Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
jfanent Offline OP
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Imagine that, Obamacare is as bad as we knew it would be. Lol, let's postpone the really bad parts.

WSJ


These columns fought the Affordable Care Act from start to passage, and we'd now like to apologize to our readers. It turns out we weren't nearly critical enough. The law's implementation is turning into a fiasco for the ages, and this week's version is the lawless White House decision to delay the law's insurance mandate for businesses, though not for individuals.

The employer mandate is central to ObamaCare's claim of providing universal coverage. Companies with 50 or more "employee equivalents" must pay a $2,000 penalty per full-time employee if they don't provide government-approved health insurance. The provision was supposed to start in January, and delaying it is like Ford saying its electric car is ready to go, except the electric battery doesn't work.


WSJ editorial board member Joe Rago on why the White House delayed the ObamaCare employer mandate for a year. Photo credit: Getty Images.
.
But all of a sudden on Tuesday evening Mark Mazur—you know him as the deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy—published a blog post canceling the insurance reporting rules and tax enforcement until 2015 as Washington began to evacuate for the long Independence Day weekend. Enjoy the holiday, mate.

White House fixer Valerie Jarrett tried to contain the fallout with a separate blog post promising that ObamaCare is otherwise "staying the course." That's true only if she's referring to the carelessness and improvisation that have defined the law so far.

Mr. Mazur cited the "complexity of the requirements" as the reason for the delay. He isn't talking about business confusion and uncertainty, as damaging as those are. This is probably an admission that Treasury's information technology isn't ready to process and cross-check paperwork across the 5.7 million businesses in America, especially the pass-through S-corps and partnerships that file under the individual tax code.

This is more than a typical government snafu. It relates directly to the design of the law, which was thoughtlessly written and rammed through Congress with instructions for the bureaucracy to figure it all out.

And, lo, over eight interim final rules, three final rules, 20 requests for comment, 21 proposed rules, one information collection request, two amendments to the interim final rules, six requests for information and one frequently-asked-questions document, the Administration has created an employer-mandate system that, for example, requires business to track and report every full-time employee's hours of service on a monthly basis.

.
Meanwhile, the law stipulates that a full-time workweek for the purposes of the mandate is 30 hours, when general business practice is at least 35. The result is that businesses have been scrambling to insulate themselves from higher labor costs by hiring part-time workers, or splitting shifts, or in some industries like fast food even sharing workers. Small firms trying to expand while avoiding the 50-worker trigger have come to be known as 49ers.

The delay will help these and other employers avoid immediately higher costs, which is why the main business lobbies endorsed it. But the decision will continue to dampen overall job creation because businesses know they'll still be whacked in a year. Businesses don't hire workers with the intention of sacking them later.

The Administration's media cheerleaders are nonetheless portraying this as a stroke of political genius to push all the pain past the 2014 elections. But if that's the goal, it is too clever by half. If Republicans have any sense, they will move immediately to delay the rest of the bill for at least a year too. They should start with the individual mandate to buy insurance or pay a tax.

Individuals are only supposed to be eligible for ObamaCare's subsidies if their employer doesn't offer the right benefits. But how will the Treasury know who qualifies in 2014 if they lack the information that businesses are supposed to provide? Citizens must also pay the individual mandate-tax if they decline coverage from their employer. How will the Treasury verify these offers?

The WSJ Editorial Page on Facebook
Please visit our new page for daily updates
.
Which brings us to the dubious legality of this delay. The Affordable Care Act's Section 1513 states in black-letter law that "(d) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013." It does not say the Administration can impose the mandate whenever it feels it is politically convenient.

This selective enforcement of laws has become an Administration habit. From immigration (the Dream Act by fiat) to easing welfare reform's work requirements to selective waivers for No Child Left Behind, the Obama Administration routinely suspends enforcement of or unilaterally rewrites via regulation the laws it dislikes. Now it is doing it again on health care, without any consultation from, much less the approval of, Congress. President Obama probably figures business and Republicans won't object because they don't like the law anyway.

***
But Republicans should give Mr. Obama the legal authority to suspend the mandate—in return for other concessions. In addition to forcing votes on suspending the individual mandate-tax, this could include repealing the medical device tax and other harmful provisions. Democrats will find it hard to defend an individual mandate-tax now that businesses are spared. And a delay of one year can easily become two, then three, and then past the next Presidential election.

ObamaCare has become a rolling "train wreck," in Senator Max Baucus's memorable phrase, and it gets worse the more of it the public sees. The employer mandate is terrible policy, as the law's critics said before it passed. Now the Administration is all but admitting it can't implement it properly, and the task for opponents is to press the concession and begin to delay the rest of the law and dismantle it piece by piece.


And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir

#GMSTRONG
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
F
Legend
Offline
Legend
F
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Quote:

The employer mandate is central to ObamaCare's claim of providing universal coverage. Companies with 50 or more "employee equivalents" must pay a $2,000 penalty per full-time employee if they don't provide government-approved health insurance. The provision was supposed to start in January, and delaying it is like Ford saying its electric car is ready to go, except the electric battery doesn't work.





What is "government approved" and is there anything to keep an employer from providing insurance but only contributing $100 ?? Thereby saving themselves $1900??


We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
A
Legend
Offline
Legend
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Quote:

Quote:

The employer mandate is central to ObamaCare's claim of providing universal coverage. Companies with 50 or more "employee equivalents" must pay a $2,000 penalty per full-time employee if they don't provide government-approved health insurance. The provision was supposed to start in January, and delaying it is like Ford saying its electric car is ready to go, except the electric battery doesn't work.





What is "government approved" and is there anything to keep an employer from providing insurance but only contributing $100 ?? Thereby saving themselves $1900??




Who knows? The people that voted for it still haven't read it.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
D
Legend
Offline
Legend
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Excerpt:
The unemployment rate, which is based on a different survey from the one that tracks job creation, remained stuck at 7.6 percent, far higher than the historical pattern for this stage of a recovery. Other measures of joblessness actually rose, with the broadest one that includes workers forced to accept part-time positions jumping to 14.3 percent, from 13.8 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/busine...t-7-6.html?_r=0

I wonder why business is hiring more part-time workers and less full-time workers?

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
D
Legend
Offline
Legend
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
One question ... if President Obama can "suspend" an enacted law, couldn't any president, at any time?

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
He'll end up not suspending the law but suspending the enforcement of it.


#GMSTRONG
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
C
~
Legend
Offline
~
Legend
C
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
Quote:

One question ... if President Obama can "suspend" an enacted law, couldn't any president, at any time?




Yes, some presidents have even refused to enact a Supreme Court decision.

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301
2nd String
Offline
2nd String
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

The employer mandate is central to ObamaCare's claim of providing universal coverage. Companies with 50 or more "employee equivalents" must pay a $2,000 penalty per full-time employee if they don't provide government-approved health insurance. The provision was supposed to start in January, and delaying it is like Ford saying its electric car is ready to go, except the electric battery doesn't work.





What is "government approved" and is there anything to keep an employer from providing insurance but only contributing $100 ?? Thereby saving themselves $1900??




Who knows? The people that voted for it still haven't read it.




I do. If the employer doesn't offer coverage at all, the penalty will be $2000 per employee working 30 hours or more per week (first 30 employees are exempt from penalties to the employer). If the employer fails to offer coverage that meets 60% actuarial value, provide minimum essential (mandated) benefits, at an "affordable" cost to the employee, they will then be subject to a $3000 penalty per employee who is affected that works 30 hours or more per week. The IRS has defined a 'safe harbror' definition of affordable being that the cost to the employee can't exceed 9.5% of box 1 W2 income. This only includes the employee portion. The employer can make the employee pay the entire cost of for dependents without regard to 'affordability".

Hope that helps.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
A
Legend
Offline
Legend
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
It does help. Thanks.

In the near future, you'll see companies cutting hours for those that WERE covered. That's a win win situation, right? Companies cut costs, and employees get cut hours PLUS the added benefit of going to the "health exchanges"...........sure as hell sounds like a win win, right? Oh, wait. Those employees that have the reduced hours won't be able to afford health insurance.

Guess what happens?: Our lovely gov't. will offer them tax credits and rebates in order for them to follow the mandate that everyone have health insurance, which means those that have will pay for those that don't have. In one way, that's great.

Are you young and healthy, and have employer provided health insurance? If so, get ready to see your premiums go up in order to cover those that aren't young, or healthy, or don't get insurance through work.

But hey, I'm sure you've thought about all that.

DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... WSJ - Interesting read on Obamacare

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5