« | »

Delay Will Help Businesses Dump Health Coverage

From the Politico, of all places:

Key Obamacare rule for business delayed for year


The Obama administration is postponing the federal health care law’s insurance mandate for employers next year, in a major concession to the business community and lawmakers who have become increasingly vocal about the law’s potential to damage a slowly recovering economy…

How’s that possible? We were assured by our media guardians (including the Politico) that Obama-Care was going to be a boon to the economy. But now the media and the Obama administration (but we repeat ourselves) are admitting that isn’t true?

The move is also likely to raise the prices tag of Obamacare by making more people eligible for subsidies, namely those whom employers would have covered under the threat of penalties under the law…

That is, most of those people who Obama-Care would have forced employers to cover are now going to end up in the exchanges, and getting subsidized by the taxpayer.

The employer mandate’s penalties were expected to reduce the deficit by $5 billion in 2014, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate published in February. But not only will the government lose the revenue for the penalties, it may also have to pay more in subsidies.

So Obama-Care is going to cost a helluva lot more money than the CBO lied claimed it would. But, lest we forget, Obama-Care was rammed through Congress via ‘budget reconciliation.’ Which can only be used on bills that are ‘revenue neutral.’

Obama-Care never was revenue neutral, but it is even more laughably expensive now that its main source of revenue has been cut for a year. So the law itself was passed illegally.

[T]he delay [also] means that [employers] have the option — at least temporarily — of cutting coverage of employees and having them seek coverage on the exchange instead. The mandate in part was meant to stop exactly that.

“Essentially for calendar 2014 the act of dropping coverage and dumping employees into the exchanges is on sale,” former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said. “Drop and dump, but no penalty. Accelerating the rush of employers to the exits is bad news for taxpayers. At a minimum, the federal revenue from fines is gone. More realistically, the costs of already-bloated insurance subsidies will escalate and the red ink will rise.”

In other words, employers were supposed to pay a penalty for ending healthcare coverage for their employees. That penalty has been delayed for a year. Which means businesses are going to be ending their employee coverage like mad.

But the employer mandate is required by the law, leading some critics of the administration to question whether the Treasury even has the authority to delay its enforcement. And the administration made clear Tuesday that it planned for the mandate to be in place in 2015, meaning any company that drops coverage next year would have to restore it the next year or face those penalties…

What are laws to Obama?

Hell, just one year ago the Supreme Court ruled that the penalties in Obama-Care are not a fine but a tax. Since when can the President of the US decide who has to pay a tax and who doesn’t? In our version of the Constitution the power to tax belonged to Congress alone.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, July 3rd, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

9 Responses to “Delay Will Help Businesses Dump Health Coverage”

  1. Noyzmakr says:

    All this just plays into Pitchfork’s hands. People are going to start screaming about their employers dumping their health coverage. The exchanges aren’t ready and will be very expensive. Soooo, the demonicrats will say we need to do something. Voila!… single payer. Which has been the plan all along.

    Don’t forget that Pitchfork told his union pals that single payer would take 10 or 15 years. He’s ahead of schedule.

  2. GetBackJack says:

    I predict shootings. Violence. Bombings.

    Oh, wait. That’s the aftermath of an innocent man being found Not Guilty down in Florida and the inevitable reaction of Obama’s minions … who in the movie world look like horse pills and are yellow.

    Hollywood. Always getting it wrong.

    • Noyzmakr says:

      Don’t count on Zimmerman walking out of that courthouse free. That Judge is determined to help the prosecution as much as possible. They need all the help they can get with such a weak case but she allowed them to object to testimony from the day before! That’s sure to grant an appeal if he’s convicted.
      Then you’ve got the six women on the jury. Have you ever met a woman? Emotional beings….logic doesn’t get very far with many of them. Not all, but most.

      Given all those factors, anything could happen. Either way, Zimmerman will pay, CNN will see to that.

    • GetBackJack says:

      Geez, Nozy … cover your head. Many of S&L’s best commenters are women.

    • Noyzmakr says:

      You will notice that I qualified my statement by saying most, not all. Of course, the ladies that are brilliant enough to get their daily news fix here are a different breed.

      Conservative women are by far the most logical of all God’s creation.

      Could this answer the mystery of why I never married? Hum…???

      Mea culpa complete, Noyz runs and hides.

  3. Enthalpy says:

    If Representative Steve King follows through, it should be sticky going for our totalitarian-in-chief. King said, “If President Obama wants to make changes to ObamaCare, he must come to Congress.” Well.

    • Noyzmakr says:

      What Rep. King says is true. But, since when did Pitchfork follow the law? He doesn’t give a rats rear end what congress thinks, what america thinks or what the world thinks. It seems the only person who’s thoughts he does consider is Valerie Jarrett’s, his demonic puppet master.

  4. captstubby says:

    House Could Sink Obamacare
    Monday, April 22, 2013 09:32 PMBy: Joseph E. Schmitz

    Joseph E. Schmitz’ Perspective: The Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, and 19 House colleagues co-sponsored H.Res. 153 on April 12, “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 violates article I, section 7, clause 1 of the United States Constitution because it was a ‘Bill for raising Revenue’ that did not originate in the House of Representatives.”

    The Supreme Court has never before addressed an Origination Clause challenge that was so blatantly obvious. The only surprise is that no one raised it sooner.

    In this case, there is no serious question that Obamacare originated in the Senate. And thanks to last year’s Supreme Court ruling, there is now no question that it is considered a tax. It’s irrelevant whether or not the Obama administration attempts to characterize the measure as an amendment to a House bill.

    According to a March 15, 2011, Congressional research Service (CRS) report, “The Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Interpretation and Enforcement,” “The House’s primary method for enforcement of the Origination Clause is through a process known as ‘blue-slipping.’ Blue-slipping is the term applied to the act of returning to the Senate a measure that the House has determined violates its prerogatives as defined by the Origination Clause.”

    One might ask why there was no “blue slip” in the House after Sen. Harry Reid introduced his 2,075-page self-described “Senate Health Care Bill,” which promptly morphed into an “amendment” to a six-page House bill unrelated to healthcare: “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009,” which had passed the House by a vote of 416-0.

    The answer is that the proverbial 13th hour circumstances of the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka PPACA, ACA, or Obamacare), combined with the facts that (a) the Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House at the time, and (b) no one knew that the Supreme Court would sustain the individual mandate component of the “Senate Health Care Bill” under the taxing power (the focus was on the Commerce Clause), suggesting that this one just slipped by everyone in the House who might have blue-slipped it — pun intended.

    According to the above-mentioned CRS Report, “Any Member of the House may offer such a [blue-slip] resolution, but normally it is the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee who would do so. Occasionally, another member of the committee may be designated.”

    The CRS Report explains, “because enforcement of the Origination Clause in the House is based on a question of the constitutional privilege of the House, it is not subject to restrictions based on timeliness. The House can assert its privilege at any time it is in possession of the bill and related papers (that is, anytime the actual documents are not physically in possession of the Senate or a conference committee). Therefore, the House is not limited to enforcing its prerogative only through blue-slipping a measure upon its initial receipt from the Senate.”

    and here i thought the Campaigner In Chief was a constitutional trained expert.

    • Noyzmakr says:

      I don’t think our problem is what avenue we will take to destroy ObamaScare. The action listed above would be just as good as just defunding the damn thing. I think our problem is we don’t have leadership with the gonads to actually do anything other than pass passive and silly repeal bills (37 times) that they know aren’t going anywhere.

      If they don’t fund it, it will die. It just takes backbone, not lip service.

      Same thing with the IRS. Just leave them out of the budget. Poof!!! Gone…

« Front Page | To Top
« | »