White House postpones Employer Mandate in Obamacare until 2015
In a shock seemingly out of the blue, the Obama Administration will delay the implementation of the employer mandate under the President's health care overhaul.
That's the requirement that all companies employing fifty or more people offer health coverage -- or incur steep fines.
One can speculate about the chief motive: Did the Administration just buckle to pressure from the business community, or fear that the implementation of the mandate might drive up unemployment just as the economy was recovering, giving Republicans something to throw at Democrats during the 2014 mid-term elections?
An interesting legal question emerges: The Affordable Care Act clearly states December 31st, 2013 as the effective date of the employer mandate. So does President Obama have the legal authority to postpone implementation of the mandate? Might some progressive activist take the Administration to court to ENFORCE the timetable?
Did the Administration just hand Republicans a weapon with which to pummel the rest of Obamacare?
From what was said on CBS News Online [read this last night on my IPod - aren't I just so hi-tech- heh heh] there were two reasons for the delay:
[from the CBS News story] "Most U.S. businesses with more than 50 employees already offer insurance, but the smaller, often startup, companies that do not complained loudly about the 21-page application required.
In an announcement from the Treasury Department on Tuesday, the administration said its decision was "designed to meet two goals," including reducing the amount of paperwork and working with small-company employers who were threatening layoffs or reduced hours in order to report a workforce of fewer than 50 people.
Workers will still be allowed to buy their own health insurance on a state exchange; the only thing that changes is that their employers won't be penalized next year if they do."
I could easily see the GOP/TEA folks using this delay as their last ditch chance to stop Obamacare. I'm providing Rick Jensen & Rush Limbaugh, etc, some free show prep they can use on their show:
Here we go folks, our chance to finally put a stake through the heart of Obamacare. It's imploding !!! The small businesses across the nation are complaining, because, the excessive paperwork that's so typical of a big bloated liberal goverment, the loss of American jobs as employers cut back hours and staff to be below the 50 employee threshold so they can avoid the fines for not marching in lock step with Obama and his liberal henchmen. They want to force patriotic Americans to transform the greatest nation on the planet to become an empty shell of its former glory as it sinks into the pits of Liberalism. Yep, big government forcing the small employers lay off workers, cut hours, hurting tax paying Americans, because of the Democrats total obsession with destroying America and Obamacare is their signature program to do this. We're up against a hard break, we'll be back after this......
Sad part of this is, I agree with what I just wrote. I believe we do need some sort of national healthcare plan so all Americans can have decent healthcare. Obamacare, probably isn't the best approach to this. I still believe the single payer system [Canadian type system] might be a better approach, than what we had before Obamacare or what we're getting soon with Obamacare. How to make a single payer system work in the US is another problem [however Canada has a successful program so why not pick their brains for how their plan works, what the pros and cons are, the problems they've run into since starting it, etc., etc so we can make an improved Single Payer System]. However, far smarter minds than my simple one will be needed to solve this and find a way to make a national healthcare plan for all Americans work while not causing employers to lay off people.
Mike from Delaware
Wed, Jul 3, 2013 9:10am
Sorry off topic, but a local story of interest:
This I found at Newsworks.org. The headline reads:
Forget Jeff Gordon, DuPont now sponsoring Delle Donne
Specifically, note the question from Emily Lieberman of Doylestown, Pa.
Wed, Jul 3, 2013 6:40pm
Told ya this whole healthcare scheme was a fraud!
Mike from Delaware
Thu, Jul 4, 2013 9:26am
Billsmith: I've finally had some time to go to the link you provided from NPR. Great article, answered a lot of questions and apparently will be an ongoing series answering more questions. I'm not sure what you mean by saying Not quite.
Workers will be able to shop the exchanges and the article made no mention of the employers not being penalized. Maybe what you're referring to is, that if your employer provides healthcare insurance [as mine does] then you are not allowed to shop the exchange [you must use your employers coverage]. The exception is if the coverage costs more than 8% of your income then you can get a waver and then could shop the exchange. It was implied that possibly in future years the exchanges would be opened to employees who's companies provide healthcare insurance, but not yet.
That 8% cost also could be used to NOT have to buy healthcare insurance. So even if you now do not have health insurance and you can't find a plan that costs less than 8% of your income then you can get a waver and not be charged the penalty tax.
The cost for the mid level "Silver coverage" for an individual aged 40 non-smoker was between $200-400 per month [based on the 6 states that have already submitted charge costs for their exchanges - California, RI, Oregon are three I remember -Oregon's was the cheapest of the 6 listed].
Also folks with per-existing conditions can not be turned down and their premiums won't be higher than anyone else's. This is good for the sick folks, but stinks for the well, but when their turn in the barrel comes around [and they're sick as they've age] then they'll be the one getting the break in the premiums. It works both ways.
Thanks for sharing the link.
Thu, Jul 4, 2013 10:46pm
Don't be fooled again. This is a political move by the Obama administration to put it off until after the 2014 elections. They know if they implement it now, the Republicans will win overwhelmingly because they'll be able to run on the consequences, which most likely will be dire. In effect, Obama has taken the issue away from the Republicans.
Remember, we didn't find out about Watergate until after the '72 election and Monica Lewinsky until after the '96 election.
Mike from Delaware
Thu, Jul 4, 2013 11:57pm
Mrpizza: You probably are correct. This is political, but also, hopefully, after getting so many complaints from actual companies and citizens, just maybe they are listening and are trying to fix the problems these small companies and citizens are mentioning.
I seriously doubt that Obama or the DEMS in Congress want a bunch of folks laid off from their jobs so companies can avoid having to provide healthcare coverage. That's less tax revenue coming in to the coffers and we know DEMS like taxes, so they'd be cutting off their nose in spite of their face, so to speak. No Prez wants folks to be laid off, not even Obama.
So YES, I also believe it is political [2014 Congressional Election], but they also may be trying to fix the problems to make their healthcare plan work better. So I believe both are correct answers.
Fri, Jul 5, 2013 6:43am
MFD: You're much too charitable to Obama and his henchmen. Truly, you're a better man than I am!
Mike from Delaware
Fri, Jul 5, 2013 10:03am
Mrpizza: it only makes sense. DEMS love tax dollars. The Fed Government has been shrinking since 2007 plus all the unemployment of the rest of the nation. That's means less tax dollars coming in for the DEMS to use as they wish. Why would they want more people out of work? That only would hurt what they want to do.
Just because someone's a Socialist in view doesn't make them evil anymore than someone who's a Capitalist doesn't make them a Robber Barron. Granted there are evil Socialists AND Capitalists. Bush Jr. wasn't evil [maybe a bit dumb, but not evil - he is definitely not equal to his Dad or brother in intellect from what I've observed of all three men - my guess if Jeb had been Prez and not Jr. we'd not have ended up in the mess we did].
Obama also isn't evil either, he just prefers a socialistic solution. He has an agenda to be sure, which in part I can agree with and in part I don't. SOME things probably would work better if done in a socialistic manner [mass transit comes to mind]. If no government money went into our mass transit systems including DART /SEPTA in Delaware, our highways would be even more jammed up than they are now. We ALL benefit by some gov money assisting mass transit to be affordable for folks to use. The next time you're stuck in traffic think how much worse it would be if all those folks on DART buses and SEPTA trains were on those same roads with you. Think how much better your drive would be if even more of those folks in cars were riding in a DART bus, then you'll understand better why I support government subsidy of mass transit. Delaware Coach went out of business around 1968, and if gov had not underwrote it and created what then was called GWTA [Greater Wilmington Transist Authority] we'd have no mass transit in Delaware. Today that mass transit system covers all three counties so the name is DART [Delaware Authority for Regional Transit]. Also with less cars less pollution. The roads would be even worse [ more jammed up] than they are now, plus our breathing air would be even worse than it is now. THAT was a GOOD use of a socialistic approach to help improve our life here in Delaware, in my opinion.
I believe that in order to have healthcare for all, we do need a socialistic solution. Obamacare probably isn't the best way to accomplish that, but it is a GOP plan so why don't Republicans like it? My guess is because the DEM Obama is the guy who will get credit for it. If this had been Bush Jr. the GOP would probably have backed this far easier. The Single Payer plan, I believe, would be less expensive and better serve all Americans, but because its been tar and feathered by the right with the "socialist" label will never get passed in Congress, so we end up settling for the mediocre GOP plan that will probably be far more expensive and more hassle. It is what it is.
Other than a few things like that including public schools so all kids get that opportunity to get an education, EVERYTHING else should be ran in a Capitalistic format. So socialistic stuff should be the EXCEPTION rather than the rule, in my opinion. In other words, get the best from BOTH systems rather than all or nothing of either.
Fri, Jul 5, 2013 7:34pm
Well then, let's have socialized groceries!
Fri, Jul 5, 2013 8:11pm
MikeFromDelaware: Oh, sure. Dubya is a real nice guy. Patriot Act. Domestic spying. Enhanced interrogation (i.e., torture). Violation of international law, including the Geneva Convention. Water boarding. Imprisonment without trial or right to counsel. A reach peach!
No surprise that his mommie looks just like Granny Goodness of Darkseid.
Sat, Jul 6, 2013 5:32pm
Ya know, I've been thinking. If they implement this in 2015, that still gives 22 months for the consequences to result, so perhaps the politically motivated delay will backfire on Obama and result in the Republicans taking everything in 2016. Hey, not a bad idea!
Sat, Jul 6, 2013 6:41pm
"Ya know, I've been thinking."
That would be nice for a change but the rest of your post makes it clear. No, you have not been thinking.
Sat, Jul 6, 2013 7:25pm
You're so funny, Bill!
Mike from Delaware
Sat, Jul 6, 2013 8:09pm
Mrpizza: As I said, not everything should be socialized. Some things work better in the free market. But if you can show me how socializing our groceries would be better then I'd be for it. Bottom line is, let's use the best of both systems. Where it makes sense then socialized, where it doesn't use free market.
Sun, Jul 7, 2013 5:44am
I believe the ultimate goal of Obamacare is population control. We've become comfortable with abortion for the past 40 years, so the next logical step would be legalized extermination of the elderly once they're determined to be "of no further value to society".
Sun, Jul 7, 2013 6:56am
Pizza/Kavips: It's obvious that you just like to troll message boards making outrageous - even crazy - statements under two extreme personalities, or you really are crazy. Do you think up this stuff by yourself or do you get it from wacko sites?
But I'll play. Medicare should not cover medicare "heroic measures" to pay to resuscitate people or to keep them on life support who have no real chance of recovery. DNR should be the default option. If people want to be brought back or kept alive, they should be required to have preexisting directives to that effect (family members unwilling to let go do not count). Keeping people "alive" (and prolonging their suffering) in a vegetative or near vegetative state is cruel and greatly increases the cost of medical care.
Further, people should be able to choose to end their own lives anytime and for any reason. Suicide is nobody else's business. This is just another example of the Jesus cult imposing its sick morality on others. Strange that a religion that claims to believe in eternal life is so afraid of death.
Sun, Jul 7, 2013 2:59pm
billsmith: I agree with most of your post here. What I'm trying to get across to people is that the ultimate goal of Obamacare is for the STATE to determine who lives and dies.
Do you really want that?
Sun, Jul 7, 2013 4:44pm
Here is the proper answer, Mr. Pizza.
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.