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: 1 2

Whats your hurry? hmmm? 2010 is coming kind of fast isnt it?

johnnyU on October 26, 2009 at 9:31 AM

Jackasses.

OmahaConservative on October 26, 2009 at 9:34 AM

How about just dumping “mandates that you buy something” altogether, you statist frauds?

Good Lt on October 26, 2009 at 9:34 AM

Incompetent.

ORconservative on October 26, 2009 at 9:34 AM

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.

Quoteth the Adminstration: “Constitution? We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution!”
Que Jimbo03 to say we’re all ignorant for fighting against this in 5…4…3…

kingsjester on October 26, 2009 at 9:34 AM

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.

….

I hope they try.

Really, I do.

Good luck with enforcement.

They don’t have the manpower.

artist on October 26, 2009 at 9:34 AM

johnnyU on October 26, 2009 at 9:31 AM

Somebody with skills should do a cartoon of Obama, Reid, Pelosi etc. on a railroad track with a handcar trying to pull along their agenda items, as a locomotive appears in the distance with “2010″ below the headlight.

cs89 on October 26, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Since Obama is well on the way to owning most large companies, where’s the problem?

OldEnglish on October 26, 2009 at 9:36 AM

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.

ugh

—–
this is some kind of ugly….

cmsinaz on October 26, 2009 at 9:37 AM

Another opportunity for the absolutely worthless, corrupt and incompetent Democrat party to beclown themselves.

I knew this president and this Congress would be disasters and they’re not disappointing.

The only thing I didn’t count on was the entertainment factor.

Watching Pelosi and Reid trying to scotch tape together this fiasco on a stick is like watching a monkey trying to f*** a football, great times.

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 9:37 AM

This ‘bill’ is a disaster. And no, I don’t know which ‘bill’ I’m talking about. But then…I’m not sure anybody in congress knows more than I do.
Incompetent fools.

bridgetown on October 26, 2009 at 9:38 AM

Why give businesses an exception or an easy out on the mandate?

Businesses have a lobby; individuals don’t.

Leave it to Dems to devise a Rube-Goldberg solution to lay on top of a Rube-Goldberg system. These clowns are doing nothing to solve the crucial problems.

I wrote this once before. Obama most recently told us that we have 30 million uninsured (down from the 47 million so many Dems were whining about). The Baucus bill supposedly would leave 29 million uninsured. So, am I to understand that Baucus’s $900 billion program is needed to insure 1 million people? What am I missing? 30 million uninsured before less 29 million uninsured after equals 1 million covered by the Baucus plan.

WTF?

BuckeyeSam on October 26, 2009 at 9:40 AM

This is a terrible bill all the way around. It won’t make anything better, it will cost more, and it won’t fix any problem that we currently have.

Medicare will still be bankrupt if we don’t specifically change it soon.

Kill the Bill and start over. The angle for the public option was what doomed this effort from the start. The government should not be in the business of adding debt and liability to future generations.

The problem with our government is that they only have the power to spend money. . . so that’s what they do. Every solution is ‘spend more money’ even if they don’t have it. This ‘health care bill’ will spend more money than any other government on the planet spends on the entire government by itself. That will bankrupt our government.

ThackerAgency on October 26, 2009 at 9:42 AM

Millions of employers and individuals will make the perfectly rational economic decision to not buy into health insurance and just pay the penalty. By doing so, they will be violating the requirements of the law, and accepting their “punishment” in the form of a required payment.

This will normalize law-breaking even more than it already is. There will be no shame in breaking the law. People will not be asked to police themselves. People will comply with the law only out of fear of the penalty.

This is deeply sick stuff…

gridlock2 on October 26, 2009 at 9:42 AM

America! Pay to play.

Er, umm, of course, uh, unless you’re here illegally. Then we’ll pay for you.

Mojave Mark on October 26, 2009 at 9:42 AM

Leave it to Dems to devise a Rube-Goldberg solution to lay on top of a Rube-Goldberg system. These clowns are doing nothing to solve the crucial problems.

They understand that deception and slight of hand are key to their chances of actually passing a bill.

Revenant on October 26, 2009 at 9:42 AM

This is not about passing a bill that will actually work. This is nothing more than trying to find enough congressional support to pass a bill, any bill, regardless of the future consequences.

ICBM on October 26, 2009 at 9:43 AM

Yea; Lets change the linguistics of the same legislation so it is more insidious; Like, these congressmen aren’t LIARS, THIEVES, or FELONS: They’re the brigandry!
There, now; That tastes much better.

Cybergeezer on October 26, 2009 at 9:45 AM

Watching Pelosi and Reid trying to scotch tape together this fiasco on a stick is like watching a monkey trying to f*** a football, great times.

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 9:37 AM

Racist.

LibTired on October 26, 2009 at 9:45 AM

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.

What’s the filthy lying coward’s term? You have to have skin in the game? Pay-to-play citizenship. Live it or get out there and shut this rat bastard traitor down.

highhopes on October 26, 2009 at 9:45 AM

I have 67 employees, sadly, some of them will opt out of my plan simply because they don’t like me. Unfortunately for them, come the passage of this bill, my staff will be less than 50.

Way to go Congress, tack 18 more job losses onto your conscience.

Fishy.Gov on October 26, 2009 at 9:49 AM

“but large firms would owe significant penalties if any worker needed government subsidies to buy coverage on their own”

How does this work? This doesn’t make sense to me. If an employee qualifies for government assistance suddenly the employer has to pay a fine on the whole workforce? What control does the employer have? Maybe an employee has a large family and qualifies, or the children qualify. Halfway through the year a huge fine shows up in the mail? Huh?

DaMav on October 26, 2009 at 9:49 AM

LibTired on October 26, 2009 at 9:45 AM

Monkeys trying to f*** a white football, is that OK? ‘

Because I so want to please.

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 9:49 AM

I wrote this once before. Obama most recently told us that we have 30 million uninsured (down from the 47 million so many Dems were whining about). The Baucus bill supposedly would leave 29 million uninsured. So, am I to understand that Baucus’s $900 billion program is needed to insure 1 million people? What am I missing? 30 million uninsured before less 29 million uninsured after equals 1 million covered by the Baucus plan.

WTF?

BuckeyeSam on October 26, 2009 at 9:40 AM

This isn’t about insuring anyone, it’s about destroying a private industry and taking control of the lives of everyone.

Just like how none of them are really concerned about the temperature of the planet, the health of the financial sector or giving opportunity to the needy. They’re all excuses for the same goal. Once you look at everything they do through that prism, things make a lot more sense.

LibTired on October 26, 2009 at 9:50 AM

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.

Yet another reason to renounce citizenship and join the favored class of illegal aliens.

TXUS on October 26, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Victicrat
somebody that believes themself to be a victim in every situation such that they just stop trying.

that person won’t stop wasting their life with drugs and won’t get a job because that person is just a registered Victicrat.

victocrat democrat socialist communist loser bum
Jul 30, 2008

Fishy.Gov on October 26, 2009 at 9:52 AM

Watching Pelosi and Reid trying to scotch tape together this fiasco on a stick is like watching a monkey trying to f*** a football, great times.

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 9:37 AM

Well THERE is a visual that will stick with me for the rest of the day.

Thanks…

GunRunner on October 26, 2009 at 9:52 AM

I hope they try.

Really, I do.

Good luck with enforcement.

They don’t have the manpower.

Sure they do. Everyone will automatically have a $750 – $1500 levy added to their tax owed. To remove this levy, simply enter your health insurance’s Federal ID number. Oh, don’t have one? Assesed and enforced.

Mr. Pickles on October 26, 2009 at 9:53 AM

So the goal will be to cap your workforce at 49 people.

I worked for a German company that paid over $900 per employee per month for HC coverage, with about 10,000 U.S. employees. Under this scheme they would save money by paying the fine, or they could close their U.S. plants and save in all sorts of ways.

Bishop on October 26, 2009 at 9:54 AM

GunRunner on October 26, 2009 at 9:52 AM

It’s the image that to me best describes Washington since January 20, 2009.

Sums it all up perfectly.

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 9:56 AM

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.

That’s exactly the answer. When I was reading the quote and saw the employer opt out my mind immediately asked: what’s in it for them? because we know the senate doesn’t do anything without a payback.

Let’s see, on a good note it means that someone in the Senate actually looked at the Constitution recent.

Can you see all the Wall Street firms, banks, etc walking free while the Mom and Pop businesses get hit with fines? It will become a game of “be careful who you hire” and another reason for the chronically unemployed to stay unemployed. The people hurt the most by this provision are those that either may have trouble affording or can’t afford health control insurance – the very people Obamanation promised not to tax.

katablog.com on October 26, 2009 at 9:56 AM

These are just trial balloons trying to find out where the opposition is weakest. They are nor ready to fire the final round until they are pretty sure they have enough support.

Tell ‘em they all suck and not ONE plan is ok.

GnuBreed on October 26, 2009 at 9:56 AM

BuckeyeSam on October 26, 2009 at 9:40 AM

We also have to look very closely at the final product. At one time there was a version out there that exempted union members from the mandates being imposed on everybody else. It would have been a huge incentive for employees to unionize. I’m not sure that this concept is dead.

highhopes on October 26, 2009 at 9:57 AM

These jackass leftests that have taken control of this once great Republic have no idea what the people want or need. This healthcare charade has nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with establishing a socialist state and retaining power. The people need to fight this with every ounce of energy within their minds and bodies.

rplat on October 26, 2009 at 9:57 AM

Tell ‘em they all suck and not ONE plan is ok.

GnuBreed on October 26, 2009 at 9:56 AM

I don’t think they really care what we think.

Just a sense I’m getting from them, maybe I’m wrong.

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Watching Pelosi and Reid trying to scotch tape together this fiasco on a stick is like watching a monkey trying to f*** a football, great times.

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 9:37 AM

The only problem…

We’re the damn football.

TXUS on October 26, 2009 at 9:59 AM

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.
-Ed

The weight of that statement is monumental and all the more painful because it’s true.

SKYFOX on October 26, 2009 at 10:00 AM

These are just trial balloons trying to find out where the opposition is weakest. They are nor ready to fire the final round until they are pretty sure they have enough support.

Tell ‘em they all suck and not ONE plan is ok.

GnuBreed on October 26, 2009 at 9:56 AM

The Washington Examiner has an interesting article today which claims that the re-emergance of the public option in Congress is actually a sign of weakness for the rats supporting the filthylyingcowardcare.

highhopes on October 26, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Trading freedom for security is a non-starter.

But for “free” health care?

Sign me up!

Oh wait, you already did. Thanks Barack!

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 10:03 AM

The analysis misses the point. There is no particular reason why businesses should provide health care benefits. Plus, employer benefits are a pain for big government because they show how inefficient the current public plans, Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA, really are.

If one’s goal is to get rid of private medicine, letting employers opt out, creating a public plan, and requiring individuals to purchase a set of benefits that no profit making insurer could possibly provide is the policy trifecta.

Gets rid of the competition and herds everyone into government controlled medicine.

fourier on October 26, 2009 at 10:03 AM

The amount of money the worker is screwed out of here is amazing. The democrats are not for the working the man. Don’t they realize that that $750 could be given to the worker as salary or benefits? Will people realize that the penalty does not hurt the employer, but the employee?

sammypants on October 26, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Tell ‘em they all suck and not ONE plan is ok.

GnuBreed on October 26, 2009 at 9:56 AM

I don’t think they really care what we think.

Just a sense I’m getting from them, maybe I’m wrong.

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 9:58 AM

It is like the professional bank robber vs the pro detective. The robber can only be wrong once and he is burnt. The detective can afford to miss as he will get multiple shots at you.

GnuBreed on October 26, 2009 at 10:04 AM

“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.”

This is a bizarre formulation. Makes it sound like folks will be deported if they don’t buy insurance.

JM Hanes on October 26, 2009 at 10:05 AM

oh frakkin perfect, this will kill the employer insurance all the faster, and we will all be so so screwed
everyone needs to call their critters
the fools are buying the polling on do you support a public option which is sooo skewed by the phrasing of the damned question

ginaswo on October 26, 2009 at 10:05 AM

jm hanes

no illegals will be covered with no fines and no deportation thanks to Napolitano and ICE DHS. Hmmm maybe we could make ourselves illegal? Can I ‘lose’ my birth certificate? then I would have no nasty fine!

ginaswo on October 26, 2009 at 10:06 AM

When you are working on pandering to all the folks you owe, things fall apart…and soon…and it gets a lot less pretty each day.

ObamaCare? PelosiCare? Whatever…so long as the pressure is on and gets focused more and more, this latest attempt (as was HillaryCare) will die a slow death.

Face it…they’ve already exempted too large a segment of the population, they’ve already made deals with the unions, and they cannot discount the “poor.” So who is left? The segment once known as the middle class….the folks who do the actual work and production in this country.

For all the projected expenses and schemes…it’d be a lot cheaper across the board to cut a check for every head of household sufficient to purchase any insurance in any form they wish…and get government off our backs at the same time. And even this has Constitutional issues involved.

coldwarrior on October 26, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Don’t forget the many games that employers play to keep you from less than full time status. They carefully do this so that they don’t have to give you health insurance. Any time rules force companies on how to set rules, people immediately start doing cost/benefit analysis to see how they can save the most money while still complying. This is the nature of business.

GnuBreed on October 26, 2009 at 10:10 AM

Can I ‘lose’ my birth certificate? then I would have no nasty fine!

ginaswo on October 26, 2009 at 10:06 AM

And you could be a candidate for president. /

coldwarrior on October 26, 2009 at 10:10 AM

These are just trial balloons footballs trying to find out where the opposition is weakest.
GnuBreed on October 26, 2009 at 9:56 AM

FIFY. Couldn’t resist.

Cybergeezer on October 26, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Firstly, any combination of these idiotic plans does NOT mean 100 % coverage only a “higher percentage” of coverage then there is now-a vague, abstract term.

Secondly, to achieve any of these train wrecks, each of which sure to cost, at a very minimum, at least TEN TIMES original estimates, it is necessary to put in punitive measures of government coercion called “mandates”.

Thirdly, as respects “coercion”. If the government has the power to coerce or force individuals to do something against their will, this means the the government has INCREASED ITS POWER over the private lives of individuals.

Fourthly, if this health care SNAFU is a government power grab instead of an earnest attempt to improve health care, those in power could care less if it is actually workable.

Fifthly, whatever the motivation for these hastily drafted nightmares, the end result will be slightly more people covered in horrendous plans (which used to be good)administered by far fewer doctors and nurses but far more cigar chomping bureaucrats.

Sixthly as in 666. The old and young will both die early due to lack of adequate care and, as time goes by, so will everybody else (Except for politicians and their immediate families and friends). The best health care system in the world will now approximate Somalia.

MaiDee on October 26, 2009 at 10:15 AM

The cheap fine allows businesses to opt out altogether at a very low cost, forcing employees into the public option.

Hmmm… $750 fine or $4700 average yearly premium for individuals…

$750 * 50 employees = $37,500
$4700 * 50 = $235,000

I wrote this once before. Obama most recently told us that we have 30 million uninsured (down from the 47 million so many Dems were whining about). The Baucus bill supposedly would leave 29 million uninsured. So, am I to understand that Baucus’s $900 billion program is needed to insure 1 million people? What am I missing? 30 million uninsured before less 29 million uninsured after equals 1 million covered by the Baucus plan.

WTF?

BuckeyeSam on October 26, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Math is hard… only in Washington DC does it take a $900 billion program to buy $141 billion worth of insurance…

elgeneralisimo on October 26, 2009 at 10:16 AM

How about dumping the whole thing you communist bastards … then get the hell out of our lives and pockets.

Scum.

darwin on October 26, 2009 at 10:19 AM

The old and young will both die early due to lack of adequate care and, as time goes by, so will everybody else (Except for politicians and their immediate families and friends). The best health care system in the world will now approximate Somalia.
MaiDee on October 26, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Precisely; And Barack and Michelle will be the new plantation owners.

Cybergeezer on October 26, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Seems like this will have interesting consequences. A) employers come out ahead by paying the fine B) Driving the cost of insurance to employees where C) cost of good coverage will be higher than the fine and D) insurance companies are going to be required to cover pre-existing medical conditions so E) individuals are going to pay the fine because they save money and can then F) obtain insurance only when a medical emergency arises because insurers will have to cover them

AZfederalist on October 26, 2009 at 10:24 AM

darwin on October 26, 2009 at 10:19 AM

I like your attitude.

Wish we could get this sentiment through the cement skulls in Washington.

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Who ever thought that the Congress and Obamnation would totally ignore somewhere around 1 million people descending on Washington DC? On 9/12/2009 as we mingled with the crowd I can’t tell you how many times I heard “they can’t ignore us now”.

Many of us spent our hard earned money to be there because we knew that a huge statement had to be made. I never imagined that we would be totally ignored and they would pretend it just didn’t happen.

katablog.com on October 26, 2009 at 10:24 AM

OK. I may be missing something but HOW is an employer to know if a worker would qualify for federal subsidies? THe fines seem pegged to that and the only way they would know is to pay EVERYONE enough to avoid the mandate or to look at the earnings of other family members also the subsidy will be based on FAMILY income.

The first will cause an insane increase in payroll costs and end up as massive unemployment while the second probably isn’t legal.

Do these clowns in DC even think about these things before they start spending other peoples money?

OBQuiet on October 26, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Wish we could get this sentiment through the cement skulls in Washington.

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 10:24 AM

The only way to get the politicians in DC to respect the American citizen is for them to fear us more than they do the communist left.

This bill is nothing more than a stepping stone to their grand plan.

“The end game of the left is the abortion and eugenic elimination of the “undesirables”, the euthanasia of the old and infirm, and the genocide of those who disagree. Its objective is the purity of socialist thought. And it is pure evil.”

- Andrew Thomas

darwin on October 26, 2009 at 10:32 AM

This, from the Washington Examiner has got to be one of today’s best quotes……

Obama and Reid, like Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and his assistant Beaker, are now in their lab trying different formulas in hopes of finding something that won’t blow up in their faces.

highhopes on October 26, 2009 at 10:32 AM

oops

THe fines seem pegged to that and the only way they would know is to pay EVERYONE enough to avoid the mandate

Should read:

The fines seem pegged to that and the only way they would know is to pay EVERYONE enough to avoid the subsidy

OBQuiet on October 26, 2009 at 10:33 AM

It 9 months since it was introduced and we are still guessing at what will be in the final law.

Not exactly thoroughly planned.

barnone on October 26, 2009 at 10:35 AM

That’s the first thing that comes to mind every time I see that picture…DUMP!!

Hot, steamy and fly-blown…….

BigWyo on October 26, 2009 at 10:38 AM

OBQuiet on October 26, 2009 at 10:26 AM

We are saddled with the least competent, least ethical, least experience, least qualfied, least sane, least sober EVER.

At some point, the Americans who keep electing this morons need to shoulder the blame.

Democracy can’t survive when we have people this atrocious “representing” us.

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Que Jimbo03 to say we’re all ignorant for fighting against this in 5…4…3…

kingsjester on October 26, 2009 at 9:34 AM

–I didn’t say you were ignorant for trying to fight this. I just said you won’t be successful arguing that the mandate is unconstitutional. And even if you are successful arguing that the mandate is unconstutional, you won’t be successful at arguing that the excise tax is unconstitutional, because Congress’ Constiutional power to spend and tax is even more extensive than it’s ability to regulate interstate commerce.

Jimbo3 on October 26, 2009 at 10:40 AM

This, from the Washington Examiner has got to be one of today’s best quotes……

Obama and Reid, like Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and his assistant Beaker, are now in their lab trying different formulas in hopes of finding something that won’t blow up in their faces.

highhopes on October 26, 2009 at 10:32 AM

In other words, they desperately want to control the voters and keep their stranglehold on power with a healthcare plan that won’t cost way more for lousy DMV -style service.

Fat chance of that.

Chainsaw56 on October 26, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Even the imbeciles on the left are beginning to realize that there’s something fishy. These criminally-insane crooks are on a crusade to spend 2 trillion dollars we don’t/won’t have, trample on individual freedoms, and destroy the system that works for 85% of the people, to only cover 1/2 of the currently uninsured??? THAT JUST DOESN’T MAKE SENSE TO ANYONE! It screams HIDDEN AGENDA.

marklmail on October 26, 2009 at 10:44 AM

P.S. If the media did ANYTHING CLOSE to journalism, polling would be at 20% for this boondoggle.

marklmail on October 26, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Jimbo3:

I’m just curious, what do you get for selling out freedom?

Juno77 on October 26, 2009 at 10:48 AM

I’m just curious, what do you get for selling out freedom?
Juno77 on October 26, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Free Government-Run Healthcare.

kingsjester on October 26, 2009 at 10:52 AM

marklmail on October 26, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Considering that nearly 50% of the population doesn’t pay taxes and that probably 20% of the population would be content on sitting on their asses everyday rather than getting a job if a Democrat guaranteed them shelter + three hots and a cot, I disagree.

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 10:53 AM

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.

Whatever the reasons for dropping employee mandates, and replying on individual mandates, fear of lawsuits isn’t one of them.

1) The employer mandate is merely another Commerce Clause-justified federal regulation of business, and does not pose the novel constitutional issue that individual mandates do. A given business is part of interstate commerce and/or regulation it is necessary to implement an overall regulatory scheme that does govern interstate commerce. The IF-THEN proposition of business regulation – “If you want to engage in business, you must do X” – is quite different than the unconditional command of the individual mandate.

2) As a practical matter, money is no barrier for an individual to challenge to individual mandate. It’s not an arms race; 2 million will not buy better legal representation here than 1 million. And a number of legal advocacy organizations, e.g., Institute for Justice, are available to represent the individual for free.

BCrago66 on October 26, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Free Government-Run Healthcare.

kingsjester on October 26, 2009 at 10:52 AM

And you get what you pay for.

Well, not really. Those of us who actually pay taxes, won’t get what we pay for.

But the good news is that freeloaders will get crappy healthcare and they will be in line ahead of us.

Whereas those of us who pay taxes will have to pay another load of money, in order to actually get health care.

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Good luck with enforcement.They don’t have the manpower.artist on October 26, 2009 at 9:34 AM

Well, it seems they actually ARE getting ready for it… with our own troops…http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htmObama\’s \”Consequence Management Response Force\”The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team (BCT) has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — they are now deployed right here in the good ol\’ US of A….Hmmm…

UnderstandingisPower on October 26, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Here’s that link again:

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm

UnderstandingisPower on October 26, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Watching Pelosi and Reid trying to scotch tape together this fiasco on a stick is like watching a monkey trying to f*** a little green football, great times.

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 9:37 AM

Sorry NoDonk, I couldn’t help myself…….. :)

Rovin on October 26, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Free healthcare?

That means us that work will have to get in long lines and miss more work. We need to work to support them..If Obama learned that killing jobs kills insurance coverage, he would work in getting people back to work.

seven on October 26, 2009 at 11:05 AM

marklmail on October 26, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Considering that nearly 50% of the population doesn’t pay taxes and that probably 20% of the population would be content on sitting on their asses everyday rather than getting a job if a Democrat guaranteed them shelter + three hots and a cot, I disagree.

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Sadly, you might be right. The Libs have finally reached useful levels of their welfare slaves. The good news is that they’re usually too lazy to vote in most elections. Our turnout will be monster in 2010, so at least we can stop some of the bleeding.

marklmail on October 26, 2009 at 11:07 AM

That means us that work will have to get in long lines and miss more work. We need to work to support them..If Obama learned that killing jobs kills insurance coverage, he would work in getting people back to work.

seven on October 26, 2009 at 11:05 AM

I see an Afflak Duck and Yogi Berra commercial coming here soon.

Rovin on October 26, 2009 at 11:09 AM

UnderstandingisPower on October 26, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Along those lines, I’ve had someone else question me if this will mean suspension of the constitution by FEMA.

I’m praying it won’t because there will be hell to pay should that course of action be taken.

Dark-Star on October 26, 2009 at 11:09 AM

It is obvious these people don’t know what they are doing, just adding more mess to a real mess. Why not send what they have to the shredder and start over by THEM writing the bill together rather than some special interest group doing their work. Isn’t this why they were elected? They need to fix the problem not create more.

workingforpigs on October 26, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Free healthcare?

seven on October 26, 2009 at 11:05 AM

I, for one, cannot afford free healthcare.

highhopes on October 26, 2009 at 11:09 AM

And even if you are successful arguing that the mandate is unconstutional, you won’t be successful at arguing that the excise tax is unconstitutional, because Congress’ Constiutional power to spend and tax is even more extensive than it’s ability to regulate interstate commerce.

Jimbo3 on October 26, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Well then, we’ll just have to force Congress and the states to pass an amendment taking some of that taxing power away from them. Either that or a dissolution of the union. We will not put up with an out of control government any longer … and we will not put up with people like you who support them.

darwin on October 26, 2009 at 11:10 AM

marklmail on October 26, 2009 at 11:07 AM

The Dems know that, that’s why groups like ACORN exist and why they’re against voters needing to have IDs at polling places.

If the GOP ever wants to win elections in the future, they are going to have to take on the massive voting fraud the Democrats perpetrate each election cycle.

One of the Obama’s motives in torpeoding Fox News is to silence news coverage of the massive vote fraud planned for the 2010 elections.

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 11:11 AM

This is a bizarre formulation. Makes it sound like folks will be deported if they don’t buy insurance.

JM Hanes on October 26, 2009 at 10:05 AM

You won’t get deported for not buying insurance, you’ll just get taxed and fined to the point where you have so little wealth that you’ll qualify for welfare. The point is to make everyone dependent upon the state — one way or another — and to give the state the power to decide how everyone’s wealth is distributed.

AZCoyote on October 26, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Well then, we’ll just have to force Congress and the states to pass an amendment taking some of that taxing power away from them.
darwin on October 26, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Exactly, that and an end to all this Judaical activism.

Juno77 on October 26, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Juno77 on October 26, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Anti-semite.

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Just three words … whiskey, tango, foxtrot!

Dukehoopsfan on October 26, 2009 at 11:45 AM

I wrote this once before. Obama most recently told us that we have 30 million uninsured (down from the 47 million so many Dems were whining about). The Baucus bill supposedly would leave 29 million uninsured. So, am I to understand that Baucus’s $900 billion program is needed to insure 1 million people? What am I missing? 30 million uninsured before less 29 million uninsured after equals 1 million covered by the Baucus plan.WTF?BuckeyeSam on October 26, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Why, you are forgetting the 85% that are already happily insured, who will suddenly become UNINSURED when businesses opt out, right? And so, the Dems will be able to tout them as insured by the government, I would imagine. As sick and twisted and backwards as that is, I\’m sure they will be only too happy to announce them a part of that 1 million additional insured on the governments (IE: OUR) dime.

Highlar on October 26, 2009 at 12:05 PM

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Exactly, that and an end to all this Judaical Judicial activism.

Sorry, Dang spell check didn’t get that.

Juno77 on October 26, 2009 at 12:07 PM

They keep shuffling the deck to confuse the spectators so that they can slip something past them.

Pay no attention to the fancy dealing and realize :
THERE’S NO MONEY TO PAY FOR ANY OF IT!

IT’S ALL A SCAM! A PONZI SCHEME! A FISCAL FRAUD!

The deck is stacked. The dealers are crooks.

THERE IS NO MONEY TO PAY FOR ANY OF IT!

profitsbeard on October 26, 2009 at 12:13 PM

This is laughable.
.
Bozo Democrats (apologies to Bozo) are looking for a bill that will pass and not a bill that will serve the justifiable ends of health insurance affordability for 11 or 12 million citizens. It is obvious that they have abandoned anything like statesmanship and are just jostling now for power. Beat them with their own stick.
.
Attack and criticize, criticize and attack. I would call them A$$holes but they are not that elevated – they are only A$$wipes.

ExpressoBold on October 26, 2009 at 12:30 PM

Juno77 on October 26, 2009 at 12:07 PM

I knew what you meant. Just funnin’ with ya.

I make more typos in a day than most people make all year.

NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 12:35 PM

So the self-employed are still twisting in the wind?

What’s going to be the deal for us? I only want catastrophic care for my family with a very high deductible. Is that okay with Uncle Sam?

If not, am I going to be forced onto this healthcare welfare and then fined because an “employee” of mine has to get a government subsidy?

29Victor on October 26, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Juno77 on October 26, 2009 at 12:07 PM

I knew what you meant. Just funnin’ with ya.
I make more typos in a day than most people make all year.
NoDonkey on October 26, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Yeah, I know, it just bothered me that it was a mistake that could be construed the wrong way.
Actually, I appreciate that you brought it up so that I could fix it, thanks.

Chainsaw56 on October 26, 2009 at 12:48 PM

As usual, the elitist left scrooms its sheep, who enjoy it, and continue to vote for said elitists.

It’s the perfect exploitation of the poor, and some in the middle class, in the name of do-gooderism.

Schadenfreude on October 26, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Chainsaw56 on October 26, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Sorry, responded to the wrong posting.

Chainsaw56 on October 26, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2