is the sole investor of crowd-sourced funds?

Wouldn't that render any limit on the number of shareholder meaningless?

I, too, am weary of this provision. If there is no obligation to make information available, all this will do is embolden the inside-track of investors who can get information at the expense of everyone else. There will be strong pressure for the former to misrepresent and mislead the latter, and now that the cap of 500 investors has been lifted, the latter type of investor -- one with low leverage, in particular -- is available in much greater supply. Yet, I find the idea of allowing many smaller investors participating in the funding of a company compelling, but it is more likely that there will be a lot of heterogeneity in the size and leverage of investors in a firm that seems to me that it could lead to a lot of ugly situations.

Are there even minimal disclosure requirements in this bill for such "emerging" companies? The cutoff for being under this bill's aegis is, if I read it properly, one billion dollars. That's quite a chunk of change, and it seems like at that size (or even at $50,000 dollars) one can hire an accountant to do some minimal reporting is not too much to ask, or do it themselves when the firm is small.

I am a fan of less regulation when it seems like information asymmetry is treated to some degree, as so all actors can make a reasonable rational choice. It's not clear to me this is the case here. I would love to be informed as to otherwise.

I know almost nothing about Sarbanes-Oxley, but I've seen critics claim that compliance costs nearly a million dollars for even the smallest public companies. Can a $50k company survive in the current environment without remaining privately held by the founders or a small group of accredited investors?

SOX is pretty extreme. I don't think it even applies to organizations that go over the 500 (soon to be 2000 with this bill, is that actually enough for super-microfunded kickstarter style startups?) investor limit, but I am no expert.

I'm not asking for much. Maybe even just what is filed for tax returns would be enough, or maybe not (or maybe it's more than necessary). It just seems like no disclosure obligations at all (and I'm not even sure if that's what the bill actually provides) is too few obligations.

Case in point, Facebook. For a long time -- may be even now -- authoritative numbers of numbers like revenue or profit that would be seen on their tax filing are probably only known to investors with sufficient leverage, AFAIK. Again, not intended to be an assertion; countervailing knowledge welcomed.

I am not a lawyer, but I tried to read some of this. I don't see how it's targeted to anything I would call a startup.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3606&...

First off, it defines an "emerging growth company" as anything with less than $1 billion gross yearly revenue. You all have heard of Netgear? Emerging growth company.

And then it exempts such a company from reporting requirements, shareholder approval of executive compensation, shareholder approval of severance packages, certain auditing requirements, and even conflict-of-interest provisions.

In my non-expert opinion it looks more like it's trying to make the first dotcom bubble look like a period of sanity and sobriety.

This is something that needs to happen. I wish ProFounder hadn't close, however it's a clear example of how our institutions and legal frameworks are not evolving fast enough to foster creativity and innovation. I'm still waiting for Government 2.0...

Signed.

Here's a collection of some contrary perspectives: http://www.consumerfed.org/news/473 , http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/in-latest-jobs-bill...

The legislation will certainly be good for founders and investors trying to take companies public, as well as the Wall Street banks which will underwrite them.

My concern is that gutting investor (self-)protections will bring in a flood of dumb money, with all the market distortions that creates.

My concern is that gutting investor (self-)protections will bring in a flood of dumb money, with all the market distortions that creates.

That seems to be happening already, perhaps because there's no where else for investment to go right now.

I'm not sure about this. The summary says the law changes how any company with annual revenue <$1bn is regulated. That's a much larger group than just startups. The law would ease regulations, but some of those regulations are for investor protection and it's not clear to me that their removal is actually a good thing. Also, I don't see why it's called "the Jobs Act." There doesn't seem to be any estimate on how many jobs it may create.

I'm all in favor of crowdfunding, but this sounds a lot like an excuse to gut transparency and disclosure regulations so another stock-market bubble can get (back to) going.

If I read the bill correctly, it only reduces oversight when there are 2000 or so investors: quite easily not enough to really enable the Kickstarter-startup vision.

Signed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com