After a long Congressional battle, the health care reform bill passed the House last weekend and has left many small business owners wondering what will happen to them. Not all of the details have been brought to light, in part because of the reconciliation process that's gone on this week. This is somewhat frustrating, since there's basic approval of a bill without all of the important details -- but there are a few that are immediately clear. First off, small businesses with less than 50 employees will be exempt from requirements to offer health insurance. Companies that are a bit larger and getting close to 50 employees should make sure they can document exactly how they count employees and full-time equivalents (FTE). The number of employees will determine the amount of tax credits (or penalties) for offering (or not offering) health insurance.

So where will all this insurance come from? By 2014, the federal gov't requires every state to set up a Small Business Health Options Program (or SHOP Exchange), so that small businesses can "pool together" to buy insurance plans. If a state fails to set up a SHOP Exchange in time, the federal gov't will provide one of its own. Still, there's four years to see what a SHOP Exchange will actually look like -- and many predict that these exchanges will start sprouting up before the end of this year.

In the short term, there are some tax credits that small businesses may have available this year, which they should certainly be looking to understand -- rather than waiting around. But, on the whole, small businesses may not be required to do anything differently -- and might optimistically benefit from the insurance plan competition generated by the SHOP Exchanges. For firms that have around 50 employees, it's a smart time to start crunching the numbers and to try to forecast what the financial pros and cons are for providing coverage and obtaining tax credits vs. paying fines and letting employees handle their own insurance. Besides the financial impact, business owners should start planning now for consequences such as a reduction in "job lock" -- instead of assuming they can deal with managing their employees' benefits in less than proactive way. With the economy supposedly picking up, employers may see less loyalty from employees and a different view of health care benefits.

In the long run... well, there are still some factors that could change the final outcome of this reform. Thanks to the reconciliation process, some of the language of the bill has been shifting -- and who knows what happens after the next election cycle (and, of course, the one after that). While some had said getting health care reform finalized (one way or the other) would at least be good for certainty, there's very little certainty at all at this point for small businesses, and this game of political football looks like it will continue to be played and many of the provisions don't come into effect for a few years. At best, it seems like small businesses need to at least pay attention, but not do anything too drastic just yet.

In the meantime, while we wait for the politicians to argue it out, it would be great to hear from any small business owners here, concerning their own experiences in dealing with health care for employees, or suggestions for how the system could or should be improved.

It's amazing how badly politicians who know a little bit can screw things up. Apparently, Chris Dodd's financial reform bill contains a somewhat horrifying clause that would seriously harm the ability of startups to raise angel financing. Startups raising angel money are about as far from what caused the financial crisis as anything I can think of, and yet, the financial reform bill contains some ridiculous provisions:

Under existing law, startup companies can raise money easily and quickly from "accredited investors" -- individuals with substantial wealth or income. There is no need for the companies or the investors to gain approval from any state or regulatory official.

All of this would change if Section 926 of the Dodd bill is included in any final reform legislation. That section would require, for the first time, companies seeking angel investment to make a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which would have 120 days to review it. This would both raise the cost of seeking angels and delay the ability of companies to benefit from their funding.

The negative impact of the SEC filing requirement would be aggravated by the proposed doubling of the net worth or income thresholds required for investors to be "accredited."

As someone who has raised a fair bit of money from accredited angels in the past, this proposal would be quite troubling. The idea that a company would need to wait four months before it can get the money it needs would kill a lot of startups. There is no evidence that the angel funding process has been problematic in any way. In fact, some might argue that it's one part of the financial system that works incredibly well. So why are politicians mucking with it?