Dumping the employer mandate?
posted at 9:30 am on October 26, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The AP reported yesterday that the Senate may weaken or remove altogether a mandate in their version of ObamaCare that mandates businesses with more than 50 employees to provide health insurance coverage as part of their benefit package. However, the bill will still include an individual mandate, with penalties set at least at $750 per person, and probably much higher:
Businesses would not be required to provide health insurance under legislation being readied for Senate debate, but large firms would owe significant penalties if any worker needed government subsidies to buy coverage on their own, according to Democratic officials familiar with talks on the bill.
For firms with more than 50 employees, the fee could be as high as $750 multiplied by the total size of the work force if only a few workers needed federal aid, these officials said. That is a more stringent penalty than in a bill that recently cleared the Senate Finance Committee, which said companies should face penalties on a per-employee basis.
These officials also said individuals would generally be required to purchase affordable insurance if it were available, and face penalties if they defied the requirement.
Why give businesses an exception or an easy out on the mandate? After all, if the per-person fee gets applied, the cost to not provide health insurance will look cheap compared to the cost of providing it, especially since premiums will start moving up fast after ObamaCare gets passed. Typically, businesses could pay more than $750 per month for some health insurance plans for each employee. The cheap fine allows businesses to opt out altogether at a very low cost, forcing employees into the public option.
Also, this looks like a bribe of sorts to keep employers out of court. An employer mandate may have similar constitutional problems as an individual mandate, at least for those employers whose business does not cross state lines. However, businesses can afford to hire more and better lawyers than individuals in order to challenge it. If they see this as a cheap mechanism to dump medical coverage costs, we can expect them to cheer it rather than sue and put the whole scheme in jeopardy of a Supreme Court reversal.
However, the optics of this look bad, and will look worse in practice. The Senate will create a huge out for the business world at the expense of the individual workers, and when they take it, people will realize they’ve been had — especially the class warriors that comprise the narrowing base of the Democrats. The only people stuck with an onerous mandate will be individuals, forced for the first time in American history to purchase a product in order to legally reside in the US.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Voting fraud, what voting fraud? /sarc
According to my sister, the Seattle lib, only the R party commits voter fraud. And this from a woman who lives in a county with hundreds more votes than registered voters, which difference put a Democrat in their Governor’s Mansion.
******************************************************
Unless they’ve changed the putative bill even further, the $750 fine was for individuals. Employers will be hit 8% of payroll. Since most health plans cost employers considerably more than that (my family plan is costing my employer more like 35% of my payroll) they’d be stupid to keep paying for employee health plans. I worked it out, and if my employer dropped my plan and paid the fine instead, they’d be financially better of to the tune of about $10K. But if they gave me that 10K (and they could really only give me about $9.2K to break even (because of higher SS taxes), I wouldn’t be able to afford the equivalent plan. Especially since I’d see less than $7K of that what with may share of SS/Medicare, FICA, and state taxes which take close to 25%.
So with less than $9K of funds (the extra pay along with what I currently contribute to premiums) to pay for what is currently a $17K plan, I’ll be sooooo much better off.
But according to folks like my sister I only oppose the Congressional plan because I’m a selfish bitch who wants people to die.
I HATE leftists at the moment.
LibraryGryffon on October 26, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Which is want they’ve wanted to do all along.
GarandFan on October 26, 2009 at 2:33 PM
I want to see them try to enforce this criminal illegal socialist abortion.
elduende on October 26, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Two words to describe this: Existence tax.
The left wants to tax people to be alive. That’s what this boils down to.
madmonkphotog on October 26, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Vic, I don’t think “twisting in the wind” is the right analogy. Think footballs and monkeys, where self employed = football.
JusDreamin on October 26, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2