Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Tony_FLADEM

(3,023 posts)
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:06 PM Jul 2013

HUGE: White House Delaying Key Obamacare Provision For A Year

Source: Business Insider

The White House will delay until 2015 the enforcement of a requirement for businesses to provide workers health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, the Treasury Department said today.

More detail is set to come later in the week.

The mandate would require most businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to provide health insurance meeting certain minimum criteria — or pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker.

The purpose of the employer mandate is to discourage employers from dropping coverage and leaving employees to buy subsidized insurance in the Obamacare exchanges at greater taxpayer expense.

In the absence of a mandate next year, Treasury says it will "strongly encourage employers to maintain or expand health coverage."




Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-employer-mandate-delayed-year-2013-7

159 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
HUGE: White House Delaying Key Obamacare Provision For A Year (Original Post) Tony_FLADEM Jul 2013 OP
Jeez Who Wrote The White House A Check rsmith6621 Jul 2013 #1
This smells like Harmony Blue Jul 2013 #57
Are you implying CORRUPTION was involved? Pterodactyl Jul 2013 #150
Shit. If the ACA doesn't get implemented, when are Ilsa Jul 2013 #2
I'm still waiting to see if there will be any savings--especially for those of us who already have yurbud Jul 2013 #103
We got a small rebate last year Ilsa Jul 2013 #111
IMO this Republican Health Insurance Bill is as corrupt as most politicians. Bandit Jul 2013 #3
How many republicans voted for this "Republican Health Insurance Bill"? pampango Jul 2013 #14
Who wrote the Bill? Bandit Jul 2013 #15
republicans also supported the EPA, a guaranteed annual income, cap-and-trade and high tariffs pampango Jul 2013 #36
Our political leadership ctsnowman Jul 2013 #118
Of course they didn't vote for it once it had President Obama's name on it. But totodeinhere Jul 2013 #35
It does not have Obama's name on, other than the derisive nickname, Obamacare, they gave it. pampango Jul 2013 #39
I meant it had Obama's name on it figuratively, not literally. totodeinhere Jul 2013 #45
And Democrats voted just as mindlessly (even the Progressive Caucus) - just for it rather pampango Jul 2013 #50
You are not understanding my point. I am explaining why the Republicans voted against totodeinhere Jul 2013 #51
Cynical politics AND the republican party has become much more conservative. pampango Jul 2013 #84
Most of that legislation you cited is from 40-50 years ago Art_from_Ark Jul 2013 #110
The Massachusetts legislature was 85% Democratic at the time. pampango Jul 2013 #112
The progressives voted for it because it was this or nothing Doctor_J Jul 2013 #138
It's like NSA spying -- people support it strictly on the basis of who's advocating it at the moment villager Jul 2013 #78
exactly n/t Psephos Jul 2013 #99
Whatever it is, it isn't Republican Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #26
It is a Republican Bill it was 1st proposed to counter Hillary Care , then Rmoney implimented it in bahrbearian Jul 2013 #29
"Obamacare" was a Republican idea. pa28 Jul 2013 #52
Well, I agree with your opinion Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #56
Well, forcing businesses to provide insurance to employees, Art_from_Ark Jul 2013 #109
"this republiccan health insurance"...this is the funniest thing I have read in months here. WE OWN Safetykitten Jul 2013 #61
This message was self-deleted by its author JenniferJuniper Jul 2013 #77
No it won't be undone Iliyah Jul 2013 #4
And you know that how? nm rhett o rick Jul 2013 #18
I wonder how a 1 year delay will positively impact unscrupulous sleazeballs who plan to dump. . . Journeyman Jul 2013 #5
I give up on this administration. GentryDixon Jul 2013 #6
Im with you. He is a joke BigD_95 Jul 2013 #149
Sheesh. My work hours were cut to no more than 29 per week - lynne Jul 2013 #7
No because the mandate will kick in in 2015, anyway. Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #22
The mandate will kick-in in 2015. At least that's what we're now told - lynne Jul 2013 #30
Yes, and the exchanges won't work properly either Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #40
And in late 2014, it'll "kick in" in 2017, perhaps? Scootaloo Jul 2013 #101
Why would they do this? bunnies Jul 2013 #8
I believe you answered your own question KansDem Jul 2013 #9
Im afraid of that too. bunnies Jul 2013 #16
I think so too. avaistheone1 Jul 2013 #49
The reason is to delay the bad effects until after the 2014 elections. Pterodactyl Jul 2013 #151
avoiding Wall Street crash medeak Jul 2013 #10
Almost like watering down Rolling Rock. n/t RufusTFirefly Jul 2013 #11
now that is funny dembotoz Jul 2013 #79
Thx. The joke is sort of an acquired taste. n/t RufusTFirefly Jul 2013 #81
But, but, but... I thought Obama could not do much with just a stroke of his pen? salib Jul 2013 #12
That Papa Johns weenie must be pleased Teamster Jeff Jul 2013 #13
The IRS is busy "encouraging" enlightenment Jul 2013 #152
First reaction decayincl Jul 2013 #17
Brilliant!! The President's three-dimensional chessplaying skills are getting even better!!! RufusTFirefly Jul 2013 #19
Obummer. Again. PSPS Jul 2013 #20
IMHO this is FUBAR Duckwraps Jul 2013 #21
If they can do this... subterranean Jul 2013 #23
Exactly Harmony Blue Jul 2013 #53
Well, ya see, it's like this. Obama is not emperor, but the next republican can do ANYTHING. Safetykitten Jul 2013 #93
Excellent point. A future administration can just stop enforcing all of it. (nt) nessa Jul 2013 #121
Only things like this can be implemented by executive decree Doctor_J Jul 2013 #137
This is going to make the 2014 elections even more interesting, indeed. eom Purveyor Jul 2013 #24
What provision of the law allows this? Is this even legal? David__77 Jul 2013 #25
It was just a strong suggestion! Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #46
But *I* can't opt out of the mandate Le Taz Hot Jul 2013 #27
Mission accomplished! n/t drdtroit Jul 2013 #94
Maybe you should incorporate Doctor_J Jul 2013 #147
I think I figured it out - it's health care workers (low-paid) Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #28
This mess is CRAZY!! LovingA2andMI Jul 2013 #31
WH doesn't want Dems to get creamed in 2014 elections nm MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #32
You nailed it. n/t cigsandcoffee Jul 2013 #38
Corporations don't vote - their employees do Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #43
Why would Dems get creamed in 2014, Seeking Serenity Jul 2013 #54
Yeah this increases voter apathy Harmony Blue Jul 2013 #55
If Obama care causes a bad surprise MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #62
True Harmony Blue Jul 2013 #66
Very good point! LovingA2andMI Jul 2013 #89
Then why quakerboy Jul 2013 #63
Maybe the law truly will be a disaster MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #65
Companies have already started to do this Harmony Blue Jul 2013 #70
They've been doing that anyway, for years. quakerboy Jul 2013 #108
Hi Manny! I posted this on July 1st Safetykitten Jul 2013 #68
I'd like to see that commercial as well! MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #69
But I thought the thundering success of the 2014 implementation was going to HELP Dems! Doctor_J Jul 2013 #141
I know, right. This was supposed to help every Dem out there!!! HeroInAHalfShell Jul 2013 #143
ROFL, "strongly encourage" is the new Obamacare. forestpath Jul 2013 #33
And the individual-mandate-or-get-IRS-penalized still stands? WorseBeforeBetter Jul 2013 #34
A decision made behind closed doors. Ash_F Jul 2013 #37
This hurts just thinking about this Harmony Blue Jul 2013 #41
Single Payer DallasNE Jul 2013 #42
That is what many of said that favored single payer Harmony Blue Jul 2013 #47
Fuck this shit! Single payer now!! m/t eridani Jul 2013 #44
+1 I concur Harmony Blue Jul 2013 #60
+ 1,000,000 suffragette Jul 2013 #100
"It shouldn't be delayed...it should be repealed" medeak Jul 2013 #48
Some of that article is just silly quakerboy Jul 2013 #67
It was interesting but am critical thinker medeak Jul 2013 #72
Im honestly not sure if you are trying to be ironically insulting, or funny, or what quakerboy Jul 2013 #107
another lie another broken promise bowens43 Jul 2013 #58
Well, well, well, like this clusterfuck for a clusterfuck was faster than I thought. Wait though... Safetykitten Jul 2013 #59
single payer in 2016! otherone Jul 2013 #64
+1000 abelenkpe Jul 2013 #71
Just remember! RGR375 Jul 2013 #80
I wish I could opt out of the hike in my self-insurance. AngryOldDem Jul 2013 #73
Yeah this delay is going to add fuel to the fire Harmony Blue Jul 2013 #74
How would the ACA cause your price to increase? quakerboy Jul 2013 #106
See posts 97 and 98. AngryOldDem Jul 2013 #113
I think that 2 different things are getting conflated, and they are imporant and distinct. quakerboy Jul 2013 #146
Here's an article I found that articulates my concern AngryOldDem Jul 2013 #148
Shocked, shocked, I tell ya! TransitJohn Jul 2013 #75
Correct. Safetykitten Jul 2013 #76
He sure roped the dopes, eh? (n/t) SMC22307 Jul 2013 #85
We knew Obama was an excellent boxer Puzzledtraveller Jul 2013 #117
Heh heh. SMC22307 Jul 2013 #159
Sequesterized ACA but not the NSA. L0oniX Jul 2013 #82
Pretty Darn Much LOoniX LovingA2andMI Jul 2013 #90
The vast majority of Obamacare is still on schedule ... Alhena Jul 2013 #83
Why are post like these ^^^^ LovingA2andMI Jul 2013 #92
I wonder though if they are doing this because they are trying to counter what employers are doing cstanleytech Jul 2013 #86
But this won't change - and it's already almost all done Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #114
Then they need to lower the hours even more say to 8 hours a week to qualify for the coverage. cstanleytech Jul 2013 #133
Well, why was this written in the bill in the first place? Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #142
I can't wait to hear the Obama admin explanation for THIS Jessy169 Jul 2013 #87
What the fucking hell?! markpkessinger Jul 2013 #88
I hope that legal action can be taken to force the administration to enforce the law. David__77 Jul 2013 #91
Maybe if businesses weren't so gung-ho on sticking their fat asses between people and healthcare gtar100 Jul 2013 #95
LOL- no fucking surprise there Marrah_G Jul 2013 #96
Exactly Cal Carpenter Jul 2013 #115
Am I correct in expecting that the mandate, for self-employed people,... GReedDiamond Jul 2013 #97
That's downright criminal... LovingA2andMI Jul 2013 #98
Your scenario is better than ours. Le Taz Hot Jul 2013 #119
That's terrible! So the question is, where is the "affordable"... GReedDiamond Jul 2013 #125
The entire thing, from start to finish, Le Taz Hot Jul 2013 #129
Wish I could disagree with you, but I cannot...nt GReedDiamond Jul 2013 #130
Monthly Premiums for Obamacare yeoman6987 Jul 2013 #124
So, screw workers and STILL give Repugs plenty of anti-Obamacare ammunition. MotherPetrie Jul 2013 #102
Oh good Politicalboi Jul 2013 #104
Health SamKnause Jul 2013 #105
My state is way behind implementation Puzzledtraveller Jul 2013 #116
Obama caved again. Conium Jul 2013 #120
Caved? Played his roll just as scripted. FiveGoodMen Jul 2013 #154
The cynical side of me christx30 Jul 2013 #122
Implementation of Obamacare yeoman6987 Jul 2013 #126
This does nothing but HURT THE POOR!!!!!! HeroInAHalfShell Jul 2013 #123
"This actually helps workers" - more 8th Dimensional Chess? leveymg Jul 2013 #127
of the 1%, for the 1%, by the 1%.... mike_c Jul 2013 #128
And the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE is still in place.... LovingA2andMI Jul 2013 #131
Weak Sauce. They_Live Jul 2013 #132
https://www.healthcare.gov Dystram Jul 2013 #134
I would be eligible for Medicaid Jamastiene Jul 2013 #157
Well, let's see that just leaves...... DeSwiss Jul 2013 #135
Wow Doctor_J Jul 2013 #136
He's sold out the progressives again Doctor_J Jul 2013 #139
Yeah this is worriesome... jimlup Jul 2013 #140
Not a republican program. Not a Democratic program. Jakes Progress Jul 2013 #144
They only admit to listening to business. GeorgeGist Jul 2013 #145
Three dimensional metaphysical chess Fearless Jul 2013 #153
Drop the age limit on Medicare to birth. davidwparker Jul 2013 #155
that is what i did (checked the W4 box) sweetapogee Jul 2013 #156
They only delayed the employer madate,...! DailyGrind51 Jul 2013 #158

rsmith6621

(6,942 posts)
1. Jeez Who Wrote The White House A Check
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:11 PM
Jul 2013


...to make this happen. I know that there have been employers from major corporations that have been laying off employees currently because of this mandate so what now will the corps hire them back.....likely not.

This is not a victory for employees.

Ilsa

(61,687 posts)
2. Shit. If the ACA doesn't get implemented, when are
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:12 PM
Jul 2013

the big savings supposed to materialize? I'm scared the whole thing is going to be undone and we'll be left with nothing to provide healthcare.

Help.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
103. I'm still waiting to see if there will be any savings--especially for those of us who already have
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:31 AM
Jul 2013

insurance.

The problem is not just the uninsured, but employers and employees who are being bled dry by skyrocketing premiums that mostly go to pad profits.

I don't understand why a lot of businesses and even government agencies don't get together and demand that the insurance industry be neutered or even replaced with a single payer or national health service system.

Ilsa

(61,687 posts)
111. We got a small rebate last year
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 06:12 AM
Jul 2013

with our employer's group plan.
But yes, there is still so much in flux. And healthcare employers are keeping employees nervous, saying they may have to close operations and they blame ACA, not the ridiculously overpriced system.

Bandit

(21,475 posts)
3. IMO this Republican Health Insurance Bill is as corrupt as most politicians.
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:15 PM
Jul 2013

Why should the government force business to provide health insurance for it's employees. It is not the responsibility of business to provide such care and for the government to fine business $100,000. or more if they refuse to do what should be the responsibility of Government. Afterall the main purpose of Government is to maintain the Health and Welfare of the Nation.. That is not the main purpose of Business. It does not surprise me in the slightest that so many Americans are opposed to this horible piece of legislation.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
14. How many republicans voted for this "Republican Health Insurance Bill"?
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:26 PM
Jul 2013

The number was pretty close to 0 was it not? There were certainly more more members of the Progressive Caucus voting for it than republicans.

Bandit

(21,475 posts)
15. Who wrote the Bill?
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:29 PM
Jul 2013

It was written by the very same man that wrote Romney's Health Care Bill and is almost word for word...It originated in the Heritage Foundation as a rebuttal to Hillary's Health Care proposals. It was opposed almost unanimously by Democrats in 1995.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
36. republicans also supported the EPA, a guaranteed annual income, cap-and-trade and high tariffs
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 07:44 PM
Jul 2013

at one time. If we jettison every policy that a republican has ever supported - even in the distant past - we will be throwing out a lot of good with the bad. We have more to worry about from the positions of modern day far-right, tea party-intimidated republicans than we do from those of the old republican party.

Our Progressive Caucus obviously thought the ACA was worthy of support, while modern tea party republicans hate it.

ctsnowman

(1,903 posts)
118. Our political leadership
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 08:41 AM
Jul 2013

have moved so far to the right that Democrats are what Republicans were in the 90's. Huffington was a Republican and she is held up as a flaming liberal.

totodeinhere

(13,056 posts)
35. Of course they didn't vote for it once it had President Obama's name on it. But
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 07:43 PM
Jul 2013

that doesn't change the fact that most of it was a Republican proposal in the first place designed to make an end run around single payer.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
39. It does not have Obama's name on, other than the derisive nickname, Obamacare, they gave it.
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 07:48 PM
Jul 2013

If the ACA had passed with a lot of republican votes and a few votes from conservative Democrats, your criticism would be valid. That is not what happened.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
50. And Democrats voted just as mindlessly (even the Progressive Caucus) - just for it rather
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 08:01 PM
Jul 2013

than against it?

totodeinhere

(13,056 posts)
51. You are not understanding my point. I am explaining why the Republicans voted against
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 08:05 PM
Jul 2013

it even though it was originally a Republican plan. The fact that they voted against it doesn't change the fact that it was their plan in the first place. They voted against it not on principle but because of cynical politics.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
84. Cynical politics AND the republican party has become much more conservative.
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 09:26 PM
Jul 2013

Many republican politicians from 20 years ago have said that they would never have won a primary in today's republican party.

republicans voted against the ACA for both partisan reasons (which is your contention and one I agree with) and on principle (they are more conservative now and do not support many republican ideas from 20 or more years ago).

republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act, the EPA, the Voting Rights Act and many others that today's republicans would not touch with a 10-foot pole. Their principles have changed (or just disappeared) in the past few decades.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
110. Most of that legislation you cited is from 40-50 years ago
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 06:00 AM
Jul 2013

The Republicans of 20 years ago were in the party of New Gingrich and the Contract on America. So they really haven't changed so much in 20 years-- they've only become more brazen.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
112. The Massachusetts legislature was 85% Democratic at the time.
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 06:28 AM
Jul 2013
U.S. Senator from Massachusetts Edward M. Kennedy, who had made universal heath coverage his life's work, gave Romney's plan a positive reception, which encouraged Democratic legislators to work with it.

The legislature amended Romney's plan, adding a Medicaid expansion for children and imposing an assessment on firms with 11 or more workers who do not offer health coverage. The assessment is intended to equalize the contributions to the free care pool from employers that offer and do not offer coverage. The General Court also rejected Romney's provision allowing high-deductible health plans.

Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including a $295-per-person fee on businesses with 11 employees or more that do not provide health insurance. Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental and eyeglass benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid. However, the state legislature overrode all of the vetoes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Health_care


The Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature made many improvements in romney's healthcare proposal which he vetoed. They overrode all of his vetoes. With an 85% majority they could pretty much pass or reject whatever they wanted. So this was more a Democratic law than a republican one.
 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
138. The progressives voted for it because it was this or nothing
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:42 PM
Jul 2013

the president refused to consider SP or a public option (which he campaigned on). The progressives were furious about this, but when it came time for a vote, it was HeritageCare or nothing, so they took this. Now the president has sold them out again by choosing to not enforce this better-than-nothing plan.

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
78. It's like NSA spying -- people support it strictly on the basis of who's advocating it at the moment
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 09:06 PM
Jul 2013

..and not on its inherent merits. Or lack of same.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
26. Whatever it is, it isn't Republican
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:54 PM
Jul 2013

GOP pretty much was thumbs down on it then and has kept running against it ever since.

This was supposed to be the great Democratic triumph.

bahrbearian

(13,466 posts)
29. It is a Republican Bill it was 1st proposed to counter Hillary Care , then Rmoney implimented it in
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 07:10 PM
Jul 2013

then Rmoney implemented it in Ma. then Obama implemented it.

pa28

(6,145 posts)
52. "Obamacare" was a Republican idea.
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 08:07 PM
Jul 2013

A public option would have a been cause for celebration. Single payer would be the great Democratic triumph.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
56. Well, I agree with your opinion
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 08:23 PM
Jul 2013

But politically, the Democratic party owns this one. No way around it. We ought to try hard to make it work.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
109. Well, forcing businesses to provide insurance to employees,
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 05:53 AM
Jul 2013

and fining people who don't want to get screwed over by some worthless private-sector health insurance plan, is probably not the best way to make it work.

 

Safetykitten

(5,162 posts)
61. "this republiccan health insurance"...this is the funniest thing I have read in months here. WE OWN
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 08:28 PM
Jul 2013

IT. Democrats OWN this.

Response to Bandit (Reply #3)

Journeyman

(15,022 posts)
5. I wonder how a 1 year delay will positively impact unscrupulous sleazeballs who plan to dump. . .
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:18 PM
Jul 2013

their employees on the vicissitudes of the "marketplace."

Single payer. Universal coverage for all.

Let's treat even the sleazeballs far better than they'd ever consent to provide for us.

GentryDixon

(2,946 posts)
6. I give up on this administration.
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:18 PM
Jul 2013

I have good insurance coverage, but I am so tired of Obama rolling over on his heels to placate the "corporatocracy" at every turn.

I just put my Obama magnets in my recycle bin. Enough is enough.

lynne

(3,118 posts)
7. Sheesh. My work hours were cut to no more than 29 per week -
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:19 PM
Jul 2013

- because of the requirement and now it goes away. Will I get my hours back? I seriously doubt it.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
22. No because the mandate will kick in in 2015, anyway.
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:50 PM
Jul 2013

Since the full-time determination is made from the actual hours worked in the previous period, a company would have to cut those hours in 2014.

I don't see what this accomplished, to be honest. Except that maybe it makes businessmen happy.

I'm so surprised - I just read this on Bloomberg and could hardly believe my eyes. Then I came here to see what DU knew.

I don't see how this will help any employees.

lynne

(3,118 posts)
30. The mandate will kick-in in 2015. At least that's what we're now told -
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 07:14 PM
Jul 2013

- but my hours were cut due to the mandate in 2013. They were capped to 29 hrs. when our 2013-2014 budget was implemented. Had they said up front that the mandate wouldn't be effective until 2015, I could have gone another year getting more than 29 hrs. work in a week.

Funny thing is that I don't even need the insurance and would decline it if I qualified as I have insurance thru my spouse. Sadly, there's no "opt out" for those of us in that situation.



Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
40. Yes, and the exchanges won't work properly either
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 07:48 PM
Jul 2013

You are only supposed to qualify for a subsidy on the exchange if your employer is not offering qualifying insurance that costs you no more than 9.5%. But if employers don't have to do this and don't have to report what they are doing, the exchange provisions are not going to work properly either.

I guess the person seeking insurance will have to do that by affidavit.

Also the IRS is supposed to collect the fine if the employer reports that you are not covered and the exchange doesn't show you covered. Obviously that's not going to work either. They are really delaying implementation for another year.

If they had announced this earlier, then all the people who had their hours cut wouldn't have had them cut, But now it's too late. The determination of whether the employee is full-time or not is made for the preceding period, so telling the employers that it goes into effect in 2015 won't allow employees to get their hours back.

This is just a total eff-up.

 

bunnies

(15,859 posts)
16. Im afraid of that too.
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:29 PM
Jul 2013

Im trying hard to believe theres another explanation. But I wont be holding my breath. dammit.

salib

(2,116 posts)
12. But, but, but... I thought Obama could not do much with just a stroke of his pen?
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:24 PM
Jul 2013

I would think these dates would have been part of the law. Are they subject to interpretation?

Then why doesn't this admin "interpret" other enforcement of laws which Progressives care about?

Feels like a shell game right now.

Teamster Jeff

(1,598 posts)
13. That Papa Johns weenie must be pleased
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:25 PM
Jul 2013

This will give businesses more time to figure out how to job the system. I see that the individual mandate is right on schedule; wouldn't want to upset the health insurance industry.

Thankfully the treasury will "strongly encourage employers to maintain or expand health coverage." What a fucking joke. What a clusterfuck.

enlightenment

(8,830 posts)
152. The IRS is busy "encouraging"
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 11:12 PM
Jul 2013

higher education institutions to re-figure how they determine adjunct faculty hours. Why? Because because they think it will force institutions to start providing health insurance.

So, what are the institutions doing? They are cutting back the classes they offer to adjuncts, to make sure they won't accumulate enough hours to be eligible for benefits.

decayincl

(27 posts)
17. First reaction
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:32 PM
Jul 2013

was, What Shit Is This? Second reaction was to follow thru with my idea to quit the party and go Indie. Third reaction was that this seems politically stupid. The roll out was always going to be messy. Now, the mess will be made just in time for the '14 elections. Final reaction is that I am very disappointed...and have been, many times, since he was re-elected. Sheeese!

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
19. Brilliant!! The President's three-dimensional chessplaying skills are getting even better!!!
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:40 PM
Jul 2013

A novice might think that we've been shafted once again. But that's the beauty of it! That's exactly what we're supposed to think!

A standing O for President O!

 

Duckwraps

(206 posts)
21. IMHO this is FUBAR
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:47 PM
Jul 2013

Without that money and those people in the system the exchanges will fall apart and the states will drop it like a hot potato.

subterranean

(3,427 posts)
23. If they can do this...
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:51 PM
Jul 2013

what's to stop a future Republican administration from cancelling enforcement of this or other aspects of the law with a simple declaration from the Treasury Department? I mean, the employer mandate is written in the law. I didn't know it could be changed or postponed by executive decision.

Harmony Blue

(3,978 posts)
53. Exactly
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 08:07 PM
Jul 2013

Obamacare is going to die if it isn't put in place before a Republican enters the WH as a President. The current administration is playing with fire by punting this another year. If they keep punting this they are flirting with danger.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
137. Only things like this can be implemented by executive decree
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:36 PM
Jul 2013
I didn't know it could be changed or postponed by executive decision.


You mean by corporate decree.

David__77

(23,310 posts)
25. What provision of the law allows this? Is this even legal?
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:53 PM
Jul 2013

If Romney were president, I'm sure he would also have done this then. Can it be done indefinitely? Was a law even passed???

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
147. Maybe you should incorporate
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 06:56 PM
Jul 2013

not only do you get out of the insurance mandate, but you can steal, pollute, and vote.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
28. I think I figured it out - it's health care workers (low-paid)
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:56 PM
Jul 2013

The reimbursements for nursing home/home health care are mostly fixed by Medicare and Medicaid, and they are very low.

The rates paid literally won't pay for health insurance. These groups got exemptions from the current requirements early on.

So next year, either the government will have to increase reimbursement rates or I think there would be a huge staffing problem.

Otherwise I can see no explanation.

LovingA2andMI

(7,006 posts)
31. This mess is CRAZY!!
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 07:32 PM
Jul 2013

Either you President Obama are going to STICK with the primacy of The Affordable Health Care Act or drop it altogether. Don't care not ONE FREAKING BIT the games that are being played with SICK PEOPLE here. Unable to afford treatment, they were counting down the days on 2013's calendar for an true opportunity at their employer for AFFORDABLE Healthcare insurance.

Now....the administration delays? Why? To try and rally the troops for Election 2014. "We can only fully implement ACA if you vote out the Republican controlled House, turn over Governor's seats in Republican strongholds to the Democrats and re-elect a Democratic Senate," they will cry. YOU CAN BET ON IT.

Really? On the BACK OF SICK or SOON-TO-BE SICK people? What about folks not sick yet, but just delaying their healthcare needs looking forward to the full force of ACA to kick in January 1, 2014. Shame on you....I guess those in the Obama Administration is saying behind closed doors -- for believing us.

THIS IS SHAMEFUL! THIS IS WHY AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE FOR ALL should have been the mainstay, period.

I'm disgusted by the President and his administration, at THIS moment!

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
43. Corporations don't vote - their employees do
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 07:51 PM
Jul 2013

This means that the employees get screwed. I also don't see how the exchanges work, because the determination of subsidies was supposed to use the employer reporting.

For that matter, I don't even see how the individual mandate can work, because the IRS was supposed to use employer reporting for most of it. Maybe they'll get it in gear for the end of next year.

I think the employees are getting screwed and it will hurt more at elections, to be honest. The employers can no charge whatever they want for the insurance. A lot of people won't be able to afford it.

Seeking Serenity

(2,840 posts)
54. Why would Dems get creamed in 2014,
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 08:15 PM
Jul 2013

and how does this help?

And under what authority does the administration do this? The law says 2014.

LovingA2andMI

(7,006 posts)
89. Very good point!
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 10:02 PM
Jul 2013

Thank you for making it Seeking Serenity. So President Obama's administration can comply with the law when they feel like it, sort of like Republicans Governors across the USA signing a "Woman's Right to Choose" ending bill outside of the limitations of Roe v. Wade, because they feel like it.

Be careful what you ask for as you just might get it.

Ask Kansas and Ohio Women believing in The Right to Choose.....

quakerboy

(13,914 posts)
63. Then why
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 08:31 PM
Jul 2013

Do this?

This is another year that will pass where the Republicans can scream and shout about how horrible the law is and how bad things are.

Before the law really even kicks in.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
65. Maybe the law truly will be a disaster
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 08:33 PM
Jul 2013

There may be unanticipated consequences, like companies replacing full-time workers with part-time ones in order to evade the law.

Harmony Blue

(3,978 posts)
70. Companies have already started to do this
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 08:46 PM
Jul 2013

as full time employment is dropping as are wages. I suspect the extra time will give them even more time to push the envelope.

quakerboy

(13,914 posts)
108. They've been doing that anyway, for years.
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 05:43 AM
Jul 2013

And they've apparently done it to prepare for the law coming in anyway, and they havnt been shy about blaming Obamacare.

So really, all this does is give them more time to lay blame the law for their actions, with the tax payer having to pick up any costs.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
141. But I thought the thundering success of the 2014 implementation was going to HELP Dems!
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:47 PM
Jul 2013

now he's running away from it at the 11th hour.

Maybe I should have supported Hillary in the 2008 primaries. This is beyond a disaster

Ash_F

(5,861 posts)
37. A decision made behind closed doors.
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 07:45 PM
Jul 2013

Out of sight of the American people. This is why we need transparency in government.

DallasNE

(7,402 posts)
42. Single Payer
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 07:50 PM
Jul 2013

All of this stuff about insurance exchanges and exceptions for religious institutions just adds complexity and costs that are not necessary. Single payer is far simpler and cheaper to administer so a higher percentage of premiums go towards health care and less towards administration and profits.

Harmony Blue

(3,978 posts)
47. That is what many of said that favored single payer
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 07:53 PM
Jul 2013

that the approach they chose to take is cumbersome and counterproductive for the long haul.

quakerboy

(13,914 posts)
67. Some of that article is just silly
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 08:38 PM
Jul 2013

" - By imposing a tax on employers for hiring people from low- and moderate-income families who would qualify for subsidies in the new health insurance exchanges, it would discourage firms from hiring such individuals and would favor the hiring — for the same jobs — of people who don’t qualify for subsidies (primarily people from families at higher income levels)."

Ridiculous. I would bet money, if i had any, that people from "higher income levels" arent suddenly going to start working for Walmart and McDonalds for minimum wage. The employers might prefer to do this, but there flat out dont exist enough people in families at higher income levels to fill all the positions this effects, and of the number who do exist, most are not going to have any interest in working at these type of positions at the wages offered.

quakerboy

(13,914 posts)
107. Im honestly not sure if you are trying to be ironically insulting, or funny, or what
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 05:22 AM
Jul 2013

I narrowed down and pointed out one point in the article that seems ludicrous. 1 of their 3 points. Another, dropping workers to 29 hours, seems to be valid. the third seems fairly irrelevant to me.

Their overall thrust seems to have some validity. To me. But they weaken it by using, frankly, a silly supporting argument.

 

Safetykitten

(5,162 posts)
59. Well, well, well, like this clusterfuck for a clusterfuck was faster than I thought. Wait though...
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 08:26 PM
Jul 2013

the REAL fun begins soon, and the nuttiness of this freak show plan will soon be having people flipping out all over.

 

RGR375

(107 posts)
80. Just remember!
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 09:07 PM
Jul 2013

When morality meats reality morality loses. The reality is somebody has to pay for this. I'm dropping my health insurance at the end of the year because of premiums doubling. We cant even pay for this the cost has already almost tripled and we are broke as a nation even if we do eat the rich.

AngryOldDem

(14,061 posts)
73. I wish I could opt out of the hike in my self-insurance.
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 08:50 PM
Jul 2013

Got a letter Saturday that informed me I'll be paying almost $100 more a month beginning in August. I'm looking into other options, but am not optimistic. This could not have come at a worse time for me.

I'm sure a part of this increase is directly because of the ACA.

Harmony Blue

(3,978 posts)
74. Yeah this delay is going to add fuel to the fire
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 08:53 PM
Jul 2013

that "government doesn't work" for the average person. Unfortunately when the decision makers choose to punt it like this I can understand that type of sentiment as strange as it is.

quakerboy

(13,914 posts)
106. How would the ACA cause your price to increase?
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 05:19 AM
Jul 2013

I agree that its strange to allow big companies to opt out, but not individuals. But the second part I cant seem to quite follow.

AngryOldDem

(14,061 posts)
113. See posts 97 and 98.
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 06:46 AM
Jul 2013

Of course, the boilerplate letter from the company didn't say that, just the usual bullshit of "demand for claims," "improvement in health care," yadda yadda yadda.

But Obamacare has to be paid for somehow --- I guess it has to be through me and everyone else who self-insures. That was pretty much made clear from the get-go but I wasn't expecting such a steep hike, given that I don't file maybe but one claim a year and keep in pretty good shape. (Note: I am NOT a small business and I work for myself. I happen to have a job that is temporary full time that pays no benefits. The pay is supposed to make up for that but it can't outrace the price of hikes such as this, not when everything else is factored in.)

I'm concerned because my current plan is pretty bare bones since I don't heavily use it, so I can't pare back coverage unless I want to opt for a Band-Aid and mercurochrome as my health care plan. I'm getting with a broker to look at options. As I said, none of us should be put in this situation in the first place. Not blaming Obama, not blaming ACA -- I do blame those who won't wake up to simpler, more common sense alternatives like single payer.

quakerboy

(13,914 posts)
146. I think that 2 different things are getting conflated, and they are imporant and distinct.
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 05:12 PM
Jul 2013

I will start by saying I am a single payer guy. I was sick about ACA, Brokenhearted that the president I put so much into supporting let us down so badly. I still am. I still hold that failure against his administration, and to a large extent it has colored my perception of Everything that he/they have done since.

That said, It doesn't make any sense to me that this delay in this part of ACA would effect your cost of coverage, or those who posted at 97 or 98. I am in a similar situation. Except I dont have health insurance at all, it would cost more than I can afford. But that price problem preexisted the ACA. It hasn't gotten any better, but it cost to much before ACA provisions came into effect, and it still does.

As far as I can tell, all this change does is fail to penalize businesses who dont provide health insurance to lower paid workers who cant afford insurance on their own without government subsidy assistance. Those workers would still be eligible for government subsidies, the company just won't have have to pay a penalty for not providing it. That wouldn't have any way to legitimately effect your premium cost. It might increase your taxes(or more likely our national debt), but it wouldn't effect your premium prices.

AngryOldDem

(14,061 posts)
148. Here's an article I found that articulates my concern
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 07:05 PM
Jul 2013
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/05/24/self-employed-obamacare

To wit:

<<<Insurers say the rate increases are due to the new “essential benefits” most health insurance policies will have to include as part of the ACA, such as maternity and mental health coverage. While the rates can be hard to swallow, the new benefits will be important to many. Substance abuse treatment, for example, will be a required benefit; about one-third of current health plans don’t cover that now.>>

The coverage for this has to be paid somehow.

I have had annual hikes for self-insurance before, but never this much. Today I considered for a brief second to just cancel it altogether and take my chances, given that I am pretty healthy and live a healthy lifestyle. But I'm also active, which means my risk for injury or accident (I run) is high.

I'm in the process of filling out a reapplication and maybe -- MAYBE -- my life habits can give me some kind of a discount (or so says the application). I'm also considering maybe paying annually instead of monthly, so the hit will be just a once a year blow. (I work roughly eight to nine months out of the year.)

I'll work something out, because I really have no other choice.

TransitJohn

(6,932 posts)
75. Shocked, shocked, I tell ya!
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 08:58 PM
Jul 2013

Chess Move
Politics of the real
You never loved him
You didn't get your pony
Public option wasn't possible
Fucking retarded
Racist
etc.
etc.

LovingA2andMI

(7,006 posts)
90. Pretty Darn Much LOoniX
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 10:08 PM
Jul 2013

Spying on the American People is very important but sticking to a law President Obama signed to provide health insurance to up to 90% of the American people.....not....so....much....

Alhena

(3,026 posts)
83. The vast majority of Obamacare is still on schedule ...
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 09:20 PM
Jul 2013

we'll find out how good or bad a thing that is when it arrives.

The heart of the program is the system of exchanges, and those haven't been delayed. It seems pretty clear that the young and healthy will be hurt financially and the older and sick will be helped by these exchanges.

LovingA2andMI

(7,006 posts)
92. Why are post like these ^^^^
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 10:42 PM
Jul 2013

Seem to be "copied/pasted" from somewhere

Like we can't read or we the People were not lied to on the ACA Employer Mandate taking place exactly on January 1, 2014.

Lucky for me and many others....we can read between the lies....oops LINES.

cstanleytech

(26,202 posts)
86. I wonder though if they are doing this because they are trying to counter what employers are doing
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 09:43 PM
Jul 2013

to get around the law which is by firing more full time people and hiring more part timers but making it so the part timers are limited to under 25 hours a week and not allowed to go over.
Personally I think the law needs to include part timers as well so they to can get coverage and so that employers are discouraged from trying to screw over their employees.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
114. But this won't change - and it's already almost all done
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 06:59 AM
Jul 2013

Because the way the regs work, the determination of whether a person is full-time or not is based on the prior period.

So businesses mostly had to make this change already!

Delaying the mandate a year will change nothing, because in 2014 the hours an employee works will be used to figure out whether they qualify as full-time in 2015.

cstanleytech

(26,202 posts)
133. Then they need to lower the hours even more say to 8 hours a week to qualify for the coverage.
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:27 PM
Jul 2013

Then maybe employers will get it through their heads that their little scheme wont work because they will find it next to impossible to hire anyone for only 8 hours a week.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
142. Well, why was this written in the bill in the first place?
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 03:55 PM
Jul 2013

It was completely predictable that this would happen.

I think employers should have a part-time mandate - they should either pay for the insurance or have say half the fine, which would still help offset costs on the exchanges. Plus it would help prevent the deliberate cutting of hours. Yes, a lot of these businesses would have to raise prices, but as it is, we are literally pushing workers into poverty.

As it is now, the employment rate is improving, but it seems to be doing so in some substantial part because full-time jobs are being cut to part-time.




markpkessinger

(8,392 posts)
88. What the fucking hell?!
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 09:50 PM
Jul 2013

It was a HUGE mistake to have such a long phase-in to begin with. All this accomplishes is to give the GOP more time to chip away at. Why bother even passing the fucking thing?

David__77

(23,310 posts)
91. I hope that legal action can be taken to force the administration to enforce the law.
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 10:09 PM
Jul 2013

This is so nonsensical it is mind-boggling. It reeks of opportunism and DECEIT.

gtar100

(4,192 posts)
95. Maybe if businesses weren't so gung-ho on sticking their fat asses between people and healthcare
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 11:40 PM
Jul 2013

they wouldn't have this problem. It's a fucking stupid system we are under.

Cal Carpenter

(4,959 posts)
115. Exactly
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 08:01 AM
Jul 2013

This was a shit show from the get go. (ooh i'm a poet).

I'm sure some flowery rhetoric copied and pasted from a press release will make everyone better.

So the individual mandate stands, but the corporate one gets put on hold. Fucking awesome.

And the people who said "wait until it is implemented until you judge it" can ask us to wait even longer.

But there is no escaping the truth - the OUTCOMES of this policy are SHIT so far for *most* people, and any possible positive outcomes have been delayed further as far as the employer mandate goes.

So far this legislation sucks and will continue to.

Single payer is the only way.

GReedDiamond

(5,310 posts)
97. Am I correct in expecting that the mandate, for self-employed people,...
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 11:49 PM
Jul 2013

Last edited Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:38 AM - Edit history (1)

...independent contractors, meaning individuals such as myself, will still be required to start paying the privately owned, for profit "health" insurance corporations on January 1, 2014, while the companies with over 50 employees, will get a one year pass?

Because that's what I expect.

According to the Official California State web site which has all the info regarding the State Health Insurance Exchange, starting on Jan 1, I can expect to pay an average of $599/month, for a policy with a $5000 deductible.

Which means, I guess, for a shitload of health care scenarios, I'd have to pay entirely out of pocket for everything except near-catastrophic events, or worse. Plus the over 7 grand per year in monthly premiums.

Personally, I think this Repug-originated system borders on extortion (because of the Repug conceived mandate) for average middle class/middle age peeps like me.

Single payer, universal health CARE - NOT FOR PROFIT INSURANCE - is the only acceptable way to go, IMO.

Medicare Part E: For Everybody

Here's the calculator, try it yourself: http://www.coveredca.com/calculating_the_cost.html

LovingA2andMI

(7,006 posts)
98. That's downright criminal...
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:12 AM
Jul 2013

"According to the Official California State web site which has all the info regarding the State Health Insurance Exchange, starting on Jan 1, I can expect to pay an average of $599/month, for a policy with a $5000 deductible."

How is that suppose to be Affordable Healthcare for you? If this is the way ACA is going for small business/self employed, this so-called health plan is going down in flames.

I agree, SINGLE PAYER, PERIOD!

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
119. Your scenario is better than ours.
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 09:03 AM
Jul 2013

Over $1,000 a month in premiums, NO government subsidy AND a $12,000 a year deductible. OR I can pay a small penalty for not paying for insurance I can't afford and won't be able to use because of the deductible. I'm all a-twitter.

GReedDiamond

(5,310 posts)
125. That's terrible! So the question is, where is the "affordable"...
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 10:52 AM
Jul 2013

...in the Affordable Care Act?

Or should they just rename it the Unaffordable, not-so-much Care Act?

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
129. The entire thing, from start to finish,
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 11:02 AM
Jul 2013

was all about providing HUGE profits for insurance companies and big pharma. This has NOTHING to do with health care and everything to do with profits and huge campaign contributions. The Republicans are going to bludgeon the Democrats with this in 2014.

 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
124. Monthly Premiums for Obamacare
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 10:46 AM
Jul 2013

Good God...321 dollars a month once this is implemented for me. Are they insane????? How in the heck am I suppose to afford that? I pay around 100 dollars a month today. I thought this was going to help us??????

 

MotherPetrie

(3,145 posts)
102. So, screw workers and STILL give Repugs plenty of anti-Obamacare ammunition.
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:17 AM
Jul 2013

Way to go, Obama administration.

SamKnause

(13,082 posts)
105. Health
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 04:31 AM
Jul 2013

The bill was a big clusterfuck from the get go.

A windfall for the pharmaceutical companies.
A windfall for the insurance companies.

The MAJORITY of U.S. citizens wanted a single payer system.

DC and Wall Street are cesspools of corruption and greed.

Different day, same old bullshit.

If you are poor, you had better bend over and grab your ankles, it is going to be a rough ride in the very near future.

Puzzledtraveller

(5,937 posts)
116. My state is way behind implementation
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 08:06 AM
Jul 2013

the exchanges, the internal policies, noone knows anything about how it is going to work and it's what I do for a living. And we are supposed to be up and running by October, not a chance. I'm a medicaid case worker.

Conium

(119 posts)
120. Obama caved again.
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 09:27 AM
Jul 2013

President Obama caved to every RepUGLYcan demand, yet after it was done, not a one voted in favor of the Affordable Care Act.

There he goes again.

christx30

(6,241 posts)
122. The cynical side of me
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 09:44 AM
Jul 2013

thinks they know this is going to be a train wreck, and they are delaying enforcement until after the midterms. The rest of me reluctantly agrees.

 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
126. Implementation of Obamacare
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 10:52 AM
Jul 2013

Actually it will be implemented or should be, must be...whatever on 1 October 2014 because they use Fiscal Year and not Calendar Year. For example, if it was going to be implemented in 2014, everything would need to be ready by 1 October 2013 which could be why they need to wait since October is literally around the corner. What is REALLY bad? October is one month before the election....think about that for a minute. Not sure what Obama is thinking this moment.

LovingA2andMI

(7,006 posts)
131. And the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE is still in place....
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 11:48 AM
Jul 2013

On time for January 1, 2014 while the employers can "Voluntary Participate" WTH? Really President Obama? Really?

"The White House insisted the health insurance exchanges and other elements of the law will be in place on schedule. "We are on target to open the Health Insurance Marketplace on October 1 where small businesses and ordinary Americans will be able to go to one place to learn about their coverage options and make side-by-side comparisons of each plan’s price and benefits before they make their decision," Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama, wrote in a blog post on Tuesday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/02/obamacare-employer-mandate_n_3536695.html

I...can't....believe this! Why is this entire thread not sitting on the top of D.U. for everyone will know this? So for some of our D.U. Friends that are Self Employed....they will HAVE to spend hundreds or in some cases thousands of dollars a month on the Exchange or pay the penalty while corporations get to "Voluntarily Participate".

For our low or medium wage worker D.U. friends that can't afford healthcare at their employer OR worse, their employer (corporate of course) has no Healthcare at all ---- and they were waiting with baited breath on the employer mandate --- they're screwed for another year, or two, maybe three...we don't know.

Also, does this disturb anyone else.....

"small businesses and ordinary Americans will be able to go to one place to learn about their coverage". WTH is up with that?

Ordinary Americans......what about AMERICANS, period. No precursor of "ordinary" required, unless they think we are just "ordinary" and corporations demands are to be SERVED TO ON BENDED KNEE? This is insulting!!!

Call me a teabagger, Ron Paul Troll or whatever else that is not true but I AM DONE SUPPORTING THIS PRESIDENT!!!

I will only support Democrats here in my State and Locality, period!


They_Live

(3,223 posts)
132. Weak Sauce.
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 11:49 AM
Jul 2013

But then again it is the Bob Dole Health Care plan, when it should be Medicare for all...single payer. Maybe it will morph into something better. Sounds like caving to the opposition again though.

Dystram

(10 posts)
134. https://www.healthcare.gov
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:56 PM
Jul 2013

I just ran my data though https://www.healthcare.gov and it said that I'm eligible for low cost healthcare and probably Medicaid.

What's everyone freaking out about the individual mandate and all that stuff for?

You get a tax credit and/or subsidy if you don't make a whole lot of money.

Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
157. I would be eligible for Medicaid
Fri Jul 5, 2013, 06:08 AM
Jul 2013

if states hadn't been allowed to opt out. My state is one of the ones that opted out, so no Medicaid for us here in NC. I checked and monthly cost for health care insurance will be more than my house payment. That's why I, personally, am freaking out about the mandate. When health insurance will be a requirement and cost MORE than my mortgage, and I would have qualified for Medicaid, but cannot get it because my state opted out, there is a problem. My state will make damn sure that citizens of my state are screwed by not implementing the good parts of the ACA. As if being poor is not hard enough...

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
135. Well, let's see that just leaves......
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:12 PM
Jul 2013

...drones and surveillance in the old legacy drawer. Oh!, I can't forgot the Peace Prize!!!

- Which in all fairness was mostly like opening up an envelope and discovering you'd won the Publisher's Clearinghouse.....

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
139. He's sold out the progressives again
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:44 PM
Jul 2013

During the debates, the president refused to consider SP or a public option (which he campaigned on). The progressives were furious about this, but when it came time for a vote, it was HeritageCare or nothing, so they took this to try to get some help for working poor. Now he has sold them out again by choosing to not enforce this better-than-nothing plan.

jimlup

(7,968 posts)
140. Yeah this is worriesome...
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:47 PM
Jul 2013

I can understand being careful to make thinks work but there are considerations that are pressing for the citizens.

This fight is not over. The conservatives are still frothing at the mouth about the whole deal and will take this opportunity to try and bring it down once, twice, ect. yet again...

Jakes Progress

(11,122 posts)
144. Not a republican program. Not a Democratic program.
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 04:34 PM
Jul 2013

It is what it always was meant to be: a corporate insurance scheme.

Single payer - Democratic
Medicare for all - Democratic
Public Option - Centerist

By serving the insurance industry above all sensible ways of serving the people, it is, in that way, a republican program.

GeorgeGist

(25,306 posts)
145. They only admit to listening to business.
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 04:57 PM
Jul 2013
Here's the official statement from Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy Mark Mazur:

Over the past several months, the Administration has been engaging in a dialogue with businesses - many of which already provide health coverage for their workers - about the new employer and insurer reporting requirements under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively. We recognize that the vast majority of businesses that will need to do this reporting already provide health insurance to their workers, and we want to make sure it is easy for others to do so. We have listened to your feedback. And we are taking action.

The Administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin. This is designed to meet two goals. First, it will allow us to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law. Second, it will provide time to adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable and accessible for their employees. Within the next week, we will publish formal guidance describing this transition. Just like the Administration’s effort to turn the initial 21-page application for health insurance into a three-page application, we are working hard to adapt and to be flexible about reporting requirements as we implement the law.

Here is some additional detail. The ACA includes information reporting (under section 6055) by insurers, self-insuring employers, and other parties that provide health coverage. It also requires information reporting (under section 6056) by certain employers with respect to the health coverage offered to their full-time employees. We expect to publish proposed rules implementing these provisions this summer, after a dialogue with stakeholders - including those responsible employers that already provide their full-time work force with coverage far exceeding the minimum employer shared responsibility requirements - in an effort to minimize the reporting, consistent with effective implementation of the law.

Once these rules have been issued, the Administration will work with employers, insurers, and other reporting entities to strongly encourage them to voluntarily implement this information reporting in 2014, in preparation for the full application of the provisions in 2015. Real-world testing of reporting systems in 2014 will contribute to a smoother transition to full implementation in 2015.

We recognize that this transition relief will make it impractical to determine which employers owe shared responsibility payments (under section 4980H) for 2014. Accordingly, we are extending this transition relief to the employer shared responsibility payments. These payments will not apply for 2014. Any employer shared responsibility payments will not apply until 2015.

During this 2014 transition period, we strongly encourage employers to maintain or expand health coverage. Also, our actions today do not affect employees’ access to the premium tax credits available under the ACA (nor any other provision of the ACA).




Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-employer-mandate-delayed-year-2013-7#ixzz2Y1BrAztU
Not a peep about people. People will die for lack of health insurance that the law says they're entitled.

I guess the President can change things without Congressional approval.

Fearless

(18,421 posts)
153. Three dimensional metaphysical chess
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:23 AM
Jul 2013

Don't worry everyone... we win by giving Republicans everything they wanted and pretending we want it to!


Thanks Mr. President my family members will greatly enjoy the millions of dollars corporate ceo's will make because of this. Surely the wealth will "trickle drown".

davidwparker

(5,397 posts)
155. Drop the age limit on Medicare to birth.
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 06:40 PM
Jul 2013

Everybody who works pays into Medicare through the payroll. When filling out your W4 for your deductions, check the box saying you want single-payer, not for profit health care offered by the government.

Done.

sweetapogee

(1,168 posts)
156. that is what i did (checked the W4 box)
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 08:51 PM
Jul 2013

also, my partner and I are going to get more kids for more subsidies. These days, every little bit helps.

DailyGrind51

(4,815 posts)
158. They only delayed the employer madate,...!
Fri Jul 5, 2013, 07:03 AM
Jul 2013

but, that is bad enough, Republicans will see this as a wedge to break the whole thing, and Progressives will see this as an another accommodation to "business" and a sell-out, and an excuse to sit-out 2014, like they did 2010. Was the White House even considering the ramifications of this move?

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»HUGE: White House Delayin...