Skip to main content

Stethescope on top of pile of money
The Obama administration has decided to put off implementation of the Affordable Care Act’s employer responsibility requirement for one year, according to a blog post from Mark J. Mazur, assistant secretary for tax policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
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.

The 2010 law requires that companies with 50 or more full-time employees provide health insurance for those employees or pay fines. There's been significant pushback from companies at the 50-employee threshold, threatening to reduce their number of employees or cut their hours so they wouldn't qualify as part-time. For the most part, this change won't complicate implementation of other parts of Obamacare, though officials might have more of a challenge determining who is eligible for subsidies because of their employer benefits status.

The decision does, however, effect the bottom line, as Igor Volsky points out, because the CBO estimated that the employer mandate would raise about $4 billion in 2014. "The delay will mean that the federal government will lose out on that revenue and that some employees who are not eligible for tax credits in the exchanges and don’t have an offer of employer coverage or can’t afford that insurance, could go uninsured."

10:00 AM PT: Tell the White House that if they are going to enforce the individual mandate by 2014, they must also enforce the employer mandate. Click here to sign our petition.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  I wondered about that... (10+ / 0-)

      ...I mean, if it's the LAW.....How does the Administration unilaterally just declare they're changing the start date?  Is there specific language in the law that lets them do that?

      "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

      by leftykook on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:13:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Honestly (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Praxical, HCKAD

        That's an incredibly important question that I don't see anyone trying to answer from the Administration. Probably because nobody is asking them.

        My views on PPACA are generally that it's an awful piece of legislation. You simply cannot design something so complex and disjointed without these sorts of things happening. The problem is: this is a BIG thing.

        Not to mention, whether it's a D, R, or whatever in the White House, ignoring the law itself is not exactly the approach one wants to take. It's littered throughout history of presidents doing this, but still, one branch writes the laws, one branch enforces them, and the last one plays basketball in their spare time.

        I'll supply the sand, you supply the head

        by MWV on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 12:00:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  delays. (20+ / 0-)

    the whole thing has been delayed in more ways than one.

    in the meantime, our fellow citizens go without much needed care.

    every adult is responsible for every child

    by ridemybike on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:09:26 AM PDT

    •  Although there is an up side (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      katrinka, HeyMikey, Fury, shigeru

      1) the big businesses don't get to spend millions yelling about this and cutting their workforces so they don't have to offer them insurance

      2) but then the individuals will be encouraged to go to the exchanges instead of relying on employer based health insurance. THAT would be a big win for everyone, actually, since de-coupling health insurance from having a job would be a great advance for a great many people, stuck in odious jobs and fearful of trying to move or strike out on their own.

      •  But this doesn't affect "big business." (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HeyMikey, Fury, shigeru

        I can't think of a business I would characterize as "big" that doesn't have far more than 50 employees.

        But if you're correct about beginning to decouple health care from employment, I think that would be a very positive development.

        •  It would be a big deal if there is a replacement. (0+ / 0-)

          There isn't. It is a very big burden on all enterprises small and large.

          "Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do..... Go back to your command, and try to think what are we going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do." Grant

          by shigeru on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 11:29:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Decoupling health care from employment is a big (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Zack from the SFV, TexasTom, deep h20

        deal and makes incredible sense.

        But...

        This big mess is likely to create some sour looks if the individual mandate isn't pushed back too.

        Never mind the money that won't be coming in from employers. The optics are terrible: The big boys and girls get off the hook while the rest of us get screwed.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:10:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  One-third right. The real problem. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MKDAWUSS, Zack from the SFV, deep h20

        (1) Putting more people into the exchanges, decoupling healthcare from job, is a good thing. You're right about this.

        (2) Employers have been enjoying record profits for several years now. They would not have to cut jobs due to the insurance mandate. True, they'd shift to more people working under 30 hours a week; this would result in some people earning less, but would also result in more of the unemployed being hired. A redistribution of economic misery, but not a net increase in it.

        (3) The real loss is in the states not expanding Medicare. Plenty of part-time workers will earn too little to receive subsidies for the exchanges. That's right, if your income is below 100% of poverty, you will earn too LITTLE to receive a subsidy.

        Example: let's say you earn $8 an hour and work 28 hours a week, 50 weeks a year. Your annual income is $11,200 a year. Let's say you're single and have no kids. The Obamacare subsidy you'll get is ZERO.

        This is a betrayal, and political malpractice (see my other comment on this diary).

        Subsidy calculator: http://kff.org/...

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:15:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Until the folks find that: (0+ / 0-)

        1. no options in their states OR
        2. cost a bazillion bucks.

        "Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do..... Go back to your command, and try to think what are we going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do." Grant

        by shigeru on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 11:30:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ed Schultz just opened his show... (13+ / 0-)

    ...with "The Caver-in-Chief is at it again..." bashing the President in the first minute of his show....

    "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

    by leftykook on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:10:08 AM PDT

  •  Well Obama has been soooooo busy doing (9+ / 0-)

    something this year.  Someone must know what but I expect it is classified.  

  •  "Some [...] could go uninsured" (13+ / 0-)

    Oh great, the new, bigger, more dangerous "donut hole" of former Medicare Part D fame.

    Per emptywheel, if there's no employer mandate, whither the individual mandate? People are people, my friends.

    Hey, here's a thought: let them buy into Medicare! Nah, that's crazy talk.

    Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

    by Simplify on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:11:37 AM PDT

  •  Are they delaying the individual mandate too? (10+ / 0-)

    What?  No?  Those poor insurance companies have to make a buck, you know.

    I've said it before and will say it again:

    Obamacare spells the end of the Democratic Party.

    With the colossal fuckups, corporate giveaways, insider back doors and mountains of red tape burdens on regular citizens continuing to be revealed, it will be the end of many political careers.

    •  Maybe, maybe not...but the current state of things (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TexasTom

      is not surprising.

      It was a huge bill that got hurried along and settled for when Scott Brown won in Massachusetts.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:12:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  silver lining (9+ / 0-)

    maybe this will bring discussion of single-payer back to the table.  I just heard Anthony Weiner on NPR (yep he's back and running for Mayor of NYC) talking about implementing something close to single-payer for NYC.  Vermont has a plan for single-payer too.  I think we just need a few states and cities to implement it and it will go national - like it did it Canada.

    •  Neither Republicans nor Democrats (7+ / 0-)

      support single payer. It's just too sane.

      Vermont is shouldering on with our single payer system, but I worry the insurance lobby will figure out how to torpedo our efforts. Ironically, the state said they can't get a waiver from Congress to the ACA. Ohh the irony that they will delay the whole show a year at the drop of the hat, but Vermont can't get a waiver until 2017.

      -7.5 -7.28, A carrot is as close as a rabbit gets to a diamond.-Don Van Vliet

      by Blueslide on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:25:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  weiner's plan (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Blueslide

        wasn't bad - although the payment plan called for a percentage of the policy costs instead of a percentage of income via a progressive marginal tax-like fee.  In NJ my union, negotiated a progressive percentage of income structure - ranging from, i think, 1.5% to 3% of income.  As different local proposals get floated I think we need to insist on the latter, it will make the transition to single-payer from a limited public option much smoother.  

    •  Unless MFA is implemented BEFORE the ACA (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Zack from the SFV

      is (I guess now) "partially" implemented in 2014, talk of MFA is a lost cause.

      Once insurance companies start 'raking in' new business, they are not going to "give it up."

      Mollie

      "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


      hiddennplainsight

      by musiccitymollie on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:01:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  entrenched interests (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musiccitymollie

        you're right, but I think the idea was that employers would somehow tame insurance company greed - since they would be paying for these policies.  Of course, if employers can simply pass along the cost to their workers that isn't going to happen - and that scenario really should have been obvious from the start.  

        But again, i was heartened by Weiner's interview - I haven't heard many politicians make the Michael Moore point that insurance companies are unnecessary middlemen.  He actually said, "what purpose do they [private insurance companies] serve?"  I really wish Buono (our, at this point quixotic nominee for gov. in NJ) would start talking like this - I mean she is going to lose anyway, the least she could do is forward the conversation.

        •  Hey, I wish all New Yorkers "well" in regard to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jdowd73

          their chances of obtaining "single payer."  

          Realistically, though, we can't "unring the bell."

          I have more relatives than fingers, who have "done well" for MANY years in the insurance and finance industry.

          Yet, at least two of them will "come out of retirement" (at least partially) due to the windfall they stand to reap.  In their case, they still have a financial interest in a family-owned securities and insurance brokerage which is now run by their "children."

          Which is not to say, that supporters of MFA should completely give up.  

          Hey, I hope I'm wrong.  

          I do believe that the grossly "uneven treatment" of citizens, who by the income test qualify for Medicaid, will result in more calls for "repeal."  And blaming the Repubs will only go so far, since the Dems actually wrote the bill, and the Repubs have disavowed the ACA from the "get go."  (Which is not to say that I condone the actions of any of the Governors who are refusing to expand Medicaid.  I don't.)  

          And that the Administration should do something very soon, if they want to get ahead of this potential debacle.

          Some health insurance bloggers that I read, question how the Administration can make such "sweeping" changes like delaying the "employer mandate" portion of the ACA, but are powerless to effect changes that would help "the average Joe."

          Pretty good question.

          And I am also very concerned with the "news" that we now have greatly expanded Medicaid "estate recovery" provisions.  Sounds like it could be financially devastating to very low income Americans.

          For years, I had been under the mistaken impression that states only went after the assets of the very elderly who were "on Medicaid" in skilled nursing facilities.

          Apparently, this is not so.  They have the leeway (and are encouraged to) go after this age cohort to recover every cent spent on them.  Even if you only went onto Medicaid for several months during a stint of unemployment, then returned to the workforce.  If you were so unfortunate as to have medical treatment during this time--guess what--your estate can be levied for repayment under the MERP (Medicaid Estate Recovery Program) for medical treatment rendered decades earlier.  (Even if you never have to use Medicaid to pay nursing home bills, when you are elderly.)

          I don't understand why individuals below the FPL don't  receive the same treatment as others--subsidized premiums--so that their assets would not be at risk.  

          In the case of those "below poverty level," clearly the solution would be to subsidize their premiums at one hundred percent.  (Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out, LOL!)

          We'll see how this all shakes out over the next several years, but I don't think that the MERP as presently configured, would be a winner with "the American People."

          Maybe some of these somewhat ill-conceived policies will be remedied.  I hope so.

          I guess time will tell . . .

          Mollie

          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


          hiddennplainsight

          by musiccitymollie on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 11:36:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  No, it won't... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musiccitymollie, jdowd73

      ...there's zero chance that this delay will bring single-payer back to the table.

      I don't see a lot of enthusiasm on the part of Democrats for introducing "clean up" legislation to improve the ACA, and single-payer is far more extensive than just improving details in the ACA.  Part of the reason for this lack of enthusiasm is pretty simple -- any changes that would make the ACA better have absolutely zero chances of passing as a result of Republican obstruction, so why invest the effort?

      Aside from that, there's is almost no political support for single payer, which would essentially (and accurately) be framed by opponents as forcing everyone to take government insurance -- why would a Democrat from a district that is less than about 75% Democratic want to stick their neck out for something that is perceived as being that extreme.

      Where there is support is for the much less radical alternative of a public option, specifically in the form of a Medicare buy in.  That's always polled well, and would make a logical improvement to the ACA.  Unfortunately, there's the little issue that it has no chance of actually passing...

      Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

      by TexasTom on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 11:00:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i wouldn't say zero chance (0+ / 0-)

        i fully acknowledge the obstacles you are talking about but unexpected things can happen on the state level.  for example, bright red Oklahoma has universal pre-school while my blue state still doesn't have it.

        plus i think framing single-payer as medicare for all - paid for by a constitutional tax (not mandate) would receive substantial popular, if not political (which is different) support.  I remember the public option polling in the 60s, but single-payer despite the demonization of government-run health care was still in the 40s - gotta be over 50 in some states.

        •  Respectfully, jdowd73, I really see that (0+ / 0-)

          comparison as "apples to oranges."

          There is nothing at all "surprising" about any state supporting universal pre-school today.

          ALL corporatist/neoliberal politicians today support this--it is what Pete Peterson and Bill Gates have long sought.

          Certainly, I am in favor of all children attending kindergarten, but my motives are quite different than those of the One Percent and their handmaidens--Democratic and Republican politicians.

          You see, corporatists--sorry--"centrists," LOL, and neoliberals see the education sector as the new private sector "cash cow."

          Hence the huge strides by this Administration in the privatization of public education.

          I was in the state that won the first "Race To The Top" jackpot--$501 million--mostly spent on destroying what little union power teachers had (next to none, really--another reason the state won this award), and to replacing public schools with charter schools and vouchers.  

          The ink wasn't dry on the state legislation when a church that borders a property of ours "broke ground" on their new church school--partially at taxpayer's expense, of course.  

          And the federal education policy that created this opportunity was brought to you by a Democratic Party Department of Education and Mr. Arne Duncan.

          This is also the reason that many politicians in both the Democratic and Republican Parties are behind the cruel cuts to both Social Security and Medicare benefits.

          The philosophy is to funnel money away from "the elderly" (the non-producers) to "the youth" (the potential/future producers).

          You see, this new "craze" being pushed by think tanks of all ideological stripes.

          They refer to this new policy as "Predistribution VS Redistribution."

          Remember this phrase, when one day your Social Security monthly benefit check, and the Medicare benefit are reduced to a pathetic pittance.

          I sincerely believe that the average American would proudly and enthusiastically stand behind both expanding preschool/kindergarten to all children, and honoring the compact that was made with the nation's elderly several generation ago.

          Unfortunately, it appears that the Powers That Be believe that achieving a decent standard of living FOR EVERYONE, is a "zero sum game."

          [BTW, NYT columnist and "No Labels" participant David Brooks expounds on this philosophy quite often, if you're interested in "hearing it from the horses' mouth."

          It is my understanding that this policy--predistribution VS redistribution--originated with Democratic Party advisor and Yale University professor Jacob Hacker, who has been involved with policy development for The President, Secretary Clinton, and Former Senator John Edwards.  

          Hacker is a Fellow at the New America Foundation.  The Board of Directors of this "outfit" is chock full of famous "neoliberal" CEO's, scholars, journalists, etc.]

          Mollie

          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


          hiddennplainsight

          by musiccitymollie on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 03:21:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  plus i'm hoping (0+ / 0-)

        this whole mess is pissing off Hillary, who might crack things open in an aggressive 2016 campaign.

        •  I would be very circumspect about expecting (0+ / 0-)

          Secretary Clinton to swoop in with a "miracle rescue from the ACA."

          Below is an excerpt and link to the plan that she presented to the DLC in 2006 entitlted, "Saving The American Dream Plan."

          Frankly, it sounds almost exactly like the policy solutions offered up by this Administration.

          ****

          DLC | Press Release | July 24, 2006

          Democratic Leadership Council Unveils 'American Dream Initiative'

          Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Offers A New Economic Opportunity Agenda Focused on Saving the American Dream

          Monday, July 24 (Denver, CO) -- Today, in a speech to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)'s 10th annual National Conversation in Denver, Colorado, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) unveiled the American Dream Initiative, an economic opportunity agenda focused on restoring the promise of the American Dream by expanding and strengthening the middle class.

          Together, Sen. Clinton (Chair, American Dream Initiative), Gov. Tom Vilsack (Chair, DLC) and Sen. Tom Carper (Vice-Chair, DLC) shaped an agenda centered around the core belief that every citizen should have the opportunity to secure the pillars of the American Dream: a college degree, a home, a secure retirement, and the chance to get ahead in a growing economy.

          Sen. Clinton is Chair of the American Dream Initiative, a role she accepted at the request of DLC Chair Gov. Tom Vilsack at the 2005 National Conversation in Columbus, Ohio.

          And here's the summary:

          The DLC brought together a broad and unprecedented coalition of progressive think tanks to help shape this agenda, including the Progressive Policy Institute, the Center for American Progress, NDN, Third Way, and the Hope Street Group.

          Here are the central pillars of the DLC American Dream Initiative: (You can view the entire project at www.dlc.org)

          •  Every American should have the opportunity and responsibility to go to college and earn a degree, or to get the lifelong training they need.

          •  Every worker should have the opportunity and responsibility to save for a secure retirement.

          •  Every business should have the opportunity to grow and prosper in the strongest private economy on earth, and the responsibility to equip workers with the same tools of success as management.

          •  Every individual should have the opportunity and responsibility to start building wealth from day one, and the security and community that come from owning a home.

          •  Every family should have the opportunity to afford health insurance for their children, and the responsibility to obtain it.

          •  In order to expand opportunity for all Americans, we must demand a new ethic of responsibility from Washington: to put government's priorities back in line with our value -- and its books back in balance -- by getting rid of wasteful corporate subsidies, unchecked bureaucracy, and narrow-interest loopholes; collecting taxes that are owed; clamping down on tend on tends of billions of dollars in improper payments and no-bid contracts; and restoring common sense budgeting principles like pay-as-you-go.

          Sen. Clinton said:  " . . The DLC American Dream Initiative is focused on ideas that address people's real problems, giving them the tools they need to make the most of their own lives. If we stay focused on that, we can continue to build an America that is a land of limitless hope and opportunity."

          Mollie

          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


          hiddennplainsight

          by musiccitymollie on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 03:58:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  So... (11+ / 0-)
    "The delay will mean that the federal government will lose out on that revenue and that some employees who are not eligible for tax credits in the exchanges and don’t have an offer of employer coverage or can’t afford that insurance, could go uninsured."
    Am I reading this right?  Companies that make billions in PROFITS such as WalMart, Darden and Mickey-D's get to skate for another year, but their employees may be stuck with a tax liability if they don't get insurance?  Really nice way to completely fuck up the 2014 election Obama.  I was worried there for a moment that the Dems might actually have some momentum going into the election.

    'Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost' - Ronald Reagan, Communist

    by RichM on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:16:47 AM PDT

    •  you got it (5+ / 0-)

      people who thought ACA would get them insurance coverage in '14 and now won't get it, are they going to vote Dem?

      "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" - John Adams

      by esquimaux on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:32:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't get pessimistic yet. (0+ / 0-)

      On any normal scale, the Republicans should have won big in 2012.

      But you know the story.

      If the GOP doesn't get it's act at least a little bit together, there may be no worries.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:14:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh goodie... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dinotrac, Praxical

        I so love the Dem strategy is 'I really hope the other guy completely fucks up'.  That's just fucking brilliant.  Yeah - our guys suck less than those guys!

        'Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost' - Ronald Reagan, Communist

        by RichM on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:53:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, that's pretty much why I'm an independent (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RichM

          voter.

          Doesn't make my choices any better, but at least I don't have to associate with some of these guys.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 11:25:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, not a good move . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      prishannah

      Here's what Orrin Hatch had to say about this this ruling, from WaPo piece, "Employers To Get An Extra Year To Implement Health Law Requirement On Coverage."

      Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, noted that the delay takes the issue past the 2014 congressional elections.

      Hatch also said the fact that the administration was not also giving individuals or families a one-year extension from coverage requirements “shows how deeply flawed the President's signature domestic policy achievement is.”

      This was a major strategic error, IMO.  Repubs will probably easily "make hay of" this move, since the ACA is not particularly popular according to the polls.

      Our company has already stated to us, the amount they would be spending--that THEY will now save.  It is several million dollars.

      But we'll still be 'on the hook,' since the same company is considering throwing us into "private exchanges" that could triple our premiums if we chose the equivalent coverage that we now have.  And there is no way, with our medical expenses, that we can "get by" on the bronze level plan that the exchange will offer.

      And we don't qualify for subsidies--so we're scr**wed.

      This  could be a complete "fiasco."

      Obviously, we are just two of tens of millions of employees of self-funded "big business" who will likely receive this treatment next year.

      Apparently, Sears was one of the first companies to sign up for the new "private exchanges."  But the notion is 'picking up steam.'  Apparently our company is "enamored of it."

      Sorry for all the clichés, this morning. ;-)

      Mollie

      "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


      hiddennplainsight

      by musiccitymollie on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:31:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  it also plays into mcconnell's hands (14+ / 0-)

    because it makes it look like it's too expensive or problematic. you start hesitating, the sharks start circling.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:20:01 AM PDT

  •  Most of the major news outlets are also trying to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TexasTom

    scare people into believing that their premiums will go up significantly, especially if you're young and healthy:

    Wall Street Journal

    MSN Money

    Forbes

    "We are made of so much more than bone or flesh. Grace, humor, compassion; these are our swords. Continue to fight, to heal, and to inspire all to do and be better than the day before." --VV

    by VeloVixen on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:20:16 AM PDT

  •  so people lose coverage opportunities (7+ / 0-)

    and the federal government loses four billion dollars, because people with three years to get ready, couldn't get ready.  Goodness knows, we wouldn't want to strain the job creators in their efforts to avoid creating jobs or benefits for ordinary people.

    •  see my comment below (0+ / 0-)

      when the deadline is fast approaching, sometimes solutions don't get fully implemented on time.  

      Employers have never had to track the hours of their salaried employees.  Temporary, part-time, exempt employees who employers would never consider offering insurance to, need to be kept under 30 hours or an employer gets hit with a fine.  If your payroll system is not set up to track those employees well and you get audited, I would be worried.  

      An extra year is fine.  It also leaves this issue alone until after the next election, which is good thing politically.  You don't have business owners angry about this going into the voting booth.

      My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. -- Senator Carl Schurz(MO-1899)

      by Adam Blomeke on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:14:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no we wouldn't want any angry (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Zack from the SFV

        big employers, the few thousands that they are compared to the millions they employ not having coverage.  

        Lack of planning on the part of large employers should not create a crisis on the part of their uninsured employees.

        •  folks will still get coverage (0+ / 0-)

          they will still have access to the exchanges.  They will still get subsidies to cover their insurance.  This has to do with making sure that employers are prepared for an audit that has some pretty huge risks for getting it wrong.  

          Yes, taxpayers will be covering a few more people for a year.  Some employers will be off the hook for another year in terms of covering employees who they should be providing coverage to, but I think its not a bad idea to give employers who want to comply and are doing so by and large a little more time to make sure that they are ready to prove that they are in compliance before they get slapped with pretty hefty fines.  $2K per employee adds up REALLY fast.  

          I also see this as a way of getting businesses on our side for a push for single payer.  If we can get them to support a change in the law that gets rid of the individual mandate AND the employer mandate by replacing it with a medicare-for-all system, that is a huge plus.  

          My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. -- Senator Carl Schurz(MO-1899)

          by Adam Blomeke on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:37:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Respectfully, this "ruling" is a gift to Repubs, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Free Jazz at High Noon

            since it paints Dems as the true friends of big business.

            And, sorry, but the ACA sealed the death warrant for MFA (or single payer).  I'm convinced of this as someone who comes from a LONG line of securities brokers, insurance brokers and CFA's (certified financial planners).

            Who's going to fight them?  A ragtag bunch of "liberals" that even the Democratic Party disdains?

            [BTW, I'm a liberal--my words are in no way meant to impune them.]

            I can almost guarantee you that if this law is fully implemented, we can forget single payer.

            I wish it weren't so, but I'm afraid that it is . . .

            Mollie

            "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


            hiddennplainsight

            by musiccitymollie on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 11:58:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Could this be about the 2014 elections? (0+ / 0-)

    Or is Obama just too skittish to do anything that might slow down job growth in some way that could be pinned more on him (he didn't seem to worry about signing the Sequester into law and that killed jobs).

    •  It could be. (0+ / 0-)

      A bad rollout of ACA would reflect poorly on his administration and, in turn, Democrats up for election.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:16:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But my understanding is that the ACA will still be (0+ / 0-)

        "rolled out" in every way--except that employers are alleviated of their "obligation" to provide health care insurance [employer mandate].

        Will try to post the articles regarding this "ruling," later.

        This does NOT means that the regular guy will not be mandated to BUY health insurance.

        Or not according to  Bloomberg, WaPo, etc.

        So, I'm not sure how this helps them "avoid" a bad rollout.  But maybe I'm missing something.

        If anything, this ruling tends to paint Dems as "friends to big business."

        Mollie

        "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


        hiddennplainsight

        by musiccitymollie on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 12:16:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Corporations are people, right? (4+ / 0-)

    So, if corporations are people and people are individuals, then how come corporations don't have to comply with a mandate the individuals have to?

    Silly me!  Corporations don't get sick.

    I want my government to be big enough to drown Grover Norquist in a bathtub.

    by sercanet on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:23:06 AM PDT

  •  Create the 'desire' to figure it out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fwdpost

    Really?  These corporate geniuses can't figure out what they have to do under the Affordable Care Act?

    If it resulted in reducing their corporate taxes I'll bet they (along with their attorneys and accountants) would already know every nuance and loophole in the law.

  •  as with all obamas promises (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zack from the SFV

    there's always a caveat included.

  •  The whole problem is ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Maverick80229

    the republicans have fought tooth and nail any and all attempts to provide the support structure necessary for the roll out of the new law.

    Never the less, Obama has given in way too easily about 95% of the time.

    Nothing changes without public pressure: public pressure doesn't happen without dissemination of knowledge and 'true' facts. Bit me FOX.

    by emsprater on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:29:52 AM PDT

  •  This Is the Administration's Own Fault (6+ / 0-)

    There are still guidelines as to how those regulations needed to be implemented that aren't even written yet.

    Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

    by TooFolkGR on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:29:53 AM PDT

    •  Give Congress an assist. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TooFolkGR

      Implementing regulations usually overwhelm the laws they implement on sheer volume of text.
      With a 2700 page law, you not only have a huge law to implement, but greater possibilities that it is internally inconsistent, etc.

      Lots of fun there for the regulators, lots of fun for people who have to learn what's expected of them and then implement it.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:18:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Now you'll have people here who are against the (0+ / 0-)

    law in the first place, commenting how terrible Obama is for this delay.... It never fails.

    I have a feeling that there will be a number of companies who will take advantage of the plan to give their workers access to healthcare, regardless.

    •  I'm not saying the delay is terrible (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dadoodaman, dinotrac

      Just the byproduct of a, mostly, terrible law.

      http://www.buonoforgovernor.com/

      by Paleo on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:46:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  most major legislation experience difficulties (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        willynel, TexasTom

        during roll-out, Social Security was criticized quite roundly, when it was first introduced. This healthcare bill, despite its hitches, will be greatly appreciated, even as improvements are made, in years to come.

        It's already paying dividends to millions of people.

        There are people on the Right and people on the Left who leap on every single hitch in the administering of this program to criticize it, because they want it to fail, fail, fail, as some had argued that the bill be killed in 2010.

        But the ACA is law of the land, and the ridicule and criticism will mean nothing in the years to come.

         

        •  Careful (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NedSparks

          You are talking sanity here.

          The fact is that this item is overblown. It is only a delay of a year.

          If you vote for Democrats in the next election, the delay ends on Jan. 1, 2015.

          Meanwhile, the jobs numbers will improve (just out today, 188,000 private sector jobs created in June) and the Republican war on women, immigrants, gay people and anyone else not rich and white and old will continue.

          Calm down.

        •  Medicare was implemented in less than a year, and (5+ / 0-)

          they didn't even have our great computers.

          •  Hear, hear, fwdpost! The ACA could have been (0+ / 0-)

            implemented sooner.

            It was lack of political will.  Maybe due to electoral politics--who knows?

            Better to delay the ACA implementation in its entirety, than to take measures to "protect" Big Business, while sticking it to the average guy.

            Wonder if this was another Jack Lew and Rob Nabors "brainchild?"  ;-)

            Mollie

            "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


            hiddennplainsight

            by musiccitymollie on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 12:30:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The original Social Security act was 64 pages. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mightymouse

          ACA is about 2700.

          Talk about making life hell for the folks who have to write the implementing regulations.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:20:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Please don't compare Baucuscare (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mightymouse, prishannah

          to social security or medicare.  Those were public programs, not private windfalls.

          http://www.buonoforgovernor.com/

          by Paleo on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:22:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You can call the ACA "Baucuscare" all you want but (0+ / 0-)

            tell the millions of people with access now to healthcare despite a pre-existing condition, tell the millions of people who can get treatment for their worsening health issues without having caps placed on their care, tell millions of people who are now beginning to get preventive care because of health clinics around the nation. That this is just "Baucuscare".

            What is that supposed to do? Make people feel ashamed for receiving the healthcare services that have eluded them for decades? Yeah, so I have a dreaded illness and I will tell doctors to keep their Obamacare because, while it was once called Obamacare as a pejorative, which totally backfired, it is now being called "Baucuscare"?

            Yeah…fat chance....

             

      •  The "delay" is a break for Big Business--not (0+ / 0-)

        the American People.

        The entire implementation should be put on hold until it is ready.  

        That's the point that many health insurance bloggers are trying to make.

        This "ruling" is simply going to further inflame many people right before the midterm elections.

        Why would anyone do this?

        Mollie

        "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


        hiddennplainsight

        by musiccitymollie on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 12:27:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  More like affirming that Congress is (2+ / 0-)

      totally clueless and corrupt and the White House is no better.  This bill was crap from the beginning because it was waaaaay too complicated.  No Congress critter has been able to explain it yet.  And this buffoonery of delaying the implementation only reinforces this fact in the public's mind.   People really aren't totally stupid.  When you can't explain something in simple language or demonstrate any capacity to execute your complicated plan people figure something is rotten somewhere.  

      •  Here you are with the same argument that the (0+ / 0-)

        Republicans have used, "Oh, the bill is too complicated!" Or "This Obamacare was written on thousands of pages, how the humanity!"

        This is a huge country with hundreds of millions of people, and institutions with various needs, why should the bill be tailored to your understanding of it?

        So, let me see.... "I don't understand the technology behind the space shuttle, therefore, let's get rid of it!"

        I've always tuned that argument out when I stumble onto Fox News, and I do it here as well....

  •  I suppose this is what happens.... (12+ / 0-)

    ...when you leave health care reform in the hands of Max Baucus.

    I hope he has a good health insurance plan for his retirement.

    -

  •  give in to blackmail once, shame on them, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paleo, sturunner, mightymouse, prishannah

    Give in to blackmail twice, shame on me.  Give in to blackmail three times,....four times.....five times:  throw them a teaparty.

  •  If it's too complicated for mployers (5+ / 0-)

    Let's just do Medicare for all. Problem olved. No more WATB restaurant franchise owners threatening to cut employee hours.

    You'd think the "geniuses" who run American bidnesses would embrace that concept but the idea of their employes getting something, even if it doesn't come off their bottom line, is just something they can't quit being sociopaths long enough to allow.

  •  And in the end (3+ / 0-)

    We have Joe Lieberman to thank for this crap. Also, shame on Obama for going sightseeing on Robben Island while interest rates on student loans double, and the job situation hasn't much improved, either. Bah.

  •  All in a good (5+ / 0-)

    six years' work.

    Glad we sacrificed the Class, Climate and Terror Wars for this.

    Let sleeping yawners lie. It's not like you can stop them. ☮ ♥ ☺

    by Words In Action on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:44:38 AM PDT

    •  You forgot jobs. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      After all, health insurance you might be able to get in the future is tons more important than supporting your family now.

      Presuming you make it to the future.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:22:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  And of course Faux news is playing this up (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse

    the hilt negatively. Surprise!!!

  •  I am actually happy about this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reginahny, DB55

    And I say that as someone who is fully supportive of the law and the employer mandate.  I work for a large employer(a private university) that offers its employees good benefits by and large, including really good health insurance options.  We have spent the last year or more working on making sure that we are prepared to be able to meet the reporting requirements of the law and even with that we are still having difficulties getting everything implemented.  

    We are still trying to get a system fully implemented to make sure we can keep track some groups of employees (adjunct faculty, for example) who are salaried, meaning that they don't track their hours.  There are complexities with our system that make determining how many hours they are working difficult to do.  It's a really small group.  Most of our faculty are tenured or tenure track, the majority of the ones that aren't are still regular faculty(not adjuncts), on multi-year contracts.  Even the Part-timers in that group receive health insurance benefits.  Only a small group of adjuncts who pretty much by definition are here for a year or less and who should only be teaching part time are at issue.

    It's taking more time than we anticipated to develop the proper audit to identify groups of people like this, and giving another year allows us the breathing room to make sure that we have the kinks worked out of the system before we get slapped with a $2000 fine per employee.  

    These folks will still get health coverage.  They still have access to the exchanges, and will still receive subsidies.  Employers just need some more time to make sure they can properly identify the employees that they need to give benefits to.  It's not as simple as it sounds.  

    Keep this provision in mind though.  It may be the real sticking point of the law that moves the ball forward on a single payer system.  Compliance with this part of the mandate is going to be difficult whenever it's implemented. Salaried, exempt employees have generally not had to track their hours before, and now they're going to have to.  That's a big shift for that group, and keeping track of them is going to be difficult for some employers.  Particularly if their payroll systems aren't designed to handle them well.  

    If we can get employers on our side in favor of a single payer system, we would have a much easier time making this law BETTER.

    My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. -- Senator Carl Schurz(MO-1899)

    by Adam Blomeke on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:48:15 AM PDT

    •  You say (0+ / 0-)
      "These folks will still get health coverage.  They still have access to the exchanges, and will still receive subsidies."
      Than you must know something that the Roosevelt Institute doesn't, LOL!  (Just kiddling!)

      But here's a link to a piece entitled "Will Delaying the Employer Mandate Deny Health Coverage to Workers?"

      The author, Richard Kirsch, is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.  I believe that he also posted this piece here at DKos.  You might want to read this.

      This is a very serious mistake, politically.

      Not only does it bring the issue of the availability of subsidies into question for 2014 (according to the Roosevelt Institute), it makes Dems look like they are even more in the pocket of Big Business (especially the insurance industry), than they already appeared to many people.

      Whereas it may work out well for you, it definitely will NOT be helpful to many individuals who are insured in private industry under group health plans.  (And I'm NOT referring to those who are insured under "Cadillac Health Plans."  They obviously benefit from this delay.)

      I'm talking about those individuals whose companies are planning to discontinue their own health insurance plans, and throw their employees into so-called "public health exchanges."  Apparently Sears is among several major corporations which are opting to dump their employees into one of these "exchanges.  

      Bottom Line:  The "lack of uniformity of benefits" in this bill is what will give Repubs the fuel they need to discredit the ACA.

      And it sounds like this new ruling has only exacerbated the situation.

      Medicare-For-All "gives equal treatment to the Boardroom CEO and the custodian."

      The ACA does just the opposite.

      Mollie

      "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


      hiddennplainsight

      by musiccitymollie on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 03:10:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Another Big Business (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dadoodaman, fwdpost

    lobbyists win.

    Go Blues!

    I didn't abandon the fight, I abandoned the Party that abandoned the fight...

    by Jazzenterprises on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:50:35 AM PDT

  •  Too bad he didn't delay the push for the law (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dinotrac, mightymouse

    to begin with.  Until the economy had righted itself.  Might still have a Democratic house.

    http://www.buonoforgovernor.com/

    by Paleo on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:52:22 AM PDT

  •  Political malpractice. Idiocy. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zack from the SFV, prishannah

    The Dems would be better off going into the November 2014 elections with millions of low-wage workers already getting health insurance for the first time.

    Instead we'll go into the 2014 elections still fighting the GOP's boogeyman of the coming employer/jobs apocalypse.

    What Obama should be saying, personally, preferably at a well-publicized press conference:

    Large employers have known about this deadline since I signed the ACA into law in March 2010. Nearly 4 years of time to prepare was plenty. And large employers have been enjoying several years of record profits, so they can certainly afford to share those profits with their employees, whose wages have been stagnant. On the employer mandate: full speed ahead.

    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

    by HeyMikey on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:02:06 AM PDT

    •  What makes you think millions won't get healthcare (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      reginahny

      In CA, the exchanges are ready to go and they look pretty good.

      This will also happen right here in Minnesota. Wisconsinites will look over here and go, "Hey, that's not bad."

      The exchanges will show more people how this will work.

      Good luck getting rid of the exchanges once they are in place. Just like Social Security.

      •  Millions won't get healthcare because... (0+ / 0-)

        ...see my other comment, "One-third right. The real problem."

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:34:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Everyone needs to calm down. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reginahny

    CNN Money did a breakdown of exactly how many businesses would actually be impacted by this and they found that it was fewer than 1% of all small businesses. Delaying this has a very small effect on the overall law.

    The overblown Obamacare myth about small business.

    This was a political move put in place by Democrats who didn't want to deal with fighting this issue during the 2014 election. Wimpy? Yes, but not the worst tactic.

    Look at the anti-woman's crusade going on Texas, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Maine and Wisconsin. Look at the numbers for the governors there. Most of them suck.

    This is a move to get out of the Republicans way towards self-destruction.

    I have a bad feeling that the House Republicans are going to do everything they can to scuttle the immigration bill. If they do, then Latinos are going to go nuts.

    Meanwhile, most economists are looking very positively at 2014 (meaning more jobs, just look at today's ADP report and this weeks jobless claims).

    They are making more people angry by the day. It is our job to help harness that anger and get more and better Democrats and Lefties in Congress and in state legislatures. Look at California's exchange for crying out loud. People are going to want that. (I have read a lot of posts from people who are happy to be living in CA right now.)

    Rome wasn't built in a day, people.

  •  It often happens (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reginahny

    that the regulatory framework necessary to made a complicated law work gets bogged down in rule-making.  It is not surprising that the IRS is using its regulatory authority to provide relief, since there are no final regulations yet for the employer penalties.  The IRS had already announced that it would be enforcing any penalties with a "light touch" during the implementation phase.

    "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

    by Old Left Good Left on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:20:17 AM PDT

  •  This is a disaster politically. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zqxj, prishannah

    Whatever you may say about the merits on the ground, this has terrible optics.

    And obviously there are some legal questions about just ignoring the law.

    The first rule of government should be "Do no harm." The urge to act can frustrate the desire to help.

    by Common Cents on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:24:39 AM PDT

  •  The Mighty Dem Leadership Pulled (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    prishannah

    Another CAVE and Screwed the Base A-FKG-GAIN.......

    Oh, fk 'em.  They've become just another Corporate Arm--I mean for shit sake! This administration just ceded to them the Whole Argument....Sending the message that The GOP has been Correct All Along..

  •  This is the WH's latest plan to guarantee (0+ / 0-)

    the Rethugs take back the Senate.
    Obama has to have a Rethug Senate to kill off Social Security, Medicare and public education

  •  How many pieces of a Rube-Goldberg contraption (0+ / 0-)

    can you leave out and still expect it to function?

  •  Gas of the fire (0+ / 0-)

    Why do this, the right wing dings already hate this great opportunity for free health care for anyone living in the country.  Moving back the date when it begins onl makes us look lik we are hiding o scared.  I urge the president and alll of our legally elected democratic offices holders in DC o re think this date change.  Lets get this program started sooner not later

  •  Yep. It starts. The folks in the states (0+ / 0-)

    without expanded Medicaid are in big trouble. Still have the requirement, can't afford insurance, can't get help and subject to penalties.

    "Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do..... Go back to your command, and try to think what are we going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do." Grant

    by shigeru on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 11:27:40 AM PDT

  •  Is it any coincidence (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Free Jazz at High Noon

    That the delay is after the mid-term elections?

    The curse of the second term --

    Gun Bill -- Fail
    Farm Bill -- Fail
    Immigration Bill -- Going down in flames

    Does Obama think he can travel the world, criss cross the country to attend fundraisers and when he returns to Washington, these bills would be sitting on his desk awaiting his signature?

  •  naija liberal in need of your votes... (0+ / 0-)

    i hope markos doesn't kick me out of daily kos for this... but I need your help guys! please vote for me for the Etisalat GeekForce competition. If I win i'd get a job with good pay, health benefits and a pension plan... which is a big f**king deal to me

     My name is Tajinere Sagay

    http://etisalatgeekforce.tumblr.com/

     Appreciate the favour. Thanks a lot

  •  What I see is (0+ / 0-)

    Obama administration taking away the excuses that businesses such as restaurant and retail chains are using to complain about the mandate.

    If there is no mandate for now - what reason do these chains and other business have to reduce or keep hourly employees under the 'full time threshold'? If there is no $2000 per employee fine, what can the companies complain about? NOTHING.

    The majority of large business already provide health insurance. This waiver seems to affect mostly lower wage jobs such as retailers and restaurants that already deny coverage. This waiver will ALLOW all these employees to access the health exchanges where MOST will be highly subsidized anyway and a good number still qualifying for Medicaid.

    Getting people insured with access to actual healthcare is the point of ACA- if some dirt-bag business like Papa Johns are going to get year to avoid paying a $2000 fine- so be it. As long as their low wage workers get medical coverage I'm okay with the delay.

    FORWARD! Obama/Biden 2012

    by Esjaydee on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:00:38 PM PDT

  •  So what about the individual mandate? (0+ / 0-)

    What a mess. As i read it, individuals are only supposed to be eligible for ObamaCare's subsidies if their employer doesn't offer  benefits. So how will they know who qualifies if they don't know what businesses are supposed to provide? Individuals are supposed to pay a mandate-tax if they decline coverage from their employer. How in the world will the government verify this? What a mess.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site