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
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Yeah, there is.
I didn’t put the sarc tag because I thought the sarcasm was pretty obvious.
nyx on March 9, 2010 at 10:57 AM
That the problem. The idiots in the Donk party aren’t thinking.
Dire Straits on March 9, 2010 at 10:58 AM
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 10:46 AM
–WashJeff, my understanding is that you can generally do this now (subject to some differences in state laws about what can qualify as a “pool”). But the problem you run up against is a potentially huge cost because of a potentially small group involved. If one of your employees has a health problem, the premiums for all your employees and you go up significantly because there are only a few people to spread the risk over.
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 10:58 AM
Make sure there are price controls as well.
Oh, Mr. Dem Lemonaid Merchant, you say each cup of lemonaid costs you 5 cents to make? Well, I’m very sorry (haha) to tell you that in order to be fair to other lemonaid merchants, you can’t sell your lemonaid for more than 5 cents per cup.
Oh, and your stand is an eyesore, so you’ll have to move it into the backyard (sorry, don’t care if no one can see you back there). And you’ll have to take down your sign as well – code restrictions, you see.
Oh, and there are 15 kids on the block who need free lemonaid or they’ll feel left out, so you’ll have to give them some, thanks.
And just in case they slip in your backyard where the stand is, you’re going to have to install some non-skid pathway material – we’ll have an inspector by later to make sure what you have is adequate.
Don’t forget liabitily insurance in case any of those kids do, in fact, slip while getting their free lemonaid.
Whoops, the inspector says your non-slip pathway isn’t wide enough – please add another 25% width before making any more sale, k? Thanks.
Now, here’s a new set of tax forms; pay particular attention to Form LMND which has some particular nuances you need to be concerned with (hey, Congress gave special consideration and pork to the iced tea stand industry, so you have to make up the difference).
Whoops, that inspector says your non-skid pathway is the right width now, but you used something he’s not sure meets OSHA standards as to non-skid pathways for lemonaid stands (consult the regs for details), so you’ll have to rip that out and put in a new one from scratch. Also, double-check to make sure it’s non-flammable, just in case.
Wait, wait – where are you going? You don’t want to be in the lemonaid business anymore? You greedy capitalist bastard – where are we supposed to get the tax money to support all of this wonderful bureaucracy?
Midas on March 9, 2010 at 10:58 AM
It is tougher with health insurance currently, but retiremetn is not as bad. IRA tax deduction limits are around $5K per year now. While 401(k)s are around 15K, many people do not contribute more than $5K at small businesses.
So if the employees are below the $5K line, why not just say I am giving an 1% (or 2%) raise and you manage your own retirement?
WashJeff on March 9, 2010 at 10:58 AM
The useless GOP in Congress must immediately get on Fox News and start branding this as socialism. Let’s call it what it is.
And those who might be said to benefit by this “encouragement” to provide them with health-care coverage better plan on find another job because your employer is going to find a way to do without you.
BuckeyeSam on March 9, 2010 at 11:01 AM
WashJeff, here’s a link for small employers.
http://www.healthplanone.com/healthinsurance/illinois/
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 11:01 AM
First, thanks for the response.
My company has 100 employees. I would think that most churches, again I am just using churches as an example organization, have more than 100 families. So their pool would be bigger than mine. Also, a church organization may have a better pool of families, in term sof healthly lifestyles, than say an auto repair business.
One could also apply this to local chambers of commerce and the local Loyal Order of Water Buffalos.
WashJeff on March 9, 2010 at 11:02 AM
Not if you have 200 employees.
Chuck Schick on March 9, 2010 at 11:03 AM
So… if you’re a teenager, you can pretty much forget about being gainful employment.
Also, it seems that the Dems want to count a significant group of young adults who may, for example, be in college and work part time for beer-money, who just so happen to remain on their parent’s health care plan until they’re 26. So they have health care, but their employer is being punished when he doesn’t provide for them coverage they already have. I think those college kids better ask mommy and daddy for that beer money…
BKeyser on March 9, 2010 at 11:03 AM
–Can’t you generally charge your participating employees almost all of the costs related to the 401(k), including mutual fund fees and administrative costs? (You can also make use of some standardized plans run by insurance companies). It reduces the employees’ return, but I understood that the net cost for most employers for having a 401(k) plan was pretty small.
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 11:04 AM
Pretty lame, even for a documented liar like you. It’s not your fault but you simply are not to believed on this stuff. If the goal is to stick it to small businesses for not providing healthcare coverage, a deliberate first step for bringing back the public option discussion, the bottom line is that this is an anti-business attack with the intent of making the government the default provider of health insurance coverage.
highhopes on March 9, 2010 at 11:06 AM
–Each state seems to have different rules about what counts as a group for this purpose. For instance, I think in Illinois I could have bought health insurance as an alumnus of one of my colleges. But I can’t do this in Texas for some reason.
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 11:06 AM
Doesn’t the impact of this depend on the calculation is? (In other words, do two 20 hour part time workers count as one full time workers)
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 10:46 AM
Pretty lame, even for a
like you. It’s not your fault but you simply are not to believed on this stuff. If the goal is to stick it to small businesses for not providing healthcare coverage, a deliberate first step for bringing back the public option discussion, the bottom line is that this is an anti-business attack with the intent of making the government the default provider of health insurance coverage.
highhopes on March 9, 2010 at 11:06 AM
–Show me proof of my being a liar or stop defaming me.
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 11:08 AM
I wish that the GOP would start talking about the specifics of this plan… i.e. this provision, and the fact that the IRS will be enforcing health care mandates… It is time to get out that chart again showing all of the Fed agencies that will be involved..
kringeesmom on March 9, 2010 at 11:09 AM
question: if you own a small business (the definition of small business is a moving target, so let’s assume that we all agree on the definition), could you provide health insurance to, say, the owner who has worked his/her life & maybe a few key employees & not provide to the rest of the employees?
or will this bill make us all the same?
i don’t want to be the same as everyone else if i’ve worked hard. i deserve better, wouldn’t you think?
kelley in virginia on March 9, 2010 at 11:09 AM
–Where does this bill require employers of any size to provide healthcare insurance? I thought it just penalized them if they didn’t (and if they were over 50 employees). I understand that the bills just require employers of 200 or more to automatically enroll their employees in any health care plan provided by an employer, but I don’t see anything that requires the employer to offer a plan.
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 11:13 AM
Uh…. which plan?
You see, the Dems have THREE plans, and are constantly rewriting provisions which they then do not publish.
They will no publish the language of the plan until just before (minutes) the vote, because last time they did, the Public and Net ripped it apart…
Romeo13 on March 9, 2010 at 11:14 AM
Only if you’re the one driving the rates.
I worked for a small business (under 50 employees) and one worker drove up the rates for all of us.
I was in my mid-30′s single, with no health issues and would have preferred to have the money my employer was paying for my health insurance, then go out and buy a catastrophic policy.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2010 at 11:14 AM
All the same. IIRC there’s a provisional period of 60-90 days where you don’t have to provide insurance, but after that the penalties kick in.
beancounter on March 9, 2010 at 11:14 AM
So…I normally bring in local boys, farm kids mostly, to let them tool around the shops doing odd repair jobs for free. They get some hands-on learning and I get some free muscle to remove cobwebs and lathe shavings. I have to cover them or not?
Ugh…this scheme is going to be so byzantine that by the time I figure it out I will already be in prison for breaking the new healthcare law.
Bishop on March 9, 2010 at 11:15 AM
Honestly, I haven’t even addressed it yet….our coverage runs through the end of August. I think I will ask our carrier what our upcoming options will be. I have a feeling it was summed up by another poster earlier: BOHICA.
search4truth on March 9, 2010 at 11:16 AM
Brilliant – just brilliant. But what do you expect from a bunch of people who have never worked in the private sector.
I think the only small businesess that will be left will be family only businessess where everybody is an owner and there are no “employees”.
gophergirl on March 9, 2010 at 11:17 AM
Most of the management fees are embedded into the investments. I think there is usually a fee outside the investment and it is relatively small (< $1000). The other fee is filing the annual report on the 401(k) plan with the government. You will most likely pay your accountant a few thousand dollars for this filing.
In bad investment periods, some employees also blame the employer for 401(k) performance…which is obviously foolish since all 401(k) plans I have seen have an ultra safe option.
401(k)s are usually restrictive in terms of ivestment movement. I think at Mot we could only move funds at best four times in a year (it might have been once). IRAs have no such restriction.
My utlimate solution here is to allow up to a $20k annual deduction for savings regardless if it is for retirement, health care, or future video game purchases.
WashJeff on March 9, 2010 at 11:17 AM
I suspect they are doing that on purpose. No better way to confuse someone than to constantly re-write proposals and then keep them super SeKriT. They re-write something just to see if it will stick to the wall, if it fails, they just try again.
Johnnyreb on March 9, 2010 at 11:18 AM
From the looks of the Democrat health care “reform” Bill, they haven’t done any work in the public sector either.
Worthless people pushing an inane legislative proposal that none of them remotely understand, because they didn’t write it.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2010 at 11:23 AM
This bill is about one thing: government control.
WisCon on March 9, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Work places are just not voluntary organizations as a church, for example. It would be nice if you could join the Young Conservatives Club and get your health insurance through that club. The club, having more freedom than an employer, could demand certain things out of their members:
- No smoking.
- Drug tests.
- Obiesity limits.
- Proof of exercise.
Employers cannot do this stuff without getting sued.
WashJeff on March 9, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Obama stated to some progressive group the other day that the end goal of Obamacare is for a single-payer system. Obamacare is just the “foundation” to get there. So, if you keep that in mind, all the rest becomes pretty clear – an attempt to destroy the private insurance market. The first step is making it too expensive for most employers to cover their employees. then force insurers to insure everyone, regardless of risk and regulate their premiums. It won’t be 1 year before private insurers start going out of business. At that point there is no alternative to a gov’t run plan.
Once that is done and 1/6 of the american economy is socialized, we are european style socialist democracy and all the things that made the U.S. great will be gone. Like europe, we will have constant 10% unemployment. Like europe, we will have sub-par health care with long wait times.
Like Europe, the gov’t will now have authority over every aspect of your life, all in terms of health care cost savings. What you eat, what activities you engage in, how much time you spend in the sun, drinking alcohol, climbing ladders – all will be subject to federal gov’t control and regulation.
How anyone does not see that as the clear end-game is beyond me. the dems are willing to concede the next election to the GOP in the belief (probably correct) that the GOP will never repeal Obamacare and once it is up and running, the left will have won. The disputes between the parties after that will be akin to the the U.K.’s labor / conservative split – not disputes about the size and role of gov’t, but only disputes about who manages it better.
And the gov’t will grow exponentially as the private sector gets squeezed out and our economy becomes more like one of the European state’s economies. We will no longer be a super-power economically, and we will not have the means or stomach to be a super-power militarily.
Anyone who argues that Obamacare is going to a) improve health care or b) reduce costs is either lying purposefully or willfully ignorant. As a matter of simply logic, you cannot introduce an alleged 40 million new people into the health care system and keep everyone else’s care at the same level, and you cannot introduce the alleged 40 million new people into the system and create cost savings. It is factually impossible.
So, people like Jimbo3 may have philosophical reasons for supporting Obamacare, but any claims that it is to increase the quality of healtcare (or even claims that it will not reduce the quality of healthcare) or claims of cost savings, are not genuine or honest. It is impossible for those claims to be true.
If anyone can demonstrate to me any time in the history of man that you increase consumption – keeping everything else equal – while lowering cost and/or not lowering quality, please do tell.
Monkeytoe on March 9, 2010 at 11:24 AM
We do something exactly like that. We looked at a 401(k), but the only people that would like that are the few like me that would max it out. Basically, management would love it but it would hurt our other employees since few actually are thinking ahead about retirement. Therefore, we issue once a year “bonus checks” based on performance that we mandate be reserved for retirement…whether it is an IRA, an IRA-CD, some kind of investment vehicle. That way we are helping our employees think about the future without the costs and restrictions that a 401(k) presents. Works for us.
search4truth on March 9, 2010 at 11:26 AM
Easy. Your continued claims that the House/Senate bills do not provide for federally funded abortions. This is a claim that even the HHS Secretary does not claim. You are a liar by your own claims and not by any defamation.
highhopes on March 9, 2010 at 11:26 AM
Amspec.
Wethal on March 9, 2010 at 11:26 AM
Umm, what? Several workplaces in my area are proudly drug-free, and require tests as a condition of employment. The local user/loser population despises them…but (thankfully) so far have been unable to compel them to change their policies.
Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 11:29 AM
Consider this. The feds start keeping closer watch over part-time employment in order to know how much they need to bill for lack of compliance with Obamacare. What do you suppose the chances are that the next thing is the unions mysteriously getting complete lists of “employees” that may force non-union shops to become tools of organized labor.
highhopes on March 9, 2010 at 11:30 AM
Unless they’re part of the federal government.
I do push ups, sit ups, a 1.5 mile run and a body fat test every six months for the US Navy Reserves.
And if I fail, they can fire me. Try that one at home.
Nice how the government exempts itself from the rules it requires you to live by, doesn’t it?
NoDonkey on March 9, 2010 at 11:30 AM
Warning- crude language
Saw a picture of a Tea Party protester that said:
“Would someone please give Obama a bl@w J@b so we can impeach him!”
While I agree with the concept, there has to be better criteria to impeach him on.
mechkiller_k on March 9, 2010 at 11:32 AM
I never understood why Obama tried to get so much progress towards single payer in one bite. Democrats have political nature on their side. That is, that it is natural for government to grow and liberty to yield. In 2007 I think Obama stated that single payer might take 15 to 20 more years to achieve. I think he was correct in that statement if he would have choosen an incremental approach that that would have slowly crippled the insurance companies.
He went for almost the whole enchilada and now the statists dream may be set back for decades. If the GOP regains power and can implement the three key reforms they want, the statists will be set back further…and that is a good thing.
WashJeff on March 9, 2010 at 11:32 AM
Because when the system fails, who ever is in change will retain power. B “Hugo” Obama
mechkiller_k on March 9, 2010 at 11:35 AM
Agreed. Drug-free does NOT fall into the example of being sued for imposing this rule on employment.
WashJeff on March 9, 2010 at 11:35 AM
The Fool neither preserved, protected or defended the Constitution of the United States.
Good grounds for impeachment, me thinks.
nyx on March 9, 2010 at 11:37 AM
Just great. There go my son’s prospects for landing a part-time or summer job. I guess he will sit home this summer along with his sister. And we’ll be waiting for an hour to get ice cream while the single full-time employee has to serve everyone at our local ice cream stand. It is so depressing to know that nobody in this White House or Democratic majority in Congress has a freaking clue about how business actually works in this country.
rockmom on March 9, 2010 at 11:40 AM
Imagine the impact on the Jersey Shore, and any other resort area that hires seasonal help.
Wethal on March 9, 2010 at 11:47 AM
rockmom on March 9, 2010 at 11:40 AM
The single full time employee at the ice cream stand will be out of a job as soon as someone figures out a way to mechanize the whole thing.
How many jobs that used to be done by young, entry level people are now mechanized?
Machines don’t get health care benefits, they don’t require retirement benefits, they don’t need maternity leave, etc.
Every move Democrats make produces more umemployed Americans. Voting for Democrats is against the economic interest of anyone who isn’t already rich, bottom line.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2010 at 11:48 AM
After two years, mandatory help, and multiple chances.
Do you really want employer-mandated PT programs? Stand-by, under Obamacare you could well get your wish.
highhopes on March 9, 2010 at 11:50 AM
Sir, proof of your prevarication has been provided repeatedly, on a number of different threads.
Midas on March 9, 2010 at 11:51 AM
I’m curious as to who really writes these bills, legislators or lobbyists.
Tom
marinetbryant on March 9, 2010 at 11:54 AM
Taco Bell Kiosk.
WashJeff on March 9, 2010 at 11:54 AM
Stop for a moment and think of the kind of businesses that employ part-time individuals. Think for a moment that if what’s being described occurs, part-time employment will significantly disappear, along with some or much of the full-time employment associated with those companies. Businesses closed, owners out of business, additional unemployment, inflation, etc.
This is lunacy.
Midas on March 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM
Your ice cream shop will be out of business in a hurry.
Midas on March 9, 2010 at 11:58 AM
highhopes on March 9, 2010 at 11:50 AM
I’m not saying that it’s a good thing, just that the feds would never allow a small business to do many of the things they do to us in the military.
On the other hand, I would have no problem running a similar physical fitness test to get a discount on my health insurance. If you can prove that you keep yourself in good physical shape, you should get a discount.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2010 at 11:58 AM
Actually, there is only one plan – the bill the Senate passed. The House bill is dead, the so-called “reconciliation” plan is a smokescreen.
Rebar on March 9, 2010 at 11:59 AM
My husband has a small business and we employ 4 part-time (actually per diem) employees that cover a wide geographical area.
We don’t yet have enough business to need a full-time employee, so we would probably have to fire 3 and just increase the hours for the one employee and send her all over the state…which would get expensive as we would have to reimburse her for mileage as well as her hourly wage…and the expense of the penalty…so I guess we’d have to eventually get rid of her too. Which means we wouldn’t be able to handle all the work that comes in – which means we’d stop getting referrals and eventually not be able to sustain our business…
This will kill so many small businesses like ours.
It just blows my mind that these things are not being paraded out by the GOP. The GOP has become so ineffective…I was elated at how well they performed at the health care summit – but they appear to have crawled right back into their holes…
SouperConservative on March 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM
Taco Bell Kiosk.
WashJeff on March 9, 2010 at 11:54 AM
I love automated stuff like this, because the customers who are too mentally challenged to order and get out of the way, won’t use it.
And you don’t have to deal with employees who don’t know how to make change.
Unfortunately, it means fewer entry level jobs where young people can develop skills, but that’s where Democrats are going on this.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2010 at 12:02 PM
How many high school and college kids won’t be able to earn money as part-time checkers, stockers and baggers at grocery stores?
Wethal on March 9, 2010 at 12:08 PM
Authoritarian
daesleeper on March 9, 2010 at 12:09 PM
Then how can they then be changing ‘this’ part of the plan?
Its already passed the Senate… and the House would have to pass the EXACT Senate bill, or it has to go back to the Senate (for either a conference report, or reconciliation)…
That they are still ‘modifying’ the plan, as this article states, tells me the ‘plan’ is NOT set in stone.
Romeo13 on March 9, 2010 at 12:10 PM
Look at the bright side, how many Community Organizers will be out of a job because of this?
NoDonkey on March 9, 2010 at 12:10 PM
DId you ever use a RedBox to rent a DVD? I do not rent often, but those kiosks will surely sink Blockbuster. The movie studios fear RedBox so much they will not allow RedBox to rent new releases until they have been on the market for one month.
Always use the self-checkout line too!
But why are companies using these methods? Because they are cheaper than employees. Why are employees expensive? We know the answer.
WashJeff on March 9, 2010 at 12:12 PM
calculate penalties
As a business owner who hires full-time and part-time employees I can tell you that these two words are huge job killers.
JonPrichard on March 9, 2010 at 12:14 PM
It’s almost as if the Dems want to destroy this country or something. But that can’t be because I was told Dems are patriotic and stuff.
angryed on March 9, 2010 at 12:16 PM
That goes for a “stay-at-home” mom like me. My husband has a good job with health benefits, but I work part-time to help out the family. The retail company that employs me and many other moms and retirees on a part-time basis will have to cut pay dramatically and still terminate about half the employees.
Laura in Maryland on March 9, 2010 at 12:20 PM
Mandated
Employer
Subsidized
Socialism
MESS. So what else did anyone expect of a MESS? Simplicity? Liberty? Clarity? Pursuit of Happiness?
drfredc on March 9, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Sorry if someone else has already asked this question, but How can the Far-left National Socialist moonbats from the Democrat party change the Bill like that?
[Rush just pointed this out]
If they were following the rules, wouldn’t they have to get 60 votes on the bill if they made any changes?
Chip on March 9, 2010 at 12:25 PM
I have already decided that if Obamacare passes, my staff are without jobs because I will probably just “lone eagle” my law practice. I dread it, but it will be out of economic necessity and — sad to say — a form of protest. I think in principle every small business needs to let their employees know what is coming. You want to get the normally disinterested energized? Tell them the government is about to terminate their jobs.
ObjectionSustained on March 9, 2010 at 12:25 PM
It’s exactly as I stated – a smokescreen, political cover to fool House democrats to pass the Senate bill, with the “promise” of changes to make it more palatable later on.
But make no mistake – the second the House passes the Senate bill, 0bama will sign it as is, and that will be that.
Rebar on March 9, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Rules? We don’t need no stinkin’ rules! Sad to say that legislative bodies can get to the end result of their legislation by any means they concoct. It’s not as if parliamentary rules are Constitutional or otherwise mandated by law. The Supreme Court cannot reach into the legislative machinery and correct procedural shenanigans. It may be sneaky, despicable and contrary to established practice and tradition, but legislatures essentially can play “Calvin Ball” and make up their rules as they go along so long as they have the political will to do so. The only way to rein in the beast is something called an ELECTION.
ObjectionSustained on March 9, 2010 at 12:31 PM
-No, idiot. I’m claiming that, under the language in the Senate bill, that federal funding of plans that provide abortion can be limited to what’s currently in the Hyde Amendment (they do have to correct some issues with community health centers and American Indians). And tell Bart Stupak how the House bill provides for federal funding of abortion. I’m sure he’d be interested because he thinks it doesn’t.
Here’s what Right to Life said in the WSJ. Even they do not claim that these plans necessarily provide federally funded abortions (other than as permitted by Medicaid).
• It would change existing law by allowing federally subsidized health-care plans to pay for abortions [NOTE: This is the Hyde Amendment] and could require private health-insurance plans to cover abortion.
• It would impose a first-ever abortion tax—a separate premium payment that will be used to pay for elective abortions—on enrollees in insurance plans that covers abortions through newly created government health-care exchanges.
• And it would fail to protect the rights of health-care providers to refuse to participate in abortions [NOTE: See my earlier post on the protections already in the Senate bill; I don't know what she's talking about.]
The president’s plan goes further than the Senate bill on abortion by calling for spending $11 billion over five years on “community health centers,” which include Planned Parenthood clinics that provide abortions.
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 12:33 PM
Why does Obama hate business and employees?
daesleeper on March 9, 2010 at 12:36 PM
Ahh the reasoned logic and debating skills of a leftist. Say are you related to Rahm by any chance?
angryed on March 9, 2010 at 12:41 PM
It mandates auto-enrollment in a firm:
Chuck Schick on March 9, 2010 at 12:41 PM
How can they change the Bill and not have to pass it by another vote in the Senate?
Chip on March 9, 2010 at 12:44 PM
Not sure why my link didn’t post:
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm
Chuck Schick on March 9, 2010 at 12:44 PM
They will have another vote in the Senate, but a reconciliation vote, which only need 50 senators, plus Biden.
The House still has to pass the unchanged Senate version first.
Wethal on March 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM
Very well said.
Look to Canada to see how quickly health care becomes a right. Within 5 years of them socializing medicine, anyone even hinting at the prospect of going back was a dead man walking politically speaking.
Anyone who thinks the GOP will repeal this monstrosity is more gullible than the likes of Jimbo3 who thiks he will get quality free health care from Barry.
America will be Europe by 2020. It’s a shame, but oh well all good things come to an end eventually. And really the American people only have themselves to blame. They voted for these people. Stupid is as stupid does.
Just have a plan to move somewhere else and you’ll be fine.
angryed on March 9, 2010 at 12:49 PM
They will have another vote in the Senate, but a reconciliation vote, which only need 50 senators, plus Biden.
The House still has to pass the unchanged Senate version first.
Wethal on March 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM
I think they’re trying to avoid the Nuclear option if they can – no sense trying to dictate to the people just what They want.
Chip on March 9, 2010 at 12:50 PM
You think the words kill jobs, just wait until those words are put into practice!
It may be a distinction without difference but the fact is that merely the perception of this provision will kill jobs and curtail new hires. Then there is a second wave when “enforcement” comes into play as some newly hired drone goes door to door making sure employers are accounting and paying for all those part-time employees.
highhopes on March 9, 2010 at 1:06 PM
He will.
Over the horizon, that is when Republicans stop obstructing full funding of Obamacare.
That will be the excuse.
They can just recycle it from the one Democrats use for our overfunded, underperforming public “schools”.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2010 at 1:18 PM
In business we generally try to prepare for what is coming in the future and make adjustments accordingly. But you are quite right that a second wave of mass firings will commence after enforcement proceedings start, just for the sake of surviving. Many will simply shutter the doors.
JonPrichard on March 9, 2010 at 1:23 PM
Hear you. My wife has college kids doing the low-end stuff at her workplace. They get money and college cred. Going to be tough to do that if this crap is implemented.
Ah the Change, Change, Change. Just like the bumper sticker said, “Don’t blame me, I voted for the American.”
shades_of_gasden on March 9, 2010 at 1:25 PM
If we do that, will you drop off and never post on Hot Air again?
right2bright on March 9, 2010 at 1:48 PM
No more having some kid work a couple hours a day sweeping up the shop. If the Democrats stick this provision in the bill, it will cause even more severe unemployment.
crosspatch on March 9, 2010 at 2:18 PM
Unionization was the first thing I thought of too. Are the Dems going to take out the “Cadillac” tax on union plans in the Senate bill that keeps morphing? Keep an eye out because you know they will. And then guess what?! You hire union, you don’t have to worry about whatever the ObamaCare bill mandates.
I HATE these people.
citrus on March 9, 2010 at 2:18 PM
–It mandates auto enrollment if the employer offers those plans. That’s different from the usual current situation where employees have to affirmatively elect coverage.
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 3:01 PM
Slightly O/T
But Andy stern was here today, and see what happened
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7320220
Here is the future of medirat ( = medical rations) under SEIU+ UHW+ Comrades Obama and Stern
macncheez on March 9, 2010 at 3:12 PM
Pelosi stated recently; “We need to pass this bill so we can see what’s in it outside of committee”.
In other words; “You need to jump into this volcano to show your allegiance for us.”
These are the leaders we need in Congress to completely kneecap America.
They’re doing a fine job.
Cybergeezer on March 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Oh, so what you’re saying is that they get nailed with the $750 per employee as well?
Chuck Schick on March 9, 2010 at 4:02 PM
–I think anyone with over 50 employees pays that, if I’m reading this correctly.
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 4:52 PM
Yes. But remember the definition of “lie”: to state something that one knows to be false . So an honest mistake or disagreement doesn’t count as a lie.
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 4:55 PM
If that is truly what the bill says, I read this as the company is required to enroll its employess into coverage they offer, but it does not say IF they offer it.
So it can be construed that they MUST offer something & the employee must then be enrolled in it unless they opt out.
My 2 cents.
Badger40 on March 9, 2010 at 5:15 PM
Badger and Chuck,
Here’s the text of the Senate provision:
SEC. 1511. AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT FOR EMPLOYEES OF
13 LARGE EMPLOYERS.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is amended by
inserting after section 18 (29 U.S.C. 218) the following:
‘‘SEC. 18A. AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT FOR EMPLOYEES OF
17 LARGE EMPLOYERS.
18 ‘‘In accordance with regulations promulgated by the
19 Secretary, an employer to which this Act applies that has
20 more than 200 full-time employees and that offers employees enrollment in 1 or more health benefits plans shall automatically enroll new full-time employees in one of the plans offered (subject to any waiting period authorized by law)and to continue the enrollment of current employees in any health benefits plan offered through the employer. Any automatic enrollment program shall include adequate notice and the opportunity for an employee to opt out of any coverage the individual or employee were automatically enrolled in. Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede any State law which establishes, implements, or continues in effect any standard or requirement relating to employers in connection with payroll except to the extent that such standard or requirement prevents an employer from instituting the automatic enrollment program under this….
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 5:26 PM
This health care legislation is another “Omnibus Spending Bill” that Obama wants to sign. He signed one last year.
Congress is already spending (and swindling) our tax money like drunken sailors with unlimited credit cards.
When they are done, do they plan to take exile on the Moon? They’re going to have to take some similar action to get away from the wrath of “We The People”.
Cybergeezer on March 9, 2010 at 5:37 PM
The whole fast food/retail industry will either go bankrupt or price themselves out of the market. Malls and student workers will be a thing of the past. Online retail will be the way to go and it won’t matter where the company is located. College students, who work in research parks around the country, will not be able to get real-life job training experience that companies look for nowadays.
djaymick on March 9, 2010 at 5:39 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
Just some perspective, last week the government released the 2009 report on social insurance liabilities.
Medicare and Social Security alone is $46 trillion short over the next 75 years, $3 trillion more than 2008.
ObamaCare is projected to save $131 billion over a decade, and that’s with only 6 years of spending.
$371 billion to stave off the 21% cut in doctor fees paid by Medicare is already in the 2011 budget.
So Obama’s already spent the projected savings from ObamaCare 3 times over.
Chuck Schick on March 9, 2010 at 6:57 PM
.
The law of unintended consequences; mass firings of temporary workers.
Dasher on March 9, 2010 at 11:49 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »