There's No Need to Panic Over the Obamacare Mandate Delay

[babylonsister]

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/07/theres-no-need-panic-over-obamacare-mandate-delay


There's No Need to Panic Over the Obamacare Mandate Delay

—By Kevin Drum
| Wed Jul. 3, 2013 8:14 AM PDT


The Obama administration has decided to delay the employer mandate in Obamacare. Like the individual mandate, which requires individuals to buy insurance if they don't get it elsewhere, the employer mandate requires big employers to offer insurance to their employees. Most big employers already offer insurance, so the primary idea behind this wasn't to force laggards to step up to the plate. The idea was to maintain the status quo and make sure that employers currently offering insurance didn't drop it once Obamacare started up.

There were two basic reasons for this. The first was financial: if employers dropped insurance (figuring that employees could buy cheap subsidized policies on the exchanges), then more people would switch to Obamacare and the cost of Obamacare would go up. Matt Yglesias does a pretty good job of dismantling that justification here.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/07/03/obamacare_delayed_a_good_idea_covering_up_a_big_problem.html
Delaying Employer Responsibility Fines Is a Good Idea—the Real Problem Comes Later

The second reason was a little more abstract: Obama had promised that if you got insurance from your employer, "nothing would change." Obviously that was never 100 percent true. When you enact a huge reform to a system as complex as healthcare, some people are going to see their options change. Still, as long as employers were required to keep providing insurance, Obama's claim was mostly true. It only became non-true if employers began dropping their group coverage in large numbers and forcing their employees onto the exchanges. Thus the mandate.

It's easy to look at all this and shake your hands at the cynicism of politics. But I guess I'm in a charitable mood this morning, because I don't see it that way. Everyone knows that Obamacare was a mashup of compromises from the start. That's politics. If you want something passed, you have to appeal to self-interest. Pharma wanted more drug sales. Hospitals wanted bigger subsidies. Doctors wanted to make sure their pay didn't go down. People who currently have insurance they like wanted to be sure that they wouldn't be forced into some strange new system. So if you want a healthcare reform bill to pass, you figure out a way to satisfy all those interest groups. And even when you do, your bill passes with a margin of exactly zero votes. Welcome to Washington DC.

If the employer mandate hadn't been in the bill, CBO would have scored its cost higher, which would have meant higher offsetting taxes. That would have made it a tougher sell. Likewise, Republicans would have ginned up public fear over the prospect that employers would all drop their group coverage en masse. That would have turned the middle class against the bill. Put those two things together and maybe you lose a few votes. Maybe you lose one vote. It doesn't matter. You can't afford to lose any.

That sucks. But it's the way things are and always have been, world without end. Everything is a compromise, and Obamacare is no different. Maybe someday we'll be able to fix this if Republicans ever get over their snit and decide to help improve Obamacare instead of dedicating their lives, fortunes, and sacred honors to the single-minded goal of sabotaging and destroying it. We might have to wait a while for that, though.

[Whisp]

1. Thanks, this place is nuts. n/t

[dkf]

2. They had an employer mandate for scoring purposes and now that its law who cares...

Cynical.

[sheshe2]

3. Kick!

[Safetykitten]

4. Sad. So sad.

[Vietnameravet]

5. There have been several good articles on this issue but

today I was in a coffee shop and some guy said, "See I told you that asshole Obama had it wrong! They are going to repeal this thing!" Of course, he is wealthy and has no need of insurance but it really up[set me to hear such hatred toward a man who is only trying to provide healthcare to those in need. Hell, if this was all about politics he could have done nothing and let those in need go needy.
I guess its just hard for me to see such hate directed toward this man...and this is just one more stick they will use against him. Its true and very well said we can fix this if ..if Republicans ever get over their snit and decide to help improve Obamacare instead of dedicating their lives, fortunes, and sacred honors to the single-minded goal of sabotaging and destroying it.
Dont wait for that..sooner wait for a shrimp to learn to whistle..

[ProSense]

6. Maybe the

WH could exploit Republicans new found love for Obamacare.

Republicans Attack Obama For Not Implementing Health Care Reform Quickly Enough

By Igor Volsky

Republicans’ response to the Department of Treasury’s announcement that it would delay enactment of the Affordable Care Act’s employer responsibility provision has put the party in the awkward position of attacking the administration for considering the objections and concerns of the business community and not proceeding with implementation quickly enough. This comes after years of Congressional maneuvers to defund the law and repeal it.

While administration officials argue that they’re postponing the provision — which requires employers with more than 50 employees to pay a fine if they don’t offer affordable quality coverage — to allow businesses more time to comply with the law and promise to “convene employers, insurers, and experts to propose a smarter system” for 2015, Republicans caution that the decision spells disaster.

<...>

Objecting to a voluntary slowdown is unusual sentiment from men who accuse the administration of raming through a one-size-fits-all law before anyone has had a chance to read it — and it ignores the government’s past experiences with implementing complex legislation.

Consider the Bush administration’s performance in implementing the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, the law which established the Medicare Part D prescription drug program. Republicans not only rammed the legislation through Congress, they ignored warnings about the complexities of the new system and installed the law without adequately educating seniors or pharmacists. What resulted was the very “train wreck” that the GOP is now predicting for Obamacare: tens of thousands of low-income seniors discovered that medications they had been taking for years were no longer covered, many went without needed prescriptions or paid high out-of pocket fees, and 36 states were forced to “provide emergency payments to frail citizens.

<...>

UPDATE

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has launched an investigation into the delay and is seeking information about the conversations the Department has had with businesses: “As the Treasury Department statement makes clear, the administration has been ‘engaging in a dialogue with businesses’ and is pursuing changes in the law’s implementation and requirements based on their feedback. We note that these communications and the decision-making process related to the delay of certain aspects of the law have not been disclosed publicly. The acknowledgement that a delay in the law’s implementation is needed is completely at odds with previous statements made by administration officials.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/07/03/2253781/republicans-attack-obama-for-not-implementing-health-care-reform-quickly-enough/

Hilarious!

Why anyone would expect this to be a flawless process is beyond me.

Krugman:

No doubt there will be problems, as there are with any large new government initiative, and in this case, we have the added complication that many Republican governors and legislators are doing all they can to sabotage reform.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022907399

Krugman: Obamacare Will Be A Debacle — For Republicans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022896115

Medicaid launched in 1966, but Arizona resisted the program until 1982.

<...>

Medicaid got a chilly reception when it launched in January 1966. It was up to the states to decide whether to participate and only six initially signed up: Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. Twenty-seven followed suit later that year. Across the country, governors weighed the boon of new federal dollars — Washington would foot half of Medicaid’s bill — against the drawback of putting state money into a new program.

Nascent Medicaid programs quickly faced threats: Republican legislators in the New York introduced a bill in 1967 calling for the state to “live within its means” and repeal its Medicaid program.

<...>

Over time, however, the lure of federal dollars proved strong enough to win over resistant states. Eleven joined the program in 1967. Another wave of eight, largely Southern states came on board in 1970. Arizona proved the last holdout, not joining Medicaid until 1982.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/09/six-governors-say-they-will-opt-out-of-medicaid-how-long-will-they-hold-out/

From the WH:

First, we are cutting red tape and simplifying the reporting process. We have heard the concern that the reporting called for under the law about each worker’s access to and enrollment in health insurance requires new data collection systems and coordination. So we plan to re-vamp and simplify the reporting process. Some of this detailed reporting may be unnecessary for businesses that more than meet the minimum standards in the law. We will convene employers, insurers, and experts to propose a smarter system and, in the interim, suspend reporting for 2014.

Second, we are giving businesses more time to comply. As we make these changes, we believe we need to give employers more time to comply with the new rules. Since employer responsibility payments can only be assessed based on this new reporting, payments won’t be collected for 2014. This allows employers the time to test the new reporting systems and make any necessary adaptations to their health benefits while staying the course toward making health coverage more affordable and accessible for their workers.

Just like our effort to turn the 21 page application for health insurance into a 3 page application, we are working hard to adapt and to be flexible in employer and insurer reporting as we implement the law.

Meanwhile, here is a quick review of what small and big businesses need to know about the health law and how it will work:

• If you are a small business with less than 50 workers, the law’s employer shared responsibility policies does not apply to you. Instead, you will gain access to the Small Business Health Options Program that gives you the purchasing power of large businesses. In fact, you may be eligible for a tax credit that covers up to half the cost of insurance if you offer quality coverage to your employees
  
  
• If you own a business with more than 50 workers that already offers full-time workers affordable, quality coverage, you are fine – we’ll work with you to keep that coverage affordable.
  
  
• And if you are a company with more than 50 employees but choose not to offer quality affordable coverage, we have provided as much flexibility and transition time as possible for you to move to providing affordable, quality coverage to your workers.

We are full steam ahead for the Marketplaces opening on October 1. For more information on what is coming check out: HealthCare.gov

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/07/02/we-re-listening-businesses-about-health-care-law

[babylonsister]

8. I laughed and laughed when I read

ThinkProgress' link! Damned if he does... Do they realize how boneheaded they are? No morals at all, no conscience, no principles. They do 180's at the blink of an eye, as long as Obama is involved. Mind-boggling.

Thanks for all that info, ProSense!

[BanTheGOP]

7. The ONLY reason Obamacare is "failing" is because of the GOP obstructionists

Without rethug obstruction, ACA would be sailing away smoothly, with only the Cadillac plans affected, while everyone gets basic, affordable and comprehensive health care. We would be well on our way to single-payer.

Having said that, I disagree someone with the OP. This was actually a BRILLIANT move by Obama to eliminate the opportunity for the GOP to use this as a wedge issue for the 2014 election, paving the way for us to retake the House and the supermajority in the Senate. To me, that is far more important than the inconvenience that will neccessarily have to occur, but keep in mind, 100% of all problems lie squarely on the GOP.

[Hoyt]

9. The sooner health insurance is decoupled from employment, the better.