Obama Administration will delay ACA employer mandate for at least a year

I don't really doubt that they're worried about the impact. They're probably hoping for the best, but fearing the worst.

I wouldn't be surprised if they have no idea how it's going to go. We'd all like to think they do, but really, how likely is that?
 
In the grand scheme of Obamacare, this isn't really all that big a deal:

On Tuesday, the Obama administration announced a 1-year delay in the implementation of employer penalties associated with large employers (50 or more workers) who do not offer affordable coverage to their full-time workers (30 or more hours per week). Our prior analyses show these penalties are not the driving force behind the ACA’s coverage expansions. Nor are the penalties a significant source of federal revenue. Contrary to some initial reactions, the employer responsibility requirement is not a critical factor in meeting the goals of the law.

As we have explained elsewhere, there is very little in the ACA that changes the incentives facing employers that already offer coverage to their workers, and fully 96 percent of employers with 50 or more workers already offer today. Competition for labor, the fact that most employees get greater value from the tax exclusion for employer sponsored insurance than they would from exchange-based subsidies, and the introduction of a requirement for individuals to obtain coverage or pay a penalty themselves, are the major factors that will keep the lion’s share of employers continuing to do just what they do today with no requirements in place to do so.

Lessons from the Massachusetts health reform experience are instructive here as well. The Massachusetts law has substantially lower penalties for non-offering employers than does the ACA – the Massachusetts Fair Share Requirements is a maximum of $295 per worker, compared to a potential ACA maximum of $2,000 per worker. However, nominal as those assessments are, employer-sponsored insurance actually increased post-reform, as our analyses done prior to implementation predicted. This increase in employer based coverage was the consequence of individuals facing a new requirement to obtain insurance coverage and deciding their preferred source of coverage if they had to get it was their employer.

Throughout the development and the implementation of the ACA, there has been more worry than warranted that employers will drop insurance coverage. The current furor over the delay of the employer penalties appears to be more of the same. With or without the penalties, most people will still get coverage through their employers; the fundamental structure of the law will remain intact.
Click to expand...


So, this affects the 4% of employers with more than 50 employees that don't offer coverage to their employers and the effect of it is likely to push more people into the exchanges, which are the major part of Obamacare, than would be the case if this mandate (which is really, really, really stupid policy, by the way) were in place.


http://www.urban.org/health_policy/url.cfm?ID=904595
 
Dungheap said:
It's a matter of Obama pretty much unilaterally deciding that this stupid idea that was part of the Gang of Six compromise is shitty policy so he's not doing it even though its the law. So, like, it's the right thing to do but a, um, questionable way to go about it.
Click to expand...

Dung, you mentioned the questionable way of going about it. What do you think of this gentleman's argument on the subject?


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8591503509555268.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
 
cawacko said:
Dung, you mentioned the questionable way of going about it. What do you think of this gentleman's argument on the subject?


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8591503509555268.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Click to expand...

Hey Dung, I posted this yesterday and I'm not sure if you saw it or not. If you did and don't want to respond that is fine. But just in case you didn't I'm reposting. I'm also not posting this article as some type of "gotcha" situation or trying to make some partisan point. Legitimately curious what you think.
 
cawacko said:
Hey Dung, I posted this yesterday and I'm not sure if you saw it or not. If you did and don't want to respond that is fine. But just in case you didn't I'm reposting. I'm also not posting this article as some type of "gotcha" situation or trying to make some partisan point. Legitimately curious what you think.
Click to expand...


He's right to a degree, but the entire column is so overwrought (particularly coming from a guy appointed to the federal bench by GWB, Mr. Unitary Executive and Patron Saint of Signing Statements) that it's kinda annoying. Presidents have been doing this sort of thing through a variety of means on all sorts of legilslation since time immemorial. And Congress gets in on the fun, too (See, National Labor Relations Board, Federal Election Commission, CPFB, etc.)

Yes, it's questionable, but it's nto unheard of or unprecedented.
 
Dungheap said:
He's right to a degree, but the entire column is so overwrought (particularly coming from a guy appointed to the federal bench by GWB, Mr. Unitary Executive and Patron Saint of Signing Statements) that it's kinda annoying. Presidents have been doing this sort of thing through a variety of means on all sorts of legilslation since time immemorial. And Congress gets in on the fun, too (See, National Labor Relations Board, Federal Election Commission, CPFB, etc.)

Yes, it's questionable, but it's nto unheard of or unprecedented.
Click to expand...

They've postponed the implementation of a LAW because it is politically inconvenient.

I've not heard of that before.
 
evince said:
lots of corporate whining likely caused this
Click to expand...

Passing an idiotic and unpopular law that has little to no chance of success caused this.

How MANY times have I said that this law is a disaster that is going to bring democrats down AGAIN in the midterms .. a disaster THEY know is coming.

After the midterms, republicans will control both the House and the Senate.
 
blackascoal said:
Passing an idiotic and unpopular law that has little to no chance of success caused this.

How MANY times have I said that this law is a disaster that is going to bring democrats down AGAIN in the midterms .. a disaster THEY know is coming.

After the midterms, republicans will control both the House and the Senate.
Click to expand...


The employer mandate isn't really a major part of the ACA and is bad policy produced by the Gang of Six in the Senate (whom, as I note as an aside, you think would have agreed to Medicare for all).
 
Dungheap said:
It's most typically done by not getting around to promulgating regulations necessary to effectuate the law.
Click to expand...

Wow. You use bigger words when talking to BAC than you do when going round and round with Superfreak. I guess that's a good call - SF would have to spend too much time on dictionary.com.

Do you think there is going to be a voter backlash against this in the midterms?
 
blackascoal said:
Passing an idiotic and unpopular law that has little to no chance of success caused this.

How MANY times have I said that this law is a disaster that is going to bring democrats down AGAIN in the midterms .. a disaster THEY know is coming.

After the midterms, republicans will control both the House and the Senate.
Click to expand...

I shudder to think what they'll do to women if that happens.
 
Darla said:
Wow. You use bigger words when talking to BAC than you do when going round and round with Superfreak. I guess that's a good call - SF would have to spend too much time on dictionary.com.

Do you think there is going to be a voter backlash against this in the midterms?
Click to expand...

Hey, Darla, you are very funny, I just thought I would mention it.
 
Darla said:
Wow. You use bigger words when talking to BAC than you do when going round and round with Superfreak. I guess that's a good call - SF would have to spend too much time on dictionary.com.

Do you think there is going to be a voter backlash against this in the midterms?
Click to expand...


I don't know. I think that the ACA backlash has already occured. If history is any indication, the president's party will lose seats in Congress in the midterms. If that pattern holds true, the ACA will be blamed regardless of whether it was actually the cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top