Skip to main content

U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks alongside Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (R) and other Americans the White House says will benefit from the opening of health insurance marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act, in the Rose Garden
Employers with more than 50 full-time workers will have another year before being subject to penalties for not providing health insurance. The Treasury Department released the next batch of rules for the law Monday, including this delay. It's the second delay of the penalties, which were to be implemented this year. Here are the changes:
1. Employers with between 50 to 99 employees get another year of transition. The Obama administration will give medium-sized businesses another year's pass on providing insurance coverage to workers. Treasury estimates that about 2 percent of American businesses fall into this category, but does not have numbers on how many people work for businesses of this size. For these companies, the employer mandate does not take effect until 2016. [...]

2. Employers with 100 or more workers aren't required to cover everyone. Previous regulations had required large employers to offer coverage to 95 percent of full-time employees to be considered in compliance with the employer mandate. Today, Treasury is ratcheting that requirement back: Large companies that offer coverage to 70 percent of their employees will be counted as fulfilling the employer mandate. This is a transitional measure and, by 2016, large employers will need to hit the original, 95 percent target. Treasury estimates another 2 percent of American businesses fall into this category, with more than 100 employees, but again, we don't have numbers on how many workers those companies employ.

3. Volunteers won't be counted as full-time employees. There had been some tussling on Capitol Hill over whether certain volunteers—mostly volunteer firefighters—would count as full-time employees, for purposes of the health care law. Today's rule clarifies that they do not count as employees—which eliminates any incentives to get rid of volunteer positions.

Just a reminder when the Republicans start screaming about the administration willy-nilly changing this law—the employer mandate was one of the things they were trying to get rid of entirely in their government shutdown fight. Republicans hate it. They think it shouldn't exist. They'll very soon be gnashing their teeth and rending their garments over this delay. It's what they do.

The other thing to keep in mind is that this will not have much impact for American businesses, as almost all large employers—something like 95 percent of them—already offer insurance to their employees.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 01:46 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

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

  •  Tip Jar (20+ / 0-)

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 01:46:21 PM PST

  •  Will this law ever kick in fully? (22+ / 0-)

    For cripes sakes.. It's been 5 years since the law was passed.   Stop playing political games with this, Mr. President.  It's time for the law to be enforced.  Fully. Period.

    What I DO agree with is:  3. Volunteers won't be counted as full-time employees.

    That was an oversight that needed correcting!

    •  I think, then, that the volunteer firefighters (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FiredUpInCA, schnecke21

      and the like need some other protection.  Maybe they still have to buy their own health insurance, but they're putting their lives on the line for their community.  They should be demanding and receiving something for going above and beyond the rest of their community.

      •  Please look up "volunteer". They might request (0+ / 0-)

        some help with their premiums, but since they are force to buy insurance anyway ...

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:51:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Relying upon "volunteers" is relying upon (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          enhydra lutris

          others to be selfless and sacrificing, in some cases there's no reciprocation.  Serving on an HOA board, I understand plenty of people are willing to let others do the hard work and take advantage of the civic minded nature.  

          •  Having put in plenty beaucoups tons of (0+ / 0-)

            volunteer hours, I'm just pointing out that if I get compensated I'm not a volunteer and, if am a living breathing human living in the US, I have to go get me some insurance on my own (mandate) anyway.

            That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

            by enhydra lutris on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 07:07:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm feeling a bit more like a sucker because (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              enhydra lutris

              "somebody's got to do it" and I'm not ready to let it go undone.  Yet.

              I'm also feeling very angry at that Arizona firefighting team that got burned up being denied what I consider their due by the people they sacrificed their lives for.

    •  I've a feeling (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      orestes1963

      that it won't.  Not because Obama keeps changing dates but eventually a GOP member will be in the White House and whoa nelly, executive orders will fly.

  •  "Mandate" (6+ / 0-)

    Today's lesson about words not meaning what you think they mean in politics.

    Look, I tried to be reasonable...

    by campionrules on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:02:52 PM PST

  •  This will be painted as a blatantly (19+ / 0-)

    political move by the President to try to delay the impact on small businesses until after the midterms.  

    And it will give fuel to the notion that the President just changes laws passed by Congress if he doesn't like them.  There's nothing in the law passed by Congress that gives the administration leeway on when these things are supposed to be implemented.  The law sets out when the employer mandate was to go into effect.  It doesn't give the Administration options to keep delaying it.  

    I think that if the President keeps doing this -- there are rumors that he's going to let you "keep your plan" even if it doesn't comply with the ACA for another 3 years, to get past 2016 -- it will damage his credibility even more than if he just allowed things to go into effect when the law mandates it and dealt with it now.  

    •  The White House should head off this criticism (6+ / 0-)

      by making public the legal basis for why they have the power to delay these taxes on companies that do not comply with ACA.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:23:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  nextstep - I would really like to see a memorandum (6+ / 0-)

        from the White House Office of Legal Counsel on the issue of the executive branch rolling back these ACA mandates. Maybe Congress will require one be sent. More than anything else I am just curious and would like to follow their legal reasoning.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:21:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'll take this all a step further: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, ffour, harvarddem

          This will be the final nail in our 2014 election coffin.

          This is THE signature legislation for the Democratic Party...and it has been a complete clusterf**k from the word go.

          The website was (and continues to be) a headache.

          Mandates for businesses rolled back...not once, but twice.

          People losing their health insurance.

          People getting hours cut.

          People losing their jobs.

          At some point, pointing fingers at Republicans, businesses and insurance companies stops working. We are more or less at that point right now.

          Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

          by Love Me Slender on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 06:05:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  they have non. (0+ / 0-)

        Or else they're not as bright as people here.

      •  If it's the same as the previous extension (0+ / 0-)

        then the rationale is that the ACA delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury the task of promulgating regulations on reporting.  Since the IRS cannot properly collect the employer penalty without a comprehensive reporting regime in place, it can delay full implementation of the penalty until such time as the reporting regulations become effective.

        Such things happen all the time in the tax world.  There are any number of transitional rules, amnesties, and partial amnesties going on at any given time, but they only work where the Treasury has regulatory discretion.

        Note that the individual penalty provision was drafted in a way that does not give the IRS discretion to delay implementation, which is why there is no corresponding relief for individuals.

        "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 Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 06:54:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The mandate still exists for companies > 100 (0+ / 0-)

          employees.  So your explanation does not appear to work, as all companies with more than 50 employees are treated the same under ACA law.  So if the IRS is ready to go with companies with more than 100 employees, they are ready to do companies with more than 50 but less than 101.

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 10:00:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Not just the legal basis but a "reason" (0+ / 0-)

        It was announced without any reason at all? Unfortunately it appears to be due to business complaints and the implication is that many many more will move to PT employees to escape the mandate. Thus a move to after the elections. That is so cynical and will certainly be used against Democrats in the mid terms.  Really? This is all we got? Thanks guys.

    •  One short week after Boehner claims (8+ / 0-)

      that the President can't be trusted to enforce the laws.. he proves them correct?  Geeeeeez!

      Another way it damages credibility...  The White House and Congressional Dems have recently started claiming (rightfully so in some cases) that ACA is working.  If it's working, why keep changing it and delaying it?  It is a blatant reaction to complaints from Senators in tough races this Fall.

    •  Open up Medicare (6+ / 0-)

      Let them buy into it.  Most will jump at the chance. Younger, healthier people will help sustain Medicare and lower overall costs.

      Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

      by Betty Pinson on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:42:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Democrats will never let that happen (5+ / 0-)

        Their corporate bosses won't allow it.

      •  Betty - only if Medicare insured them at a profit (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WillR, OrganicChemist

        We subsidize people over 65 at the rate of about 80% when they are enrolled in Medicare. Even with a tax on all incomes in the US the program isn't financially stable with just people over 65 enrolled. We would have to not provide any subsidy to those under 65, and provide insurance at a actual profit for those under 65, for it to make SocSec more secure for those already in the program.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:30:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I simply don't get Medicare for all... (0+ / 0-)

          The folks here that insist that Medicare for all is the solution simply don't understand or ignore the financial reality behind this. I think they truly feel that the current Medicare system pays for itself. Medicare for all would require either massive tax hikes, a premium rate of many, many times the current rate or a combination of both. Otherwise, the program would go bust in a year or so or require massive - insert Carl Sagan quote here - "Billions and billions" of dollars subsidy every single year to stay afloat. We are talking really large numbers here.

          •  OC - of course you are right (0+ / 0-)

            but I think many here use Medicare for all as a shorthand for single payer. But no one ever presents a comprehensive financing program to fund Medicare for all. Medicare just for people over 65 is funded by every person working in the US and it's still in financial jeopardy. The default seems to be let the rich pay, which is fine but isn't politically feasible.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:32:20 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  The thing that irks me... (8+ / 0-)

      Is that with the individual mandate, it was full steam ahead, no delays!  (And then, what, an eventual 3 month delay?)  And that's for the currently uninsured.  In other words, the have-nots in society.  But Medicaid gap or not, there's no stopping the individual mandate train.  

      But if you're a business with 50 employees, slow down, slow down!  50 employees isn't a mom-and-pop operation.  95 employees is not a lemonade stand.  You're capable of shopping for group health insurance.  Why don't you?

      The equities stink.  

      •  It's just a phase in...not a change in policy. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bufffan20, willynel
        •  The sole remaining enforced mandate is that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          orestes1963

          for individuals. That is a change in policy. What may or may not happen down the road is simething else. Maybe they'll restore these mandates, or maybe they'll renew them.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

          by enhydra lutris on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:56:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The goal is to save jobs for workers who might (0+ / 0-)

            otherwise be laid off without the phase in.

            •  No, the goal, from the beginning, has been to (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MPociask

              force everyone to obtain medical care only through insurance and to further force everyone to obtain it while ensuring that there will be no importation or reimportation of drugs and that medicare won't be allowed to negotiae prices.  The goal is to make everyone dependent upon and required to be dependent upon insurance companies.

              A subsidiary goal, oft mentioned in the early days of the ACA discussin was decoupling said (mandatory) insurance from employment.

              That first goal isn't really furthered by the employer mandates, and they directly contradict the second.

              If we give them a further extentin, the employees will all or almost all have insureance through the exchanges or otherwise when the next year rolls around, so they can begin to seriously either try to repeal the employer mandate or create a loophole by making it apply only to those who don't already have insurance. That makes all the "job creators" happy.

              That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

              by enhydra lutris on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 08:12:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  That's lovely spin...and you weave it so artfully (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          orestes1963, MPociask

          It is selective, preferential treatment being given to businesses while many hard-working Americans are forced to purchase health insurance.

          Sorry...but CHOOSING to disregard certain aspects of a law is a drastic CHANGE IN POLICY.

          Unacceptable, in my view...a view we will get to know this fall during the midterms when we get our asses handed to us after this absolute clusterf**k of a handling of the party's signature legislation.

          Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

          by Love Me Slender on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 06:01:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The political issue is not having stories of (0+ / 0-)

        employees having their hours cut due to ACA be as prevalent in the November Congressional election, as this could hurt Democrats.

        This is a far more important political factor than the impact on small business owners.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:46:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thank yo for beating me to the punch. (0+ / 0-)

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:55:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  And rightfully so. (5+ / 0-)
      This will be painted as a blatantly political move by the President to try to delay the impact on small businesses until after the midterms.  

      “Most people are willing to take the Sermon on the Mount as a flag to sail under, but few will use it as a rudder by which to steer.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

      by SpamNunn on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:48:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I expect to see an "equal protection" claim (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, Mr Robert

      against this action coming.  ACA make a distinction between companies of 50 or fewer full time equivalent employees and those that have more.  There are no other distinctions in companies by number of employees.

      In the next few weeks I expect to see a suit against ACA by a company with more than 100 employees challenging being treated differently than a company with fewer than 100 but more than 50 employees.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 03:15:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Indeed (8+ / 0-)

      What is to prevent a future Republican President from dismantling the law altogether by simply choosing to not enforce key provisions?

      After all, the precedent is being set by the President who signed the ACA into law in the first place.

      Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

      by Pi Li on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:26:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bigger political reason is reduced employee hours (0+ / 0-)

      Current full time employees at risk of having their hours reduced below 30 hours/week or less are heavily represented in companies with 51 to 100 full time equivalent (FTE) employees.  This is because their is no employer healthcare requirement for those with less than 50 FTE employees, so none of these employees are at risk.

      Employees working at companies with between 51 and 100 employees are at risk.

      Having stories in the press and word of mouth that the hours of low income employees are being reduced due to ACA could do real damage to Democrats in Congressional elections this year.

      The politics of ACAs impact on employees is far more important than its impact on small business owners.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:42:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  His credibility is already pretty damn damaged (0+ / 0-)

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:52:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He really doesn't have to care about his (0+ / 0-)

      credibility.  He's not running any more.  And, unless delaying part of a law -- and that delay having an totally insignificant impact -- is grounds for impeachment, which it isn't, it's irrelevant.

      And any Democratic candidate running in 2016 only has to say, "I didn't agree with the President about delaying the implementation of the ACA."

      End of issue.

      Republicans lie like they breathe and we're the ones tying ourselves up in knots about trivia.  Stop worrying about stuff that doesn't impact people and won't be an issue in the next election.

  •  OK but WTF (5+ / 0-)

    It's not like compliance would pose any great big fat surprise after all this time. WTF?

  •  Ah. Time for me to turn off the tv, log out the (9+ / 0-)

    computer, stop listening to the radio. . . . I'm feeling my Cynicism Index passing into the red zone.

    Time to chill and wait for optimism to return.

    Not this decision per se, just not up for the battle.  Cya all in a day or two.  :-)

    Hard to have a government when one-third of your representatives are insane and the other two-thirds have been sold to the highest bidder.

    by Rikon Snow on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:19:56 PM PST

  •  I am shocked! Shocked! (8+ / 0-)

    That this delay will mean that the mid term elections will occur before any impact on small businesses. It's not like they had 4 years or so to implement the law and prepare.

    Look, I tried to be reasonable...

    by campionrules on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:21:03 PM PST

  •  This really puts the employees in a bind (5+ / 0-)

    Those who make somewhat decent money don't get the subsidies and ACA is pricy without them.

  •  When I first heard on radio today (7+ / 0-)

    the spin sounded terrible. And I had to shake my head in disbelief that we were delaying ACA yet again. But, the details you provide doesn't sound like a big deal, unless I'm reading it wrong.

    KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

    by fcvaguy on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:22:07 PM PST

  •  I guess I just don't understand (17+ / 0-)

    this administration.  Where's the backbone in moving forward on behalf of the PEOPLE?  When will a true liberal progressive show up in DC?  I'm guessing never since all politicians seem to be bought and paid for.  Sure Warren and Sanders fight the good fight, but they are two people, who seem to be the only ones not bought and paid for.  I'm tired of the BS this administration keeps blowing.  I will support him, since he is better than any GOP person, but who will take his place?  Hillary?  She's worse, to me.  We need someone who refuses to be bought and paid for.  I thought Obama was one of those in 2008, but the corporations and bankers got to him and are still appear to have him in their back pockets.  Sad for America.  We must demand better.

    If you acknowledge it, you can change it.

    by Raggedy Ann on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:22:27 PM PST

  •  i watched this man (6+ / 0-)

    fight like hell in two election cycles but in between the fight is basically gone out of him & imo he has let his supporters down time and time again.

  •  Aka Tweeking. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JJ In Illinois

    I think that things will end badly.

    by cosette on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:25:46 PM PST

  •  What annoys me (16+ / 0-)

    Yes, the impact will be small. However, PPACA was passed in March 2010. There is just no reason to delay implementation even more than it's already been delayed. Businesses had ample time to prepare for the upcoming change. If they didn't, that's just too bad for them.

    And the politics of it are bad. He shows that he's not fully committed to the law that he touts as his signature achievement.

    When business wants a change to PPACA, Obama obliges. When labor wants a change, Obama tells them to shut up.

  •  These fixes could be done with Congress (4+ / 0-)

    if the GOP had any interest in fixing it.  When Part D passed, Democrats didn't support it, but afterward they cooperated to fix it.

    "We lost the policy fight, and what did we do?” asked Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), at a hearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. “We went back to our districts and we told our seniors although we voted no, we … will work with the Bush administration to make it work,” Pascrell added.

    “And how many of you stood up to do that” for the ACA, Pascrell asked his GOP colleagues. “None. Zero. Zero.”"

  •  reaganomic capitalists (4+ / 0-)


    All this surrounding the ACA mandate, had some four years to prepare and like the insurance companies who kept scamming policy holders by selling crap policies they knew would need to be cancelled many of these businesses and corporations are showing they can Not make timely decisions while stagnating their workers wages and benefits and reaping huge bottom lines with ever growing exec compensation!!

    And they're called the best of the best, what do they do to actually earn them multi millions!!!

    "If military action is worth our troops' blood, it should be worth our treasure, too; not just in the abstract, but in the form of a specific ante by every American." -Andrew Rosenthal 10 Feb. 2013

    by jimstaro on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:34:02 PM PST

    •  Sadly, all avoidable (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jimstaro, enhydra lutris, TracieLynn

      These problems were anticipated and discussed when ACA was being written in Congress.

      Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

      by Betty Pinson on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:40:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yup (0+ / 0-)

        But todays MBA's running the business models don't hear anything but rising or falling profit speak and react!!

        "If military action is worth our troops' blood, it should be worth our treasure, too; not just in the abstract, but in the form of a specific ante by every American." -Andrew Rosenthal 10 Feb. 2013

        by jimstaro on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:44:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And DC Dems were too afraid (5+ / 0-)

          to go against the health and insurance industry lobbyists in favor of passing a smarter, sustainable plan.

          Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

          by Betty Pinson on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:48:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  True, very true (4+ / 0-)

            But none of what's been going on since roll out, everyone knew was coming and when, has to do with the ACA, including the recent about insurance companies canceling what was already ok'd coverage, just a couple of days ago, as they found a loop hole to try.

            Even the roll out fiasco, the companies involved in building the site saw All of their stock rise in the days following.

            This like the NSA and National Security firms is about the privatizing of the government which ends up costing All of us tons more, just like not fully funding agencies and doing constant catch up or rebuilds of what they're charged to accomplish. That gives even bigger profits, our money, to the private sector. Reason they exist is to feed off the public treasury, only reason!!

            "If military action is worth our troops' blood, it should be worth our treasure, too; not just in the abstract, but in the form of a specific ante by every American." -Andrew Rosenthal 10 Feb. 2013

            by jimstaro on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:57:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  But we knew (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              orestes1963, enhydra lutris

              that employers & insurance companies were going to pull stunts and try to game the new system.  We knew that, in spite of everything else, some employers would still refuse to insure employees and would spend a ton of money squawking about how ACA is killing them, etc.  

              Everyone knew the dirty tricks that were likely to be pulled and tried to design a system that was more consumer focused, that would allow people to move to an affordable plan if their employers or insurance companies tried these tricks.  That's one of the reasons why we wanted a national level public option - it could have been used as a safety valve with strong buying power in the insurance market to move people into insurance coverage when employers started screwing with ACA.

              Most of those safety valves got dismantled before passage of ACA and more weakened during rule-making.

              (Cue John Belushi) But Noooooo!  We had to do it this way!

              Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

              by Betty Pinson on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 03:09:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Point being missed (4+ / 0-)


                This is much more then about the ACA!!

                It's about how the businesses in this country are now run and done so for the past some thirty years as it built to this!!!!

                "If military action is worth our troops' blood, it should be worth our treasure, too; not just in the abstract, but in the form of a specific ante by every American." -Andrew Rosenthal 10 Feb. 2013

                by jimstaro on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 03:24:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Who thought this out? (8+ / 0-)

    This is becoming a circle jerk.  There is just no other way to put it.  With things like this happening, it just gives the repubs more and more ammunition.  Sure, I know there is already rhetoric and spin developed to try to counter what the repubs are saying about one more glitch in this law, but really, everyone?  Really?

    What a tragedy.

  •  It will make Wall Street happy (9+ / 0-)

    but it will seriously undermine ACA and its ability to bend the cost curve and become sustainable.

    At this point, it looks like we may have to find a way to migrate even more people from employer-based coverage to ACA in a way that they can still afford it.

    If we had the buying power and centralized processing/administration of a Public Option, this would be much easier to do.  Ok, I won't say I told you so.

    Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

    by Betty Pinson on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:38:56 PM PST

    •  I'll say it: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jazzenterprises, hmi

      I told you so... over and over and over and over again, as did many other people for several months.

      Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

      by gooderservice on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:53:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I take no pleasure (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gooderservice

        in being right. Seriously, I don't, because it just means many, many people are still uninsured.

        Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

        by Betty Pinson on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 03:16:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I did not vote for Obama (0+ / 0-)

        because I thought he was the best man we could ever have as president and because I was confident he would do the rght thing all the time.

        I voted for him because he was the best man running a viable campaign and because I was confident he would do the right thing more than his opponent.

        It is sad that this is what our political system has come to. Even with all that Obama has done wrong in my view, I would still not change my vote or take back my donations because the other guy and the other party is so much worse (they really are NOT the same, no matter what some naive people claim).

        It is depressing to vote time and again for someone who lies, disappoints, and forgets who he works for, yet realizing the alternative is even worse. It seems like having to choose between having your leg amputated or death. Neither one is the ideal option, but at least you have a chance of coming through one of them and finding happiness again. Or having to choose between getting your other leg amputated and death.

        **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

        by CatM on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:31:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thinking most workers prefer their own freedom (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Betty Pinson

      along with individual plans, rather than depend on small time employers.

      The big hurt is lack of Medicaid expansion in some states.

    •  Not really, large employers already offer health (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      coverage anyway.

    •  Wall Street has little to do with 51 to 100 people (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      companies.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:51:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It affects franchises (0+ / 0-)

        and that ultimately affects the profits of the home office.

        More expensive to open new franchises and expand chains, pressure from franchise owners, some may even close, many will probably lay off employees, service suffers, etc.  

        They've been bellyaching about it on Capitol Hill for the last couple of years.

        Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

        by Betty Pinson on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 06:26:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Betty - why would it make Wall St happy? (0+ / 0-)

      To Wall St companies with fewer than 100 employees are not even visible (with a few rare exceptions).

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:55:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Profits high (0+ / 0-)

        Having to postpone providing health care coverage for their employees means more profits.  That's all that matters to Wall Street.

        Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

        by Betty Pinson on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 06:18:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But profits to private companies who don't (0+ / 0-)

          have stock traded in the public markets and are therefore under the radar. They really don't see or care about companies that small. Given the size of the companies involved this isn't an issue that Wall St cares about.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 06:32:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So why have the restaurant chains (0+ / 0-)

            been raising so much hell over it?

            McDonald’s estimates that each restaurant will incur between $10,000 and $30,000 in added annual costs, Bensen said in response to an analyst’s question on a conference call to discuss the fast-food giant’s second-quarter results, according to an unedited transcript of the call provided by FactSet. There are about 14,000 McDonald’s restaurants in the U.S., meaning McDonald’s expects the total cost to the company and its franchisees to be in the range of $140 million to $420 million.
            Link

            Dunkin Donuts/Baskin Robbins

            Dunkin', which operates the Dunkin' Donuts and Baskin-Robbins chains, has been active in lobbying over the mandate. Travis believes that rushing to implement the health law would hurt business and the overall economy.

            Hiring is a big issue for Dunkin' Brands as it makes a push to establish Dunkin' Donuts franchises in Southern California by 2015. On Thursday it announced multi-unit store development agreements with four franchise groups in the area.

            National Restaurant Assn. loves the new delay

            From their exuberant press release today about the delay:

            “We thank the Treasury Department for working with us and the Employers for Flexibility in Health Care Coalition to provide flexibility in the rule for employers with variable hour workforces.......The NRA has provided comments and met with Administration officials throughout the ACA’s regulatory process, and was instrumental in the Obama Administration’s July 2013 decision to originally provide transition relief for the ACA’s employer-mandate penalties and some reporting requirements until 2015.
            Emphasis mine

            Yeah, its going to take the billion dollar restaurant chains 5 years to get their paperwork ready.  

            P.S. The NRA will still give most of their donations to Republicans.

            The NRA/retail/etc lobbying group is Employers for Flexibility in Health Care.

            Key leaders in the above group

            Executive Committee

                Aetna
                American Staffing Association
                Food Marketing Institute
                National Restaurant Association
                Retail Industry Leaders Association*

            Steering Committee

                7-Eleven
                Allegis Group
                American Hotel & Lodging Association
                Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.
                Associated General Contractors of America
                Gap, Inc.
                International Franchise Association
                Kelly Services
                ManpowerGroup
                National Association of Convenience Stores
                National Association of Health Underwriters
                National Association of Home Builders
                National Grocers Association
                National Retail Federation
                Publix Super Markets, Inc.
                Randstad US
                Regis Corporation
                Robert Half International, Inc.
                Society of American Florists
                UPS
                Visiting Angels

            I can add some more evidence, if you want.

            Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

            by Betty Pinson on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 07:03:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  employee count (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gooderservice, Eric Nelson

    50 to 99 employees is 2 percent.

    More than 100 is 2 percent.

    Fewer than 50 employees would be the remaining 96 percent of businesses?

  •  We just can't trust this President!!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    akmk

    ....faints on the couch....

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness

    by CTMET on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:43:09 PM PST

  •  Great. Another two weeks of trying to explain (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bufffan20

    to wingnuts the difference between law and regulation.

    Show me where in the statute the law requires the employer mandate to take effect on a specific date.

    Anyone?

    Anyone?

    Bueller?

    •  By this reasoning (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, TracieLynn

      any republican president can suspend implementation by whim.  Be mindful of the implications of your argument.

      •  Yes, that's true, to the extent the statute grants (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bufffan20, orestes1963

        the Department of Health and Human Services discretion to implement the law. And this statute grants a lot of discretion. Read the statute and count how many times the phrase "The Secretary shall...." or "The Department of Health and Human Services shall...." and so forth.

        The only point here is that the President (and DHHS, and the Secretary) is not "changing the law," because there's no section of the statute that has to be changed.

    •  We have to get enough people enrolled (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      orestes1963

      in one plan or another within a certain period of time to start having a positive effect on cutting health care costs.  Uninsured and under-insured (junk plans) people cause health care costs to skyrocket as the cost of treating them gets passed on to insured people.

      ACA has to reverse that trend in order to bring down overall health care costs.  Higher health care costs for insured people get shifted to the federal government through the subsidies it pays for lower income people enrolled in the exchange plans.  ACA has to keep health care & insurance costs down because ACA is supposed to begin paying for itself in a certain number of years.  The longer we have more uninsured and underinsured people in the system, the longer ACA runs a deficit.

      Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

      by Betty Pinson on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:59:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Section 1513 - Shared Responsibility for Employers (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Betty Pinson, MPociask

      includes:

      (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to periods beginning after December 31, 2013.
      So literal reading says that the law can't be applied before January 1, 2014. But doesn't require it to ever be applied. Kind of weird wording.
      •  No statute does that. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bufffan20, MPociask

        Statutes generally have an effective date but implementation and administration are usually left to the discretion of the relevant Executive Branch agency, in this case the Department of Health and Human Services.

        This statute in particular gives DHHS a lot of power and a lot of discretion. Read the statute sometime and note how many times the phrases "the Secretary shall...." or "the Department shall..." or "Health and Human Services shall...." and so forth, appear.

    •  It would have to state that date somewhere in (0+ / 0-)

      the 15,000 pages.  Otherwise could an administration not just change the regulation to read not to be enforced for another 100 years.

  •  Why ?!?! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gooderservice, cfm, Jazzenterprises

    I am so annoyed with Democrats these days... Can you please stick to your OWN plans?  

  •  The law is the law, except when it's not. (4+ / 0-)

    Please.

    “Most people are willing to take the Sermon on the Mount as a flag to sail under, but few will use it as a rudder by which to steer.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

    by SpamNunn on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:47:50 PM PST

  •  What is the reason for the delay this time? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA

    I thought the original delay was to keep employers happy and give them another year to implement the changes.  

  •  As a former On Call Firefigher I never (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Betty Pinson

    thought that they should be covered under the ACA. If I got hurt while working as a FF, the township would pay the bills. If I had an illness not related to being in the Fire/Rescue service it was up to me and my full time employer.

  •  Mandates are only for little people (11+ / 0-)

    not corporate citizens.

    Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

    by The Dead Man on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:50:40 PM PST

  •  The outrage won't be false, it will be real. (9+ / 0-)

    Granted, republicans will use it as "false outrage," but reall people are getting hurt.  The latter is what is important.

    Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

    by gooderservice on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:51:33 PM PST

  •  Forever Liars (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bufffan20, Eric Nelson

    False outrage, smoke and mirrors , and outright lying is the only platform the GOP has. I'm tired of their mock concern for the American people when all they really want to do is harm us at every turn.

  •  False republican outrage? (9+ / 0-)

    what about the righteous outrage of the citizens?  Mandates for the people, but not the corporations.  Yeah, that's false outrage.  This admin can't even deliver its "starter house," what hope is there of this sytem ever getting better?  But at least the insurance companies get to line their pockets.  False outrage, my ass.

  •  Another (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask, orestes1963, VClib

    Brainbuster, a morale buster for democratic party...

    Lets cater to the one who have some wiggle room and never budge on the the people who can't afford it, when their state denys to expand or takes a home..

    I will leave for my weeping rant... for those who are going to go without now and for this society.

    Too damn much!

  •  Why is there even an employer mandate? i think (0+ / 0-)

    it was Olympia Snowe's idea, large businesses already offer health insurance anyway, and small businesses are exempt.

    •  No, all large businesses don't offer (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Betty Pinson, MPociask

      health insurance, and many were reducing coverages when the PPACA was being debated.

      •  Walmart, McDonalds, Papa Johns, etc. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mr Robert, orestes1963

        Just about any restaurant or retail mega-chain offers either no insurance or junk insurance.

        They were the biggest spending lobbyists against ACA when it was being developed and passed.

        Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

        by Betty Pinson on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 03:21:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Betty - for companies that are organized on a (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WillR

          franchise model the people working in the retail establishments are not employees of McD's or Papa Johns. The McD's, Papa Johns, Taco Bell and such probably do provide health insurance to the home office staff, who are actually corporate employees. The individual franchisees typically qualify as small businesses, with fewer than 50 employees.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:49:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  McDonalds, Papa Johns, et al have fought ACA (0+ / 0-)

            like crazy, ever since it passed.  They obviously are responsible for employees health care because they've been screaming about it all along.

            McDonald’s CFO Sees Up to $420M in New Health-Care Costs

            The Affordable Care Act could cost McDonald’s and its franchisees more than $400 million a year in additional health-care expenses, Chief Financial Officer Peter Bensen said on Monday.

            McDonald’s estimates that each restaurant will incur between $10,000 and $30,000 in added annual costs,

            Who do you think organizes and funds these lobbying trips to DC?

            McDonald's And Other Franchise Restaurants Lobby To Change Obamacare's Mandate For Employer-Sponsored Health Care

            Owners of McDonald’s, Dunkin Donuts, and Mr. Rooter franchise stores visited congressional offices to ask lawmakers “to give employers and employees relief from burdensome employer regulations.”
            Franchise owners come to Washington to plead for ObamaCare relief

            etc, etc, etc

            Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

            by Betty Pinson on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 05:04:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "McDonald's and its franchisees" (0+ / 0-)

              The people who work at your local McDonalds are NOT McD employees. Depending on how many franchises the owner runs, under a single corporation, they fall into three categories under 50 employees, 50-99 employees, or over 100 employees. There are franchisees in all three of those buckets. But in any event corporate McD's isn't responsible for the healthcare, or any other employee cost, of the employees of your local McD franchise. The franchisees are not required to provide healthcare or any employee benefits. They are required to pay the local minimum wage and to comply with all federal, state, and local, employment laws and rules. They receive paychecks that say something like Bill Smith Enterprises, Inc rather than McDonalds Corporation. Of course McD's corporate is going to represent the franchisees in DC, that is one of the services they provide for the franchise fees that are paid by the restaurant operators. Higher costs at the franchise level puts pressure on McD's to either raise prices or reduce franchise fees, both of which they don't want to do. So they lobby.  

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 06:28:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Other taxes would need to be increased without (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MPociask, VClib

      an employer mandate.  

      Without the mandate it would make sense for many businesses to drop health insurance, and give a small share of the cost savings to employees, especially when many employees would be able to get ACA subsidies.  As this would increase ACA subsidies taxes would need to be raised.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 03:42:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  False outrage & lies. Time to END a GOP lie .. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bufffan20, MPociask, Glen The Plumber

    ..about the Employer mandate,

    This is exactly correct (from JC's Diary above):

    Republicans hate it.
    ..and the republicans and big business chose it - the worst possible version of the employer mandate

    Why Ezra Klein is against it but not for the reasons the republican spin.
     But because the republicans (and some mistaken Dems) purposefully chose to implement the mandate based on number of employess which is counter-productive and a negative incentive, instead of based on percentage of payroll.

    I think the original version passed in the House 2009 - (NOT the teabag House iow's) was about 8% of payroll as the cutoff point - no negative incentive to cut either empoyees hours or jobs.
     .............................................
    The republicans were rejoicing the delay of the employer mandate as "evidence" of PPACA as a "failure" of evil socialism.

    And are gladly pointing out that in 2009 Ezra Klein had warned that that 50 full-time employee mandate was bad policy, and that there was a much better solution.

    That solution was the deliberate choice made by the republicans/big business

    So the republicans outrage is pure bullshit as Brad DeLong points out referencing Ezra Klein, who thought the way the 50 full-time employee cut off gave employers  the wrong incentives.

    The original House version (again not the teabag version) had a payroll based system:

    By tying the penalties to how many full-time workers an employer has, and how many of them qualify for subsidies, the mandate gives employers a reason to have fewer full-time workers, and fewer low-income workers.

    There are other kinds of mandates that don’t fall afoul of the same problems… the worker-based employer mandate got passed in part because employers preferred it to a payroll-based mandate — a fact that puzzled Senate health aides at the time, but that they made peace with in order to pass the bill.

    side note:Ezra doesn't like health insurance to be dependent on employers in the first place but the payroll system would be a much better method. - health care being tied to employment - that's also the reason for Ezra Klein original complaint of the employer mandate as he spoke just recently on MSNBC

    And from  Ezra Klein:

    “The employer mandate in the House bill was much better constructed from a policy point of view,” says Topher Spiro, director of health-care policy at the Center for American Progress. ”It was based on the percentage of payroll you spent on health care rather than on how many workers you had, so there’s not this weird disincentive related to part-time workers. But it didn’t have the political support to pass.”

    The irony is that the worker-based employer mandate got passed in part because employers preferred it to a payroll-based mandate — a fact that puzzled Senate health aides at the time, but that they made peace with in order to pass the bill.

    - emphasis added

    But republicans and corporations caused this then and the RWNJ's in congress are now sooo.. happy to be able to NOT fix this.
    what EJ was talking about. But they can't get a Legislative Fix out of the House.
    People need to know that with any legislation there will be things that need fixing. The republicans would rather have something to shriek about cause hurt to people than try to improve this law

    Thx for the rundown Joan McCarter

    from an earlier comment: http://www.dailykos.com/...

  •  This president (0+ / 0-)

    is a corrupt, heartless SOB.

    Better than the GOP corrupt, heartless SOB's, but still a corrupt, heartless SOB all the same.

  •  What is this really about? (0+ / 0-)

    Isn't it really about businesses complaining about something they should be doing already? And the bit about firefighters - just think of the men who got killed fighting a forest fire in Arizona last summer - do you really think they should not be covered? Do we really think that volunteer firefighters (all firefighters in some communities) should not have their injuries or their illnesses covered? Don't we want them healthy?

    This is crazy. Sic the insurance companies on them.

    Being attentive to the needs of others might not be the point of life, but it is the work of life. It can be ... almost impossibly difficult. But it is not something we give. It is what we get in exchange for having to die. - Jonathan Safran Foer

    by ramara on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 03:19:03 PM PST

    •  The biggest political advantage I can see is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ramara

      this removes the pressure on employers with 51 to 100 FTE employees to cut worker hours below 30 hours/week.  This helps Democrats in the November Congressional election, as word or mouth or media stories about "Obamacare hurting low income workers" would hurt Democrats in November.

      Owners of businesses between 51 and 100 employees don't have the political power to push the White House to make a decision like this.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 05:05:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unless labor law hs changed (0+ / 0-)

        they cannot convert full-time employees into part-time employees.  Of course, the labor laws are not enforced in any real manner, but the fact remains that there are actions the admin could take to rectify that problem, which would also be very popular with the electorate.  I admit that it is possible the labor laws have been changed since I last researched them (several years ago), but I certainly have not heard anything of the sort.

      •  But there's also (0+ / 0-)

        that change for larger businesses from 95% to 70% - that's a lot of employees who can now be exempt and still have their businesses in compliance with the ACA.

        Sorry, I know that's not English, but you know what I mean.

        So it could be more of a business push to avoid insuring their employees.

        Being attentive to the needs of others might not be the point of life, but it is the work of life. It can be ... almost impossibly difficult. But it is not something we give. It is what we get in exchange for having to die. - Jonathan Safran Foer

        by ramara on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 06:50:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Somebody remind me again how (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orestes1963

    the continued watering down of this "mandate" helps the uninsured?  Another year of transition?  70% considered "in compliance?"  Are you f*ing kidding me?  Then what was the point?

    •  The point is that something had to be done! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      orestes1963

      What was done is unimportant.  Just that a law was passed and we are the good guys.

      We can sit back and say we helped the little guys.  Whether or not they were helped doesn't seem to matter.

      •  Except that the TeaPubs win (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        every time Obama waters down the ACA when there's absolutely no need to do so.  And, and, and gives Dems and Libs zero cover - none - in our efforts to counter the RW horse$h!t - becuz that RW horse$h!t becomes more true with every round of downsizing this fiasco.  Why even bother?
        "winkk, looks like your hero caved again... pretty soon we send that OboCare to Hell where it came from!"  Sadly, it's hard to argue with that, and Obama makes it more and more difficult with each cave.

  •  Good explanation here in this story: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bufffan20, Glen The Plumber
    ...The Obama administration has relaxed the most recent mandate to have 95% of their workers covered by 2015. Now they will need to provide for 70% of their full-time work force by that date, and then hit the 95% mark by 2016...Treasury officials say the 70% rule for companies with more than 100 workers was created to offer a phase-in period in order to have employees working 30 to 34 hours covered. Most employers already cover those working 35 or more hours a week.
    http://blogs.marketwatch.com/...

    No freakout necessary.

  •  This Obamacare rollout has being one (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, hmi

    Clusterfuck to say the least. You can't constantly blame the GOP, the administration on a regular basis gives them ammunition to use against our side.

  •  Another bad precedent (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mr Robert, orestes1963, VClib, hmi, andalusi, ffour

    Just curious. If the Executive Branch is setting the precedent that the President can basically change various aspects of this law at will, what's to prevent a future Republican President from just scrapping it altogether? Simply refuse to enforce key provisions of it, and it goes away.

    These games aren't doing the President, this law, or the country any favours. I'd say he'll regret it, but he'll be long out of office when his law is being undone.

    Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

    by Pi Li on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:10:40 PM PST

    •  Yep doubt it survives beyond his term (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      orestes1963, ffour

      I just can't see this law being intact when he leaves office it'll be either gutted or repealed entirely it's just a mess. He was more concerned about his 'legacy' and the precedence of passing health care than actually working towards good legislation.

  •  I am not a republican and I am screaming (6+ / 0-)

    This is blatantly unfair to those Americans--no matter if their number is small--who have been counting the days until their small employer would have to provide healthcare. Sure, some can go on the exchange, but what about single people in states that refused to expand Medicaid who make too little to qualify for subsidies? All this has done is make it so that the people most unable to afford healthcare will not get it for yet another year.

    **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

    by CatM on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:22:25 PM PST

  •  Just erodes support for an already unpopular law (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hmi

    Five years later and there are NO political benefits it's an albatross around anyone neck he supports this thing I don't think any political party has passed such legislation that was so unpopular and reaped so few political benefits. I often ask myself is it all worth it, worth losing the House, and now the Senate, and maybe down the road the Presidency? I'm pretty much bracing for us to lose the Senate this year and hopefully we can recover from this debacle in time for 2016 but I don't this law is worth defending anymore at least politically it has only had a negative impact on the party and does nothing to help us win future elections.

  •  False outrage? Well mine is certainly real enough (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hmi, orestes1963, andalusi

    While we are handing out all of these delays and passes to forget about passed law....what about the middle class folks who are not even thought about when it comes to the individual mandate?  Do they get a pass or a delay?

    If this law is our signature piece, then get on with it.  How can we run on a great new law that will change health care for the positive, if we keep stopping it and changing it every two seconds? No one is going to believe this is anything but politicians trying to stop a law they feel is going to ruin elections.  Is that really the meme we need going into the midterms??  Especially considering that the little guys had better pay the fine pronto....while the business folks can rest easy because the WH doesn't care if they follow the law or not!

  •  I have a query about the grandfathered policies (0+ / 0-)

    If anyone knows I would appreciate. I am not sure if this is the right thread to ask on, but point me somewhere else if you can help me find the answer.

    I work for a rather large corporation and it offers junk insurance. High deductible, relatively low premium, does absolutely nothing but encourage you NOT to go to the doctor because what's the point of getting a free physical or a free mammogram if you are told something is wrong and can't afford to pay out of pocket (everything - NO copays at all, and everything out of pocket until you hit $2500 for personal and $7500 family, and this making under $30,000 salary).

    I would like nothing more than for my company to stop offering insurance so I can participate in the exchanges, which would be much better for myself and my family, since they offer copays, and the premiums with subsidies would mean a lower cost with much better insurance.

    So I am the opposite of all those crying about losing their insurance, I wish I could lose this garbage, and my question is how long will these behemoth companies who offer this cheap junk insurance be allowed to get away with grandfathering it, forever?

    I wish they would just at least give you the option to join the exchanges if you wish, but I guess it is NOT about choice after all, at least not for the likes of me?

  •  This IS reason for outrage. But not from the GOP. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ffour, akasha

    The real left should be outraged. Obama is just giving into business interests, to pressure from those business interests, which is exactly what "conservatives" want.

    He. Caved. Again.

    The answer all along was Single Payer, and the easiest way to get there was Medicare for All. And, sorry, to those people who say it wouldn't have passed -- how do you know? It wasn't even allowed in as a part of the conversation. It wasn't even proffered as a way to move the Overton Window.

    At the very least, it would have been smart strategy to put it out there, move the narrative to the left, and hope for a better bargain.

    But, noooooo. The Dems had to be "practical." And what happened? Most of the country hates the outcome, and it helped the GOP sweep the field in 2010, and may just help them take the Senate in 2014.

    It was completely asinine, and the wrong thing to do from a moral and ethical pov. Politically, had they gotten Medicare for All through, the Dems would have owned the next generation of voters, at least. Instead, they settled for a pre-negotiated compromise of a compromise with conservatives who were never going to vote for it anyway.

    Sorry, Joan, but there really is reason for outrage over this latest case of caves R us. And it's the left who should be outraged.

  •  Love the attempt to manipulate us here! (0+ / 0-)

    I found this diary's headline, "False Republican Outrage...", strange because I find this outrageous and after reading the comments, many of you do too.  So why focus on false GOP outrage when there is legitimate Democratic outrage?

    The dairist expected a Pavlovian response of, "Republican bad, Democrats/ACA good" and by labeling the outrage as false and Republican, attempts to delegitimize any outrage on this rule change.

    This is classic 1984 stuff, 2 Minutes Hate at the GOP to divert how we've been screwed yet again by this law.  I applaud the members of this community who didn't fall for this cheap tactic.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site