HUGE: White House Delaying Key Obamacare Provision For A Year

[Tony_FLADEM]

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

[rsmith6621]

1. Jeez Who Wrote The White House A Check

...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.

[Harmony Blue]

57. This smells like

the employees are going to receive a turd dumped on them when this is over.

[Pterodactyl]

150. Are you implying CORRUPTION was involved?

[Ilsa]

2. Shit. If the ACA doesn't get implemented, when are

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]

103. I'm still waiting to see if there will be any savings--especially for those of us who already have

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]

111. We got a small rebate last year

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]

3. IMO this Republican Health Insurance Bill is as corrupt as most politicians.

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]

14. How many republicans voted for this "Republican Health Insurance Bill"?

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]

15. Who wrote the Bill?

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]

36. republicans also supported the EPA, a guaranteed annual income, cap-and-trade and high tariffs

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]

118. Our political leadership

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]

35. Of course they didn't vote for it once it had President Obama's name on it. But

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]

39. It does not have Obama's name on, other than the derisive nickname, Obamacare, they gave it.

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.

[totodeinhere]

45. I meant it had Obama's name on it figuratively, not literally.

Obama was fighting hard for it.

[pampango]

50. And Democrats voted just as mindlessly (even the Progressive Caucus) - just for it rather

than against it?

[totodeinhere]

51. You are not understanding my point. I am explaining why the Republicans voted against

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]

84. Cynical politics AND the republican party has become much more conservative.

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]

110. Most of that legislation you cited is from 40-50 years ago

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]

112. The Massachusetts legislature was 85% Democratic at the time.

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]

138. The progressives voted for it because it was this or nothing

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]

78. It's like NSA spying -- people support it strictly on the basis of who's advocating it at the moment

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

[Psephos]

99. exactly n/t

[Yo_Mama]

26. Whatever it is, it isn't Republican

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]

29. It is a Republican Bill it was 1st proposed to counter Hillary Care , then Rmoney implimented it in

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

[pa28]

52. "Obamacare" was a Republican idea.

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

[Yo_Mama]

56. Well, I agree with your opinion

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

[Art_from_Ark]

109. Well, forcing businesses to provide insurance to employees,

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]

61. "this republiccan health insurance"...this is the funniest thing I have read in months here. WE OWN

IT. Democrats OWN this.

[Iliyah]

4. No it won't be undone

and it will take time.

[rhett o rick]

18. And you know that how? nm

[Journeyman]

5. I wonder how a 1 year delay will positively impact unscrupulous sleazeballs who plan to dump. . .

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]

6. I give up on this administration.

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.

[BigD_95]

149. Im with you. He is a joke

[lynne]

7. Sheesh. My work hours were cut to no more than 29 per week -

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

[Yo_Mama]

22. No because the mandate will kick in in 2015, anyway.

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]

30. The mandate will kick-in in 2015. At least that's what we're now told -

- 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]

40. Yes, and the exchanges won't work properly either

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.

[Scootaloo]

101. And in late 2014, it'll "kick in" in 2017, perhaps?

I have no faith left.

[bunnies]

8. Why would they do this?

I dont understand how this helps anyone but corporations.

[KansDem]

9. I believe you answered your own question

But I hope I'm wrong...

[bunnies]

16. Im afraid of that too.

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

[avaistheone1]

49. I think so too.

[Pterodactyl]

151. The reason is to delay the bad effects until after the 2014 elections.

[medeak]

10. avoiding Wall Street crash

hoping another year economy will be stabilized.

[RufusTFirefly]

11. Almost like watering down Rolling Rock. n/t

[dembotoz]

79. now that is funny

[RufusTFirefly]

81. Thx. The joke is sort of an acquired taste. n/t

[salib]

12. But, but, but... I thought Obama could not do much with just a stroke of his pen?

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]

13. That Papa Johns weenie must be pleased

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]

152. The IRS is busy "encouraging"

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]

17. First reaction

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]

19. Brilliant!! The President's three-dimensional chessplaying skills are getting even better!!!

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!

[PSPS]

20. Obummer. Again.

[Duckwraps]

21. IMHO this is FUBAR

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]

23. If they can do this...

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]

53. Exactly

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.

[Safetykitten]

93. Well, ya see, it's like this. Obama is not emperor, but the next republican can do ANYTHING.

[nessa]

121. Excellent point. A future administration can just stop enforcing all of it. (nt)

.

[Doctor_J]

137. Only things like this can be implemented by executive decree

I didn't know it could be changed or postponed by executive decision.

You mean by corporate decree.

[Purveyor]

24. This is going to make the 2014 elections even more interesting, indeed. eom

[David__77]

25. What provision of the law allows this? Is this even legal?

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

[Yo_Mama]

46. It was just a strong suggestion!

I guess....

My world just rocked.

[Le Taz Hot]

27. But *I* can't opt out of the mandate

without paying a premium in 2014. How nice.

[drdtroit]

94. Mission accomplished! n/t

[Doctor_J]

147. Maybe you should incorporate

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

[Yo_Mama]

28. I think I figured it out - it's health care workers (low-paid)

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]

31. This mess is CRAZY!!

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!

[MannyGoldstein]

32. WH doesn't want Dems to get creamed in 2014 elections nm

[cigsandcoffee]

38. You nailed it. n/t

[Yo_Mama]

43. Corporations don't vote - their employees do

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]

54. Why would Dems get creamed in 2014,

and how does this help?

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

[Harmony Blue]

55. Yeah this increases voter apathy

for the Democrats if a key part of Obamacare isn't put in place.

[MannyGoldstein]

62. If Obama care causes a bad surprise

Apathy will be preferable.

[Harmony Blue]

66. True

but is a gamble to punt this given the Presidency beyond the Obama administration is unknown.

[LovingA2andMI]

89. Very good point!

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]

63. Then why

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]

65. Maybe the law truly will be a disaster

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

[Harmony Blue]

70. Companies have already started to do this

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]

108. They've been doing that anyway, for years.

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.

[Safetykitten]

68. Hi Manny! I posted this on July 1st

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3140572

[MannyGoldstein]

69. I'd like to see that commercial as well!

We'll need to wait a while...

[Doctor_J]

141. But I thought the thundering success of the 2014 implementation was going to HELP Dems!

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

[HeroInAHalfShell]

143. I know, right. This was supposed to help every Dem out there!!!

[forestpath]

33. ROFL, "strongly encourage" is the new Obamacare.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

34. And the individual-mandate-or-get-IRS-penalized still stands?

LOL What a clusterfuck.

[Ash_F]

37. A decision made behind closed doors.

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

[Harmony Blue]

41. This hurts just thinking about this

[DallasNE]

42. Single Payer

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]

47. That is what many of said that favored single payer

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

[eridani]

44. Fuck this shit! Single payer now!! m/t

[Harmony Blue]

60. +1 I concur

this is what happens when you try to make a policy and put it in place with "compromise"

[suffragette]

100. + 1,000,000

[medeak]

48. "It shouldn't be delayed...it should be repealed"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/02/obamacares-employer-mandate-shouldnt-be-delayed-it-should-be-repealed/

[quakerboy]

67. Some of that article is just silly

" - 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.

[medeak]

72. It was interesting but am critical thinker

btw...spell check would be helpful

[quakerboy]

107. Im honestly not sure if you are trying to be ironically insulting, or funny, or what

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.

[bowens43]

58. another lie another broken promise

Obama never fails to disappoint.

[Safetykitten]

59. Well, well, well, like this clusterfuck for a clusterfuck was faster than I thought. Wait though...

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

[otherone]

64. single payer in 2016!

lets demand it!

[abelenkpe]

71. +1000

[RGR375]

80. Just remember!

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]

73. I wish I could opt out of the hike in my self-insurance.

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]

74. Yeah this delay is going to add fuel to the fire

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]

106. How would the ACA cause your price to increase?

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]

113. See posts 97 and 98.

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]

146. I think that 2 different things are getting conflated, and they are imporant and distinct.

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]

148. Here's an article I found that articulates my concern

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]

75. Shocked, shocked, I tell ya!

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.

[Safetykitten]

76. Correct.

[SMC22307]

85. He sure roped the dopes, eh? (n/t)

[Puzzledtraveller]

117. We knew Obama was an excellent boxer

We just didn't know it was shadow boxing.

[SMC22307]

159. Heh heh.

Suddenly in the mood for some Fiona Apple...

[L0oniX]

82. Sequesterized ACA but not the NSA.

[LovingA2andMI]

90. Pretty Darn Much LOoniX

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]

83. The vast majority of Obamacare is still on schedule ...

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]

92. Why are post like these ^^^^

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]

86. I wonder though if they are doing this because they are trying to counter what employers are doing

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]

114. But this won't change - and it's already almost all done

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]

133. Then they need to lower the hours even more say to 8 hours a week to qualify for the coverage.

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]

142. Well, why was this written in the bill in the first place?

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.

[Jessy169]

87. I can't wait to hear the Obama admin explanation for THIS

WTF??? It better be good...

[markpkessinger]

88. What the fucking hell?!

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]

91. I hope that legal action can be taken to force the administration to enforce the law.

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

[gtar100]

95. Maybe if businesses weren't so gung-ho on sticking their fat asses between people and healthcare

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

[Marrah_G]

96. LOL- no fucking surprise there

[Cal Carpenter]

115. Exactly

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]

97. Am I correct in expecting that the mandate, for self-employed people,...

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]

98. That's downright criminal...

"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]

119. Your scenario is better than ours.

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]

125. That's terrible! So the question is, where is the "affordable"...

...in the Affordable Care Act?

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

[Le Taz Hot]

129. The entire thing, from start to finish,

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.

[GReedDiamond]

130. Wish I could disagree with you, but I cannot...nt

[yeoman6987]

124. Monthly Premiums for Obamacare

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]

102. So, screw workers and STILL give Repugs plenty of anti-Obamacare ammunition.

Way to go, Obama administration.

[Politicalboi]

104. Oh good

The GOP can vote for another year to stop Obamacare. Progress.

[SamKnause]

105. Health

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]

116. My state is way behind implementation

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]

120. Obama caved again.

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.

[FiveGoodMen]

154. Caved? Played his roll just as scripted.

[christx30]

122. The cynical side of me

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]

126. Implementation of Obamacare

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.

[HeroInAHalfShell]

123. This does nothing but HURT THE POOR!!!!!!

I cannot believe this!!!

[leveymg]

127. "This actually helps workers" - more 8th Dimensional Chess?

[mike_c]

128. of the 1%, for the 1%, by the 1%....

Don't ever doubt it.

[LovingA2andMI]

131. And the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE is still in place....

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]

132. Weak Sauce.

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]

134. https://www.healthcare.gov

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]

157. I would be eligible for Medicaid

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]

135. Well, let's see that just leaves......

...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]

136. Wow

This presidency gets better by the day. Now get out there and campaign for 2014!

[Doctor_J]

139. He's sold out the progressives again

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]

140. Yeah this is worriesome...

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]

144. Not a republican program. Not a Democratic program.

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]

145. They only admit to listening to business.

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]

153. Three dimensional metaphysical chess

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]

155. Drop the age limit on Medicare to birth.

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]

156. that is what i did (checked the W4 box)

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

[DailyGrind51]

158. They only delayed the employer madate,...!

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?