Slashdot Mirror


Obamacare Employer Mandate Delayed Until After Congressional Elections

theodp writes "If you hoped your employer would finally provide health insurance in 2014, take two aspirin and call your doctor in the morning — the morning of January 1st, 2015. The Obama administration will delay a crucial provision of its signature health-care law until 2015, giving businesses an extra year to comply with a requirement that they provide their workers with insurance. The government will postpone enforcement of the so-called employer mandate until 2015, after the congressional elections, the administration said Tuesday. Under the provision, companies with 50 or more workers face a fine of as much as $3,000 per employee if they don't offer affordable insurance."

32 of 600 comments (clear)

  1. Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 5, Interesting

    More regulatory uncertainty! Yay!

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by Enry · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not sure where the uncertainty is. Says right there - January 1, 2015.

      Not that having the elections matter about implementation. Obama isn't going to let a veto go through, and even if the Senate flips, there's going to be no way that there's enough votes to override a veto. Obamacare is here, get used to it.

    2. Re:Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not sure where the uncertainty is. Says right there - January 1, 2015.

      Right. Just like it said the deadline was this year, before...

    3. Re:Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by cod3r_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe they did realize that during this tough economic time (that will probably go on forever since we only consume and don't actually produce anything) it might be a bad thing to force businesses to offer health insurance that is rapidly rising.. Our company only employees 22 people and we provide health insurance that costs us somewhere in the neighborhood of 75k/year.. Having gone up about 20% since obama care passed.

    4. Re:Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not what /. needs. I like ragging on the guberment any chance i get, but wtf does this story have to do with technology (other than using a computer to write it maybe).

      The chief reason cited for the delay is that the information infrastructure is not ready to handle the new processes and products yet. It is basically an IT project running 12 months behind (at 18 months out) and probably a few billion over budget, and we can all relate to that amiright?

    5. Re:Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I dunno if it is that so much as, the sentiment is growing against obamacare in the US as more of it is coming to be implemented, and more people are seeing it for the steaming pile that it is....and how much this will cost the people is the bottom line.

      I think the Dems/Admin want to keep obamacare implementation out of the news by doing this, so as to not risk their congress critters that may be coming up for election.

      The law had some good parts to it...the sections pertaining to pre-existing conditions is good, and I suppose that letting kids stay on their parents insurance till in their 20's "may" be good, although I think most normal "kids" should be well out on their own and supporting themselves by the time they are 20-21.

      But obamacare when it comes into full swing, is going to raise the $$$ of healthcare quite a bit on the young and healthy. It penalizes people that previously had really good benefits at work, making them too $$ for the employers to continue to offer.

      This is what comes from "we have to pass the law first to see what's in it...".

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe they did realize that during this tough economic time (that will probably go on forever since we only consume and don't actually produce anything) it might be a bad thing to force businesses to offer health insurance that is rapidly rising..

      Our company only employees 22 people and we provide health insurance that costs us somewhere in the neighborhood of 75k/year.. Having gone up about 20% since obama care passed.

      $3400 a person for health care is pretty f'ing cheap. Most employers spend 8,000 to 10,000 per employee (not including what the employee contributes out of their salary).

    7. Re:Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by OakDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not sure where the uncertainty is. Says right there - January 1, 2015.

      Well what was it a week ago?

    8. Re:Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by ggraham412 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oceania has always been at war with East Asia.

    9. Re:Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that the people wanted socialized medicine and we got an insurance scam. Of course the correct name for this is Romneycare since it closely resembles what Romney implemented in Ma., but that wouldn't have made for a good fight betreen the R's and the D's.

      The real problem is that healthcare costs too much in the first place. You can't just insurance that away. What we really need is for the federal government to tell the whole crooked industry, "Just one more $2 ahh stick or $8 tylenol and we nationalize the whole damned thing!".

    10. Re:Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Informative

      Having gone up about 20% since obama care passed.

      And how much did it go up in the years before obamacare was passed?
      Sounds like we were seeing double-digit inflation in health care insurance costs most years in the decade prior to obamacare's passage.

      http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

      Seems like the rate of inflation in health care insurance is slowing to a historically low level of 4.5%:
      http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2013/07/02/5-easy-ways-to-reduce-your-health-care-costs/

      YMMV, but nationwide the trend is getting better not worse.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    11. Re:Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having been tested in reality it has a lot better shot than some ideologically or "reason" based idea that somebody pulled out of their ass.

    12. Re:Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hawaii has a better method, which I believe is also unique among the states.

      Employers have to provide an insurance plan to their employees. The employer doesn't have to pay for it, just be a member of a group plan.

      I think the minimum employee number that requires this is 15. So if you want guaranteed coverage, get a job at any medium sized business.

      The part of the law that makes sense is that there is no 'individual mandate' provision.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    13. Re:Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real chief reason is the democrats don't want to lose their asses in the next election when people finally figure out what a cluster fuck the health care bill is and how for many of the current people who HAVE health care already it will mean more money out of their pockets for worse coverage.

    14. Re: Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So far, obamacare sounds a lot like the usual healthcares we enjoy in EU countries

      And Canada, Japan, Australia, etc.

      Unfortunately it's not. It's structured as a big giveaway to for-profit insurance companies and big pharma. Hopefully that will get fixed before it banrupts us. I've been a big proponent of UHC for decade, but Obamacare is about the worse plan to implement it I've ever seen.

    15. Re:Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason it's a steaming pile of shit is because you Americans are so afraid of the word "socialism" that you will implement the most ghastly, awkard and expensive medical systems simply because you're afraid that Jesus will puke in his cornflakes if you simply go to a universal system.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Simply go to a universal system" would mean higher cost for worse coverage, just like in UK. NHS costs about $5K a year per taxpayer.

      Here is a better way of looking at it. Annual costs: US = $8233 per citizen (84% coverage), UK = $3433 per citizen (total coverage). Your "higher cost for worse coverage" is completely wrong and quoting cost per taxpayer is not an informative way to look at it.

    17. Re:Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Informative

      5 painful health-care lessons from Massachusetts - June 16, 2010
      Massachusetts struggles to rein in health care costs - Apr 30, 2011

      It’s a serious problem: Massachusetts boasts that 98 percent of its residents have health insurance, but the state is stricken by the highest health care costs in the country.

      Danger ahead? Massachusetts health costs are rising – fast. - February 9, 2013
      Massachusetts health care costs out of control as ObamaCare provision hits small business - Mar 4, 2013

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    18. Re:Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The NHS is a wreck for a lot of reasons. And really, it's a hybrid system, still allowing private health care in a limited form. Look to Germany, which has a universal system and manages it very well.

      And as to standards of care, well the problem in the US is that the standard of care is directly proportional to the kind of insurance you can afford. If you don't have good health insurance, or even health insurance at all, and you have a major medical crisis, you're in real trouble.

      I'm a Canadian, and while our system has its flaws, my experience with it has been very good. In 2006, my wife was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, had to have two surgeries, the lost one being a total thyroidectomy. My income was limited, we had two kids in grade school, and by the time of her second surgery the business I worked for had went under. We were able to keep our house (though finances were very stretched as I was on unemployment) and our credit rating and thus within a year or two, with a new job, we were able to deal with remaining debts incurred. In other words, a disease that may very well have proven ruinous in the United States was, in the Canadian universal system, not only survivable from a health point of view, but also a financial point of view.

      I make a lot more money now than I did seven years ago, and I suppose on a purely short-sighted selfish level I can grump about the amount of my taxes on top of premiums that I pay for health coverage, but having come out of a major medical crisis with my finances intact and without being saddled with a vast mortgage just to pay the bills, I can safely say even if the system cost me twice as much a month as it does now, I'd stick with the universal system any day of the week.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    19. Re:Oh, look! Just what the economy needs! by compro01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Simply go to a universal system" would mean higher cost for worse coverage, just like in UK. NHS costs about $5K a year per taxpayer.

      You are either completely unaware of how much the USA spends on healthcare or you're using some really inventive mathematics, because $5k/year is substantially less than what the USA spends.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  2. Chicago style politics at it's worst... by Temkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Conveniently after the mid-term elections, where frustration with this trainwreck might reflect badly on those in power... One Turkish professor said "He talks like the president of the ACLU, and governs like Dick Cheney."

    1. Re:Chicago style politics at it's worst... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "5 Year Plans" are nothing new, where the hard choices are put off until after the next election, where they probably won't happen anyway. Or pushed into the next guy's term, same thing.

      That's why I laughed at all these deficit reduction "negotiations". Let's increase taxes now. In exchange, we agree to cut spending in 3 years.

      Which. Won't. Happen.

      It's a lie for domestic consumption. It's been going on for a hundred years.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  3. So, is this delay legal? by msauve · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is this delay specifically authorized by the law, or is the Obama administration simply going to fail to uphold a law they pushed to get passed?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  4. Re:This'll take awhile for people to accept by Temkin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yea, we'll get used to having beurecrats make decisions regarding our famililies heathcare. I mean, having the IRS target the businesses of political opponents is nothing compared to denying Grandma her hip replacement because you voted for the wrong candidate.

  5. And yet the individual mandate still stands! by BillCable · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So at this point companies DON'T have to provide you insurance, but you MUST carry insurance. So all those people who would have been covered if the business deadline wasn't pushed back will be forced to buy their own insurance on the individual market. Either that or pay the "tax." This is a recipe for real disaster.

  6. Re:pay the fine by Nickodeimus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's because, as any intelligent person knows at this point, the republicans and democrats are two faces of the same coin.

    No one has approached or even mentioned the real reason for healthcare cost increases over the last 30 years. There is a little law that goes by the acronym EMTALA. Go read about it and apply a little economics to the equation.

    Simply stated, our masters have no desire to reduce the cost of healthcare because there is too much money to be made from a completely captive audience. Whether you take the capitalist point of view or the socialist point of view, the end result is the same - we the people get screwed out of our earnings and don't have a choice in the matter. The status quo is maintained.

  7. Re:This'll take awhile for people to accept by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The difference is that in some areas decisions that were made by insurance companies are now made by publicly accountable government employees.

    Which would be interesting if the "publicly accountable" part were even remotely true. Look at the political actions of managers and supervisors in the IRS, and the utter stonewalling by that agency and un-shocking lack of curiosity by their boss who heads the executive branch, the president, as to who to hold accountable for exactly the sort of capricious behavior that you're suggesting won't happen. The IRS is hiring tens of thousands of brand new, un-accountable, essentially un-fireable new employees explicitly to have them make judgement calls about whether individual people have been sufficiently in compliance with a gigantic, byzantine new law that nobody understands. They will decide whether those individuals ultimately may end up having wages garnished, businesses ruined, homes seized, or spend time in prison if they aren't doing it exactly right. That you see such new power and enforcement in the hands of the IRS as an improvement is unfortunate.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  8. Employers already know the loophole by punker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They don't have to pay the fine, or provide insurance. They just make their employees part timers.

    I've seen some anecdotal evidence of this (from waitstaff at a couple different restaurants, security guards at my parking deck, blog posts). Unskilled labor positions (i.e. the people that were targeted to receive this benefit) are just having their hours cut to 30 hours/week because part time employees are not subject to the insurance requirement. With current employment trends, it's easy to hire some extra part timers to fill the gap. It's a non-issue for skilled laborers, because most already receive employer provided insurance.

    The real problem here is this law was intended to require a benefit (i.e. minimum compensation) for people who do not generally receive it already. So now, not only will they not get insurance, but they're also facing a 25% cut in income.

  9. Re:pay the fine by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I pay about $65/wk ($3380/yr) into my employer healthcare. They pay about 3 times that ($10140/yr). Multiply that by the roughly 450 employees on the plan and it's the single greatest expense they have after employee salaries and taxes.

    Personally, I'd much rather take that $13500 (my cost plus theirs) in my paycheck so I could shop around for my own insurance. The employer offered plan includes tons of crap for women and children that don't apply to me, while omitting many things that would be a huge help to me such as hearing aids.

    Making health insurance/care portable would go a LONG way to making the entire system more competitive and the customers a lot happier, but the system (legally, financially, and historically) is basically set up to make sure that the cash flow for the insurance companies remains reliable (and growing). Do you expect an industry with a grip on about 1.5 trillion dollars of spending annually to just give it up? Hah.

  10. Re:Fucking politicians... by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're only now thinking that Obama is just as bad?

    The rest of us were telling you that bad during the first election. And guess what? The next guy isn't going to be much better -- regardless of whether he's Mr. Red State or Mr. Blue State. Might even be worse. Unfortunately, these rah-rah Reddit teenagers that get little baby chubbies in their pants as soon as they're old enough to vote, because "if we just vote Obama/Romney/Whoever this time, we will finally make a change to the world because this will totally be different than the past 230 years!" keep coming in thinking shit is just on the verge of turning around. Naive idiots.

  11. Re:Fucking politicians... by pnutjam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I have been disappointed in Obama, I don't think he is to blame for most of our problems. The real problem is out of my control. I can voter for a decent president. I can't vote for a decent representative for every small minded gerry-mandered district in America. You can see many states, Blue and Red that elect knowledgeable people who are good at representing the voters.

    But time and time again there are places that always elect the incumbent who has become too entrenched to do anything good, or pants on head crazy people who can't be reasoned with.

    We still try to do our best...

  12. Re:Fucking politicians... by lgw · · Score: 4, Informative

    its the most wonderful 'business men'. you know, the 'job creators'. all hail the job creators

    I'm not sure why you mock. It is precisely unemployment fears that have driven this decision. Job creation is something that human employers do, and that's the only source of jobs. There is no job fairy.

    Small businesses usually have employee compensation as their dominant cost. "Making payroll" is by far the chief worry of small business owners. If you raise the cost per employee, the number of employees per small business must fall. In a robust and growing economy you can get away with that - heck if things have been good for a while even small employers likely have some slack to pay workers a bit more. But when the economy has sucked for the past 5 years, there's just no slack to work with.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.