Changes in ObamaCare will require businesses to count part-time workers for coverage penalties

posted at 10:12 am on March 9, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

Much of the focus on the stalled ObamaCare effort comes from the opposition of Blue Dog Democrats to the removal of the Stupak amendment in the Senate bill, allowing for federal abortion funding if Congress fails to renew the Hyde Amendment.  The rest of the attention has gone to the changes being made in a parallel bill, one that the Senate will use reconciliation to pass to resolve disputes between the House and Senate over taxation and budgeting.  Those aren’t the only changes being contemplated, however, as the AP reports:

A Democratic aide says a new provision in the health care bill will require businesses to count part-time workers when calculating penalties for failing to provide coverage.

The bill originally passed by the Senate only penalized businesses for full-time workers who weren’t covered. The Senate bill is being used as the basis for a final package President Barack Obama wants Congress to pass in the next few weeks.

Very few businesses provide health-care coverage to part-time employees.  Many small businesses employ part-time staff in order to keep costs down and remain flexible as demand fluctuates.  People can choose, of course, whether they want to work part- or full-time by accepting or declining offers of work, just as businesses can choose (for the moment) what benefits they want to offer to make themselves competitive in the labor market.

Congress wants this change in order to head off a potential hole in their plans to impose federal coverage mandates on businesses.  The original bill only required businesses to count their full-time staff to determine whether they meet the threshold for compliance and to calculate penalties, if applicable.  That would have created pressure on the labor market by incentivizing businesses away from offering full-time employment, where possible. Employers would have a big reason to reclassify their positions to part time work, reducing hours for their workers, although likely by also adding staff to make up the labor shortfall.

This change in the parallel bill would have a big impact on small businesses, who already have trouble competing with their larger competitors.  It will force businesses into either paying for benefit packages that they can’t afford with their current staff levels, pushing them either into cutting staff to recoup the costs or shutting their doors altogether.  It will have a major impact on the part-time labor market, which supports student workers and second earners in families under normal economic conditions.

One might have expected such a significant change to get more attention.  Instead, it appears that Democrats in the House are trying to sneak this one through the process in the dark.  That may qualify as “open, honest government” by the standards of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama, but small businesses won’t like getting hoodwinked.


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 3

I’m firing my employees right now.
I’ll just take it back to the roots. Me and my wife…

November can’t come fast enough. (You know this will be retroactive to 2008…)

Enough! I’ll close first.

docjohn52 on March 10, 2010 at 1:35 AM

It has to be that way. If you had company A hiring partime and providing coverage from company Z and company B hiring part time providing coverage from company X, the worker, who works for both or same situation compaines to make a living, is going to have a problem with determining which company pays what bill, or part of a bill, or maybe both pay and Obama gets the difference. That is too much thinking and stuff like that for anyone but the politically correct educated class and goverment leaders. They will have to make it real simple with a one payer plan and affordable by insureing that everyone gets only their share of available medical resources that the goverment provices. Now that will be socialism at its best; from each their due and to each according to their need and social value, no questions allowed as those who know better have made your decisions for you.

Franklyn on March 10, 2010 at 2:58 AM

This is one of the only good aspects of the bill. I hope the dem’s stick to their guns on this one. We’re in this mess in the first place because corporate America made a decision to circumvent the American worker. Either by outsourcing overseas or by hiring illegal workers. And we, the idiot Republican Party, sat around and allowed this to happen with our heads stuck up where the sun doesn’t shine.

The middle class made a statement on 11/7/06 and 11/4/08 “if we go down, everyone is going down”. So they elected a radical leftist. They poked us in the eye and we deserved it. Are you happy corporate America & GOP? Not everyone wants to be a freaking entrepreneur. Some folks just want a secure job with good benefits. Darvin Dowdy

Darvin Dowdy on March 10, 2010 at 8:08 AM

The current leadership does it, but does not have the courage to say it. Universial Health Care means more than just the commonly accepted time frame of “cradle to grave”

To fully grasp the concept we must change the defining points of the program as it is designed, “womb to tomb”. I will not be surprised to hear in the third trimester that through micro surgery a chip is implanted into the embryo so the government can follow you from birth to death.

MSGTAS on March 10, 2010 at 9:23 AM

–I think anyone with over 50 employees pays that, if I’m reading this correctly.

Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 4:52 PM
This is what I don’t understand.

If you’re trying to argue that ObamaCare will not be a burden because companies with over 50 or even 200 employees only have to pay $750 each, you must also admit the fine is a poor incentive to getting people insured in the private sector, correct?

Chuck Schick on March 9, 2010 at 6:10 PM

–I’d be surprised if 95% of companies offering employee health insurance don’t already pay $750 for insurance (before considering employee contributions). So it’s tough for me to see how this is an additional burden in most cases.

Jimbo3 on March 10, 2010 at 3:12 PM

Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 5:26 PM

OK-well if that’s the language, then a company will just have the option of dumping their ‘offered coverage’ & let their employess live off of a public option AKA govt mandate policy.
Either way- no one is winning.

Badger40 on March 10, 2010 at 4:49 PM

I have three full-time, two part-time employees. Many of the business decisions I’m now making is how to reduce my risk and be as flexible as possible, such as reducing hours and benefits.

I’m seeing the same thing with my clients.

So if the health care plan is to require more employee benefits in a more uncertain business climate, there will be fewer employees on everybody’s staff.

First, the businesses will go broke; then the unemployed will go broke; then the local, state, and federal governments will go belly up because there will be inadequate tax revenue.

Pazman on March 10, 2010 at 10:45 PM

China and India will be cheering on this bill. It will drive more jobs offshore and into their countries.

And we see people above applauding this? The stupidity, it burns, it burns.

SPQR on March 11, 2010 at 12:32 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3


You must be logged in to post a comment.