Posted on 06/24/2014 1:53:52 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
So you thought Obamacare was implemented, the controversy over? Wrong. Buckle up, here comes the "employer mandate."
For people like me who want the Affordable Care Act to work but who worry about the Obama administration's management record, this story in The Washington Post is foreboding: "Businesses Gear Up for Employer Mandate."
Author Sandhya Somashekhar opens with a vignette about Kevin Settles, a forward-looking restaurateur who offered health insurance to dozens of employees in September to comply with the ACA in advance of the mandate. The employer mandate requires companies with 50 or more full-time workers to offer health insurance or pay a fine.
But unlike Settles's other experiments, this one hasn't been great for his business. He put raises and expansion plans on hold as he figured out the cost and logistics of making the changes. To his surprise, his employees have not leaped at the chance to get health insurance. And he is still trying to figure some things out—for example, how to safeguard employee information that must now be reported to the Internal Revenue Service, such as the Social Security numbers of children who are covered under their parents' health plans.
This is a quintessential anecdotal "lede"; it puts a human face on what Somashekhar and other independent health care journalists consider a looming trend—second-guessing about the employer mandate.
A number of businesses, including Regal Entertainment and SeaWorld, have reduced hours for part-time workers to fewer than 30 a week—the law's definition of full time—to avoid having to offer them health insurance. Other companies say they are holding back on hiring to avoid the insurance requirement. Seasonal employees and low-wage workers, such as adjunct professors and cafeteria staffers, have been hit especially hard …
Many of the employers that have cut part-time hours or taken other actions to limit their costs under the law, such as fast-food restaurants and school districts, have large numbers of seasonal or hourly-wage workers. Traditionally, most of these workers have not received health benefits. And they are often difficult to categorize as part time or full time, because their hours vary.
The White House and its apologists in the left-wing media have propagated two myths. First, that the law is a success—full stop—merely because millions of people signed up for health insurance rather than pay a penalty tax. Second, only anti-Obama's partisans harbor concerns as the ACA moves toward full implementation.
Some supporters of the Affordable Care Act say that the employer mandate, which applies to businesses with at least 50 full-time workers, has fueled the law's unpopularity and that getting rid of it wouldn't hurt the central goal of reducing the number of uninsured people.
"We've never thought [the employer mandate] was particularly good policy, and while people have probably screamed too loudly about the effects on employment, there is some of it that's certainly true, and it's not worth the price we seem to be paying," said John Holahan, a fellow at the Urban Institute and a coauthor of the recent paper "Why Not Just Eliminate the Employer Mandate?" …
Last week, Unite Here, a union representing cafeteria workers, rallied at the Capitol to criticize what it called a loophole in the law. It says the loophole allowed Sodexo, a French food-service company, to drop health benefits for more than 3,000 workers across the United States.
What can Obama and his team do about all this? They've already delayed the mandate twice. A third time would further diminish the credibility of the law and of the administration.
Canceling the mandate is not a likely course. First, it would require action by a gridlocked Congress, which is divided on the 2010 law. Second, it would create a $150 billion hole in the budget that pays for subsidies to low- and middle-income individuals buying health insurance. That money comes from fines paid by companies that don't comply with the law, a redistribution of wealth that the White House doesn't like to acknowledge.
That brings me to the first thing Obama and his team need to do: Be honest. Discuss directly and truthfully the trade-offs required to expand health insurance. Empathize with its critics, rather than demonize them. Stop spinning and start leading.
Second, the complicated law is going to need superb management from the White House, the Health and Human Services Department, and other agencies. "Superb" is not a word oft associated with Obama or his team. The IRS, for example, still has not produced the information and forms required for business to build ACA reporting systems.
One good sign is the nomination and confirmation of Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the former deputy White House chief of staff (under President Clinton) and budget director (under Obama) who is, by all accounts, a talented leader and manager. As secretary of Health and Human Services, she succeeded Kathleen Sebelius, who oversaw the comically poor ACA launch.
Mathews breezed to confirmation after assuring Republicans that transparency and accuracy would be her hallmarks in dealing with businesses on the employer mandate. "What we're trying to do is commonsense implementation within the law," Burwell said, before buckling up.
All of this was known years ago.
Will the White House wave it off for 24 months, or 36 months, a date to be announced later?
The US GDP is right about zero this year. The employer mandate would turn it negative in a hurry.
I think that employers will need more employees to do the job under Obamacare since they have to cut hours to accommodate it.
Is this where Amnesty comes in to expand the labor pool????
I should add republicans, too, since they now own the ACA as well.
Kinda late for that, I think.
They had might as well implement it and get it over with. It is not like anyone is talking repeal anymore.
I had dinner with a couple of friends last week. He is a self employed photographer, she is a dental hygenicist. She used to pay $150/month for medical insurance, and her husband paid a few hundred a month more. They have both been notified that their insurance will be cancelled because of obamacare.
Guess how much it will cost to replace the same thing under obamacare for them?
$13,000 per month! I am not making that up.
This thing is going to crush the middle class and make them dependent. The health care system is going to go into convulsions. It is an epic disaster.
After the election, those covered by their employers (the bulk of the population) are supposed to be thrown into this catastrophe en masse.
The original plan was to blame the chaos and suffering on capitalism and greedy insurance companies, and drive through nationalized health care to “solve the problem”. We will see if it flies, or if they have overreached and suffer a massive backlash. Either way, the health care system is scheduled to crash first, in 2015.
LOL, lol, lol, hhhhhhhaaawwwhaaa.
Ocare is bad, but I’ve not read a number that high anywhere. Because Ocare requires everyone to have a fairly high end policy, that is where the $13k a year comes from that I read about the most. Frankly, this might have worked if they pushed major medical policies but I don’t see how this mess is going to work. That is what happens when the two culprits that caused the problem, gov and insurance companies, take it upon themselves to solve it.
Not $1,300 but THIRTEEN THOUSAND a month? And then there are deductibles, co-payments and on and on...
I was pretty shocked when I heard $13,000 per MONTH! I assumed that people were going to see rates doubled and tripled.
I believe these folks to be sincere, because they are not political, and it just came up in a general conversation while we were catching up. $13,000 per month was for the gold option, which would cover the specialists that the husband is currently seeing. He is about 50 and has had multiple health problems.
I think we will see the young get milked for more money, while the old get shafted with less services. Generic antibiotics and pain pills, the bum’s rush and assisted suicide.
The IPAB will determine that it is just not cost effective to do a bunch of diagnostic screenings, because it only results in higher costs to treat the identified disorders.
Are you sure? This sounds like a possible annual cost - not monthly. Do any of them have pre-existing conditions which would cause them to be rated? I live in VA, am between 60-65 in relatively good (not perfect) health and I got a decent policy for about $400/month from Anthem Blue Cross.
“That brings me to the first thing Obama and his team need to do: Be honest.”
Bwahahaha. Delusional.
Obamacare sucks!! I am living proof of that.
I can't wait till all the union Democrats get to feel the agony I have had to suffer.
Oops! We made a mistake. Look at that, the only way to fix it is single payer...Mission accomplished.
For later......(((ping)))
Yes Randita, $13,000 per month is what they told me. That is for the gold plan, that would allow them to continue with the doctors they have. I asked for clarification to be sure, because it was so shocking. The lady’s opinion was that they were being denied, and that the huge number was just to cover the insurance company, so they could say they offered it.
I don’t know what they are going to do, because the conversation shifted, but the guy said that he had just had five teeth pulled and replaced before his policy expires, so he was just getting back on solid food. They did not say how much it would be for a silver or bronze plan, but they will no longer be able to see the specialists who were treating the husband.
A year or two back, the husband was laid up for a long time, unable to work, with some infection he contracted overseas which left him with respiratory, autoimmune and neurological issues.
It may turn out that we end up with an increase in the uninsured, as people are priced out and have to pay the fine on top of losing their coverage.
We live in VA as well (Northern). If your medical insurance is connected with your employer or previous employer (if retired), you may be among the bulk of the population that doesn’t get hit until the employer mandate kicks in next year.
But they won’t. Waivers.
B.S. Gold plan premiums through the state exchange for my wife and myself, age 59, would be about $2,400/month total.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.