NYT: Hey, here are a few more surprises from ObamaCare!

posted at 12:55 pm on March 31, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Well, Nancy Pelosi did say that we’d have to pass ObamaCare to find out what’s in it, since Congress wasn’t too interested in letting us read the bill first.  The New York Times didn’t show much curiosity until after the passage as well.  Yesterday, the newspaper finally got around to reporting all of the interesting little tidbits that the bill contains, including a federal mandate on breastfeeding and a new tanning tax:

Tucked inside the huge health reform bill signed into law last week were many surprising and little-noticed provisions that will affect consumers in ways large and small.

“Little-noticed?”  Bear in mind that this comes from The Paper of Record, which supposedly publishes All The News That’s Fit to Print.  If these are “little noticed,” it’s because media outlets like the Times didn’t do their job.

It emerged that chain restaurants, for example, would have to disclose the calorie counts of items on their menus. Who knew?

Er, Democrats knew.  We didn’t know, mainly because the Times busied itself with trying to sell ObamaCare rather than report on it, and because Democrats didn’t want us to know.

So what are these “surprising and little-noticed provisions”?

  • A new federal mandate on businesses of 51 or more employees to provide a private area (not a bathroom) for nursing mothers to pump breast milk for up to a year after giving birth.  This means that businesses have to plan for mainly unused floor space in every facility, or face federal sanctions.
  • Tanning salons now have to charge a 10% excise tax on their services.  That should help the local economies!
  • W-2s must now declare “informationally” the value of health-care benefits.  This means that W-2s will become even more complicated and will cost businesses billions each year in extra accounting and reporting, which will hit smaller businesses most.

Not only will these new mandates carry extra cost burdens for businesses, we now will have to fund enforcement as well.  That means even more money taken out of the private sector and spent on non-productive regulatory efforts, mainly for the Democrats’ ideas of social engineering. Too bad the major media outlets didn’t take notice of these while something could have been done about them … which was the reason why outlets like the Times ignored them.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

catlady on March 31, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Hi catlady. I’ve missed you!

AsianGirlInTights on March 31, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Stinky fish are indignant.

NYT no longer fit to wrap them.

Schadenfreude on March 31, 2010 at 1:52 PM

highhopes on March 31, 2010 at 1:44 PM

You forgot the lawyers. As was said all along- this isn’t a healthcare bill, it’s a payoff to lawyers.

journeyintothewhirlwind on March 31, 2010 at 1:54 PM

trucking companies.

spudmom on March 31, 2010 at 1:46 PM

I just bought my daughter a double breast pump.
You can buy an accessory that allows you to walk around & do what ever you want, like driving, as it pumps both of your breasts at the same time.

Badger40 on March 31, 2010 at 1:54 PM

W-2s must now declare “informationally” the value of health-care benefits. This means that W-2s will become even more complicated and will cost businesses billions each year in extra accounting and reporting, which will hit smaller businesses most.

This one is ridiculous. How will it cost billions to add another number for a W2? There are 1000 things to criticize about ObamaCare. This is not one of them.

angryed on March 31, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Sorry, angryed, but you’re dead wrong here. First, you’re assuming that the number exists somewhere in the payroll system. It doesn’t — if it’s anywhere, it’s over in Accounts Payable.

Second, you assume that the government’s definition will be anything like a realistic one. The classic example here is taxable “group life insurance > $50K” that may very well be on your W-2. The government uses actuarial tables to calculate this that are wildly inaccurate, regularly leading to situations where the tax on the implied benefit of the policy excess is more than the actual cost of the entire policy.

Third, while many companies have outsourced their payroll to ADP or others — and can, thus, amortize the cost of rewriting payroll reports across the customer base of the service companies — there are still a number of companies that prepare payroll in-house and file their own returns. Those companies are going to need to take a break from scratching out a living and recode their payroll systems to keep track of the information and recode their report generators to report it. I remember spending time recoding 1099 generators every time they messed with the form’s margins — and that’s minor compared to wedging an entirely new box in.

cthulhu on March 31, 2010 at 1:54 PM

“Can you milk me Focker”

Big John on March 31, 2010 at 1:44 PM

You can milk anything with nipples.

Badger40 on March 31, 2010 at 1:55 PM

W-2s must now declare “informationally” the value of health-care benefits. This means that W-2s will become even more complicated and will cost businesses billions each year in extra accounting and reporting, which will hit smaller businesses most.

This one is ridiculous. How will it cost billions to add another number for a W2? There are 1000 things to criticize about ObamaCare. This is not one of them.

angryed on March 31, 2010 at 1:08 PM

–I hate to point this out, but several of the GOP proposals in the last few years have included this same provision. It’s to let employees know the “full” cost of their healthcare insurance.

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Good Grief! Is that Spock’s sister in that picture?

darwin on March 31, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Have you seen it wearing it’s big black-rimmed glasses?
Oh my.

redslippers on March 31, 2010 at 1:56 PM

•Tanning salons now have to charge a 10% excise tax on their services. That should help the local economies!

AKA = the White Girl Tax
Know any African Americans going to the Tanning Salon?

barnone on March 31, 2010 at 1:05 PM

AKA the Alaskan Tax

It’s evidently not uncommon for Alaskans to seek tanning beds to help fight off Seasonal Affective Depression (and vitamin D deficiency). How very like Obama to sneak a provision into a bill that shivs a rival.

cthulhu on March 31, 2010 at 1:57 PM

To paraphrase others on this thread – is that 51 employees,or 51 female employees? What about industries that are still predominantly male (like software engineering), where you could easily have 51 employees – 48 men and three women (none of whom are breast feeding)?

Great job once again, Giggles. Great job.

crazy_legs on March 31, 2010 at 1:57 PM

–I hate to point this out, but several of the GOP proposals in the last few years have included this same provision. It’s to let employees know the “full” cost of their healthcare insurance.
Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Hate to point this out, but the fact that you know about bills that never became law really is something, isn’t it? Too bad the ‘rats couldn’t have been so forthcoming.

Bishop on March 31, 2010 at 1:57 PM

My husband has very selflessly volunteered to be a member of the breast-feeding police force. What a guy!

kringeesmom on March 31, 2010 at 1:32 PM

–Does anyone want to also volunterr to perform taste tests, just to make sure that it’s okay for the kids to drink.

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 1:58 PM

This means that W-2s will become even more complicated

W2s are complicated????

paulsur on March 31, 2010 at 2:02 PM

–I hate to point this out, but several of the GOP proposals in the last few years have included this same provision.

It’s to let employees know the “full” cost of their healthcare insurance.
Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 1:55 PM
Hate to point this out, but the fact that you know about bills that never became law really is something, isn’t it? Too bad the ‘rats couldn’t have been so forthcoming.

Bishop on March 31, 2010 at 1:57 PM

–Remember that McCain’s proposal would have been to tax employer-provided health care benefits. That would have been shown on the W-2, obviously. And Ryan’s plan would have also been to give “transparency” to the employer’s cost for health care benefits.

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 2:03 PM

–Does anyone want to also volunterr to perform taste tests, just to make sure that it’s okay for the kids to drink.

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Kids up to the age of 26 I believe.

Electrongod on March 31, 2010 at 2:05 PM

I would like to thank Allah and Ed for reminding me of this and this every time I see that picture.

Diane on March 31, 2010 at 2:05 PM

–I hate to point this out, but several of the GOP proposals in the last few years have included this same provision. It’s to let employees know the “full” cost of their healthcare insurance.

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Which any employer could do if they felt like it….

It is, of course, obvious that any government mandate on employers has to have costs, and has to have so few benefits to the employers that they’re not already doing it. There’s a reason that there is no government mandate to breathe — everyone already does it through self-interest. Further, even if the costs seem minimal (and everything seems minimal if you don’t have to do it yourself), they add up when extended across the entire population.

cthulhu on March 31, 2010 at 2:05 PM

And when the single person realizes that that the family of 4 is making far more than him when health benefits are added into the cost will he sue for parity?

Socmodfiscon on March 31, 2010 at 2:06 PM

I don’t get why we’re still posting on this topic. AnninCA (and the mouse in her pocket) doesn’t care about this. Can we just move on? Maybe even delete this story?

Ampersand on March 31, 2010 at 2:08 PM

upinak on March 31, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Thanks. I might, but for now, I’ve just retweeted Sarah Palin’s “Drill, baby, drill”!

Al in St. Lou on March 31, 2010 at 2:08 PM

AKA = the White Girl Tax
Know any African Americans going to the Tanning Salon?

barnone on March 31, 2010 at 1:05 PM

Hey, how about a 10% tax on hair straightner.

Oh no no…that would be racist.

txdoc on March 31, 2010 at 2:09 PM

To paraphrase others on this thread – is that 51 employees,or 51 female employees? What about industries that are still predominantly male (like software engineering), where you could easily have 51 employees – 48 men and three women (none of whom are breast feeding)?

Great job once again, Giggles. Great job.

crazy_legs on March 31, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Maybe the men should have their own milking parlor.
Ooohhh. That just doesn’t sound right.
But you know, it would probably lead to increased productivity in the male workforce if they had a ‘special’ room.

Badger40 on March 31, 2010 at 2:10 PM

And AP is telling us that GOP candidates are afraid of running on a pledge to repeal this POS?

GOP candidates who don’t run on a pledge to repeal need to wake up to a horse’s head in their bed.

BuckeyeSam on March 31, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Where is the Louis Renault award?! I am shocked shocked at the omission. :D

DINORight on March 31, 2010 at 2:13 PM

–Remember that McCain’s proposal would have been to tax employer-provided health care benefits. That would have been shown on the W-2, obviously. And Ryan’s plan would have also been to give “transparency” to the employer’s cost for health care benefits.
Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 2:03 PM

Again, isn’t it amazing that you know so much about the plans of not one but two GOP politicians. Meanwhile Pelosi told us that we needed to pass her bill before we could find out what was in it.

Bishop on March 31, 2010 at 2:16 PM

My medications have a cost to them.

They allow me to have a few cogent hours of mental capacity and I can now walk a bit more than a city block and not be exhausted for more than a day.

That is priceless and beyond any value.

I get a damned good bargain in that, and know what I’ve had to shed in life and what to keep so as to manage the cost… because it is worth the value of some health and activity.

I can put no cost on that restored health, even so minor: it is beyond price. And yet I manage my life to pay for it.

I can’t afford to do that via taxes for others. That has a cost to it and it puts the value at risk. I have helped myself so as not to be a burden to others. I expect others to do the same and will give to charities to help if I could just bring the cost down of all the ‘help’ my limited funds are supposed to get others by spreading it around. I need that cash for what little I have in value.

When you control my health and my life through my taxes to help others generally better off and healthier than I am, I get more than a bit irked. Quite a bit, in fact.

ajacksonian on March 31, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Guys, businesses were already required to provide space for breastfeeding mothers to pump.

Trust me on this one.

playblu on March 31, 2010 at 2:18 PM

–Remember that McCain’s proposal would have been to tax employer-provided health care benefits. That would have been shown on the W-2, obviously. And Ryan’s plan would have also been to give “transparency” to the employer’s cost for health care benefits.

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 2:03 PM

If it’s excludable income, why does it have to be reported to the IRS?

BuckeyeSam on March 31, 2010 at 2:18 PM

This one is ridiculous. How will it cost billions to add another number for a W2? There are 1000 things to criticize about ObamaCare. This is not one of them.

angryed on March 31, 2010 at 1:08 PM

That’s easy to answer. The current forms are printed by a specific computer software application that now needs to be modified to allow for the current changes. Software manufacturers can either release such changes as a patch or will require an ‘upgrade’ to the latest version (a.k.a ‘the Microsoft Way’) which will incur costs across the board.

That’s ONE way, anyway.

Sponge on March 31, 2010 at 2:18 PM

I have spent the last few years working in the oil industry as the only woman in the district. I am now out of my baby making stage. Why should a company be required by law to provide a breast pumping room in a male dominated industry? That is just ridiculous. Women have managed to get it done prior to this.

TXMomof3 on March 31, 2010 at 2:19 PM

•Tanning salons now have to charge a 10% excise tax on their services. That should help the local economies!

AKA = the White Girl Tax
Know any African Americans going to the Tanning Salon?

barnone on March 31, 2010 at 1:05 PM
AKA the Alaskan Tax

It’s evidently not uncommon for Alaskans to seek tanning beds to help fight off Seasonal Affective Depression (and vitamin D deficiency). How very like Obama to sneak a provision into a bill that shivs a rival.

cthulhu on March 31, 2010 at 1:57 PM

AKA the John Boenher Tax

Anyway, it’s another tax on YOUTH; tons of girls & guys use tanning salons. Many university apartments have in-house tanning in the gym area.

Thanks for the info. I’ll text my college daughter and her (many!) friends and have them post on facebook/twitter the Democrats Impose Tan Tax.

TN Mom on March 31, 2010 at 2:22 PM

By making employers put the “value” of health care benefits on W2′s, the government is conditioning people to acknowledge that they are getting a benefit from their employer that has value… then the gov’t will eventually say “you are getting something of value from your employer… which is really just another form of income… therefore we have the right to tax it, so that we can provide the same benefit to all. That’s only FAIR“.

More wealth redistribution… that’s our future from now on.

painesright on March 31, 2010 at 2:25 PM

I didn’t pump for very long, but I have to say I hated using bathrooms. The government facility I worked at had some nasty women – so I’d sneak off to an used cubicle. Having to pump in a disgusting environment can be stressful, which can cut into how well you let down, how much milk you can pump, and how much time it takes.

On the other hand, I don’t think that any business should be required to provide a nursing room. How child/parent-friendly a company wants to be should be entirely up to that company. If a mom wants to pump after she goes back to work, she needs to take these things into consideration beforehand – preferably before she gets pregnant. I know that this doesn’t happen, and everyone cannot be fortunate enough to work for nice companies, but life isn’t fair.

But it’s still gross to pump/breastfeed in a multi-stalled public bathroom. I wouldn’t want to eat in their either!

Anna on March 31, 2010 at 2:25 PM

TXMomof3 on March 31, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Maybe it is the beta males who are trying to pump.

upinak on March 31, 2010 at 2:30 PM

TN Mom on March 31, 2010 at 2:22 PM

I’ve been telling my students, that when they go to mutate their epithelial cells, they will be charged this 10% tax.
HS kids are apalled at this.
I tell them it’s only going to get ‘better’.

Badger40 on March 31, 2010 at 2:34 PM

“Can you milk me Focker”

Big John on March 31, 2010 at 1:44 PM

You can milk anything with nipples.

Badger40 on March 31, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Ah, a thread with people and subject matter I recognize.

I feel better.

karl9000 on March 31, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Badger40 on March 31, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Tofu and Soy Milk in high school vending machines!

TN Mom on March 31, 2010 at 2:37 PM

–I hate to point this out, but several of the GOP proposals in the last few years have included this same provision. It’s to let employees know the “full” cost of their healthcare insurance.

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 1:55 PM

It is clear that the reason the jug-eared traitor and you all want to do this is to tax either the individual or the employer for all the “benefits” coming out of this very unconstitutional takeover of America. In the past, you rat bastard traitors at least tried to hide your intent. Now we all see who and what you are. Payback will be sweet when we drive you from power. Until then enjoy the coup. It will not be long before justice prevails.

highhopes on March 31, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 1:58 PM

more drek from HA’s #1 abortionist.

tigerlily on March 31, 2010 at 2:45 PM

But it’s still gross to pump/breastfeed in a multi-stalled public bathroom. I wouldn’t want to eat in their either!

Anna on March 31, 2010 at 2:25 PM

I’ve seen the government requirements for these rooms. There’s got to be some reasonable solution that accomodates the needs of new moms without the mandate that comes along in government regulation.

BTW, for many small/medium-sized companies, there will be 49 employees and that is all there will be. That being said, I can just imagine when that landscape company (or other predominantly male industry) is fined for not having one of these rooms.

highhopes on March 31, 2010 at 2:45 PM

OK, I don’t have any kids so maybe I’m missing something here, but . . . is there a reason someone would need to pump their breast milk while they’re on the job? Wouldn’t you do this at home and store it up in the fridge or whatever so it would be there when the baby needs it?

Anyway, what is wrong with just using the ladies’ room? I see women in there feeding and changing babies all the time right out in the open. I fail to see how pumping breast milk would be any different.

NoLeftTurn on March 31, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Since I’ve had eating disorder issues my husband and I agreed that whomever I’m dining with will read me the menu so I don’t get triggered by the ‘numbers’. If it’s a menu-board instead I’ll just have the cashier read the section that I’m interested in while I stare at my feet…or better yet I’ll know what I want before I visit.
As my doctor’s nurse-herself a bulimia survivor and solid conservative-pointed out: The left will only get power over me if I let them.
I. Won’t.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 31, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Remember that McCain’s proposal would have been to tax employer-provided health care benefits. That would have been shown on the W-2, obviously. And Ryan’s plan would have also been to give “transparency” to the employer’s cost for health care benefits.

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 2:03 PM
If it’s excludable income, why does it have to be reported to the IRS?

BuckeyeSam on March 31, 2010 at 2:18 PM

–So employees would know the full cost of the benefit (it’s reported for “informational” purposes only).

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 1:58 PM

more drek from HA’s #1 abortionist.

tigerlily on March 31, 2010 at 2:45 PM

–More drek from HA’s number one liar, with highhopes coming a close section.

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Oh good. More fodder to use when I ridicule my dimwitted friends who voted for Obama, as I now do on a daily basis.

WarEagle01 on March 31, 2010 at 3:07 PM

I see, as I predicted that the GOP is already backpeddling on the repeal. They are and will always be the biggest bunch of wusses and will never change until we get some real conservatives in Washington. Vote every incumbent out and start fresh, including their staffs!!

flytier on March 31, 2010 at 3:07 PM

you could easily have 51 employees – 48 men and three women (none of whom are breast feeding)?

crazy_legs on March 31, 2010 at 1:57 PM

It doesn’t sound like that’s the case (although I’m not an expert) since it specifically says “for up to a year after giving birth.”

Presumably, if there’s an end date for the required room, there’s also a start date (birth, or end of maternity leave).

[tangent]I’m against ObamaCare, but I think that’s reasonable. Asking a woman to use a toilet for pumping breast milk is just gross. I won’t even touch a public flush handle with anything but my shoe, and companies want them to handle food for an infant in there? *shudder*[/tangent]

Tanya on March 31, 2010 at 3:08 PM

OK, I don’t have any kids so maybe I’m missing something here, but . . . is there a reason someone would need to pump their breast milk while they’re on the job? Wouldn’t you do this at home and store it up in the fridge or whatever so it would be there when the baby needs it?

Anyway, what is wrong with just using the ladies’ room? I see women in there feeding and changing babies all the time right out in the open. I fail to see how pumping breast milk would be any different.
NoLeftTurn on March 31, 2010 at 2:51 PM.

Babies feed on demand. If the mom is at home all day, she’d feed the baby when the baby was hungry – you hear the baby cry and experience the ‘let down.’ When you have to work, you have to pump because your body keeps producing the milk, expecting a baby to nurse. If you don’t keep up the pumping when away from the baby, your milk supply will not be able to keep up with the baby’s demands, and your supply will eventually dry up. Also, if you go too long between feeding/pumping, your breasts will get engorged, which can be painful (and leaky). I had a friend that had mastitis, and the cure for that is actually nursing – she was literally pumping comstantly when she wasn’t feeding her baby.

As to the public restrooms thing – I think they’re gross. I can understand changing a baby in one, but not feeding or pumping in one. I wouldn’t make a sandwich in a bathroom. I know some women are fine with feeding/pumping in bathrooms, but that’s on them. Ick.

And sorry for my earlier typo. There, not their.

Anna on March 31, 2010 at 3:09 PM

*constantly. I simply cannot type today.

Anna on March 31, 2010 at 3:11 PM

A few of these were publicized. At least I had heard of the calorie counts on restaurant menus (which I don’t think is a bad idea actually). I had also heard of the tanning tax (which is just a stupid money grab). The nursing room thing is news to me, as is the W-2 info, both of which are moronic.

MJBrutus on March 31, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Even my lefty doctor-terrific guy despite that-thinks requiring calorie counts on menus is bad news.
My husband-5.4 250LBS-won’t change his eating habits and me-5.2 123lbs-could end up on a starvation diet because I it said that I had however many calories.
I WON’T end up on a diet-because I’m no victim and because I work out a lot-but others might be effected far worse than me.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 31, 2010 at 3:14 PM

angryed on March 31, 2010 at 1:32 PM

You don’t know squat about programing, do you? First of all, depending on how the software is written you have hours upon hours of recoding to add that ‘one line’. Second, you have even more hours for layout of the new W-2 for printing. Now multiply that for every piece of accounting software not only on the retail market for small business that use things like Quickbooks or Peachtree, but also places that use large solutions like PeopleSoft and Banner (and all the testing that goes with). Add to that those places that use custom, in house software for accounting as well.

Once you have that number, now we get to the fun stuff. You see, they want the VALUE, not the cost. The cost is easy. The value is much harder and takes many hours per company for evaluation on what the health-care’s value is (i.e. how much is saved per person on prescription drugs, co-pay of doctor visits, etc) and multiply that times every company that offers some form of health insurance.

That is where you get the billions of dollars.

Wolftech on March 31, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 2:59 PM

It says VALUE not COST.

Learn some reading comprehension, moron.

Wolftech on March 31, 2010 at 3:17 PM

The only reason I think calorie counts on menus would be a good thing, is for salads. So many restaurants market their salads like they’re healthy and lo-cal — but many of them have 15-20g of fat.

On a double bacon cheeseburger with butter-fried buns, or an oreo milkshake? Don’t even tell me, I don’t want to know.

Tanya on March 31, 2010 at 3:19 PM

You don’t know squat about programing, do you? First of all, depending on how the software is written you have hours upon hours of recoding to add that ‘one line’. Second, you have even more hours for layout of the new W-2 for printing. Now multiply that for every piece of accounting software not only on the retail market for small business that use things like Quickbooks or Peachtree, but also places that use large solutions like PeopleSoft and Banner (and all the testing that goes with). Add to that those places that use custom, in house software for accounting as well.

Once you have that number, now we get to the fun stuff. You see, they want the VALUE, not the cost. The cost is easy. The value is much harder and takes many hours per company for evaluation on what the health-care’s value is (i.e. how much is saved per person on prescription drugs, co-pay of doctor visits, etc) and multiply that times every company that offers some form of health insurance.

That is where you get the billions of dollars.

Wolftech on March 31, 2010 at 3:15 PM

–Wouldn’t the value simply be the amount of the employer payments to the plan administrator for the plan during the year? That shouldn’t be too tough to figure out.

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Tanya on March 31, 2010 at 3:19 PM

But those are the best salads…

Diane on March 31, 2010 at 3:28 PM

angryed on March 31, 2010 at 1:32 PM

You don’t know squat about programing, do you? First of all, depending on how the software is written you have hours upon hours of recoding to add that ‘one line’.

Only if you’re a hack programmer. A good programmer would write a simple procedure that goes sometyhing like this:

loop through all employees w2 recpords
{
W2.box_22 = select sum(monthly_health_benefit_cost) from
AP database_where_this_value_is_stored where year =

save w2
}

Second, you have even more hours for layout of the new W-2 for printing.

No you don’t. These are standard forms that everyone uses.

Now multiply that for every piece of accounting software not only on the retail market for small business that use things like Quickbooks or Peachtree,

Quickbooks makes hundreds of changes every year as it is.

Once you have that number, now we get to the fun stuff. You see, they want the VALUE, not the cost.

That may be the case. But stick to that and not the ridiculous argument that adding a line item will cost billions when hundreds of line items are added/deleted/changed every year.

Wolftech on March 31, 2010 at 3:15 PM

angryed on March 31, 2010 at 3:29 PM

It would have been nice if the New York Times ran these stories BEFORE the bill was voted on.

SoulGlo on March 31, 2010 at 3:31 PM

–I hate to point this out, but several of the GOP proposals in the last few years have included this same provision. It’s to let employees know the “full” cost of their healthcare insurance.

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 1:55 PM

I’ve always gotten an annual report from my employer listing this, as well as any other costs on top of my paycheck.

There’s no reason for it to be on the W-2 except to let the government know.

malclave on March 31, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 2:59 PM
It says VALUE not COST.

Learn some reading comprehension, moron.

Wolftech on March 31, 2010 at 3:17 PM

–If you read one additional sentence in the NYT article, you would have seen that “value” was “employer cost”. Here’s the actual requirement (as far as I can tell). It is “cost”:

SEC. 6056. LARGE EMPLOYERS REQUIRED TO REPORT ON HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.

`(a) In General- Every applicable large employer required to meet the requirements of section 4980H with respect to its full-time employees during a calendar year shall, at such time as the Secretary may prescribe, make a return described in subsection (b).

`(b) Form and Manner of Return- A return is described in this subsection if such return–

`(1) is in such form as the Secretary may prescribe, and

`(2) contains–

`(A) the name, date, and employer identification number of the employer,

`(B) a certification as to whether the employer offers to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2)),

`(C) if the employer certifies that the employer did offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to so enroll–

`(i) the length of any waiting period (as defined in section 2701(b)(4) of the Public Health Service Act) with respect to such coverage,

`(ii) the months during the calendar year for which coverage under the plan was available,

`(iii) the monthly premium for the lowest cost option in each of the enrollment categories under the plan, and

`(iv) the applicable large employer’s share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan,

`(D) the number of full-time employees for each month during the calendar year,

`(E) the name, address, and TIN of each full-time employee during the calendar year and the months (if any) during which such employee (and any dependents) were covered under any such health benefits plans, and

`(F) such other information as the Secretary may require.

`(c) Statements To Be Furnished to Individuals With Respect to Whom Information Is Reported-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Every person required to make a return under subsection (a) shall furnish to each full-time employee whose name is required to be set forth in such return under subsection (b)(2)(E) a written statement showing–

`(A) the name and address of the person required to make such return and the phone number of the information contact for such person, and

`(B) the information required to be shown on the return with respect to such individual.

`(2) TIME FOR FURNISHING STATEMENTS- The written statement required under paragraph (1) shall be furnished on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year for which the return under subsection (a) was required to be made.

`(d) Coordination With Other Requirements- To the maximum extent feasible, the Secretary may provide that–

`(1) any return or statement required to be provided under this section may be provided as part of any return or statement required under section 6051 or 6055, and

`(2) in the case of an applicable large employer offering health insurance coverage of a health insurance issuer, the employer may enter into an agreement with the issuer to include information required under this section with the return and statement required to be provided by the issuer under section 6055.

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 3:33 PM

OK today is an odd day….I am actually in agreement with Jimbo3.

If crr6 and I agree tonight….start looking for headless horsemen and such.

angryed on March 31, 2010 at 3:34 PM

A new federal mandate on businesses of 51 or more employees to provide a private area (not a bathroom) for nursing mothers to pump breast milk for up to a year after giving birth. This means that businesses have to plan for mainly unused floor space in every facility, or face federal sanctions.

Shazam! Sounds like another case for Commerce Clause Man!

If growing wheat (for your own use, own your own land) creates a substantial impact on interstate commerce (meaning the wheat and wheat product industry), doesn’t using your own breast milk have the same effect on the dairy industry?

Witness the genious of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution’s Commerce Clause (which permits the United States Congress to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States”) decided that, because Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn’s production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government.

Gee, Commerce Clause Man, you’re the greatest!

BobMbx on March 31, 2010 at 3:35 PM

It says VALUE not COST.

Learn some reading comprehension, moron.

Wolftech on March 31, 2010 at 3:17 PM

And as we all know, in non-communist countries the VALUE of an item is determined by the buyer.

In which case, I’m buying my healtcare, which I value at $8.00. That’s not what I’m forced to pay for it, but thats how I value it.

BobMbx on March 31, 2010 at 3:40 PM

But those are the best salads…

Diane on March 31, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Agreed!!

Tanya on March 31, 2010 at 3:42 PM

I fixed the picture at the top.

ObamatheMessiah on March 31, 2010 at 3:46 PM

http://home.comcast.net/~it.works/pelosi.jpg

ObamatheMessiah on March 31, 2010 at 3:47 PM

By making employers put the “value” of health care benefits on W2’s, the government is conditioning people to acknowledge that they are getting a benefit from their employer that has value… then the gov’t will eventually say “you are getting something of value from your employer… which is really just another form of income… therefore we have the right to tax it, so that we can provide the same benefit to all. That’s only FAIR“.

More wealth redistribution… that’s our future from now on.

painesright on March 31, 2010 at 2:25 PM

It is clear that the reason the jug-eared traitor and you all want to do this is to tax either the individual or the employer for all the “benefits” coming out of this very unconstitutional takeover of America. In the past, you rat bastard traitors at least tried to hide your intent. Now we all see who and what you are. Payback will be sweet when we drive you from power. Until then enjoy the coup. It will not be long before justice prevails.

highhopes on March 31, 2010 at 2:39 PM

And this is the truth in a nutshell. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

Jvette on March 31, 2010 at 3:53 PM

It is clear that the reason the jug-eared traitor and you all want to do this is to tax either the individual or the employer for all the “benefits” coming out of this very unconstitutional takeover of America. In the past, you rat bastard traitors at least tried to hide your intent. Now we all see who and what you are. Payback will be sweet when we drive you from power. Until then enjoy the coup. It will not be long before justice prevails.

highhopes on March 31, 2010 at 2:39 PM
And this is the truth in a nutshell. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

Jvette on March 31, 2010 at 3:53 PM

–McCain wanted to tax employer-provided health benefits and then provide a credit to offset the tax for most people. What does that make McCain?

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Tofu and Soy Milk in high school vending machines!

TN Mom on March 31, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Ah but soy-based products interfere with & may even cause infertility.
Obama should steer clear of this in the current public education’s Wellness Program.
He’s going to need all the future taxpayers he can get to pay for this monstrosity.

Badger40 on March 31, 2010 at 4:51 PM

McCain wanted to tax employer-provided health benefits and then provide a credit to offset the tax for most people. What does that make McCain?

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 4:30 PM

I think it’s been established here that he is a RINO & no one ever wanted him in the 1st place (at least conservatives that didn’t wear sheep’s clothing).

Badger40 on March 31, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Gee, Commerce Clause Man, you’re the greatest!

BobMbx on March 31, 2010 at 3:35 PM

And this is the same SCOTUS, isn’t it?, that ruled in the Kelo vs New London case involving eminent domain.
Wasn’t that a sweet deal when they awarded a person’s private property to a corporation in the guise of improving the communitie’s economic development?
Gee… I wonder how that particular case worked out?

Badger40 on March 31, 2010 at 4:57 PM

I read somewhere that the HC law mandates that everyone have a national ID card, and also provide information about personal bank accounts to the government.

Now, these things are way off the 1984 Big Brother-O-Meter, and one would think there would be more discussion if such claims are true.

As I recall, the page numbers were even mentioned. We know there is plenty of Big Brother in this law, but does anyone have information about those two supposed provisions?

Meredith on March 31, 2010 at 4:58 PM

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 1:58 PM

more drek from HA’s #1 abortionist.

tigerlily on March 31, 2010 at 2:45 PM

–More drek from HA’s number one liar, with highhopes coming a close section.

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 3:00 PM

If you’re not HA’s #1 abortionist, then the moon is made of green cheese.

tigerlily on March 31, 2010 at 4:59 PM

McCain wanted to tax employer-provided health benefits and then provide a credit to offset the tax for most people. What does that make McCain?

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 4:30 PM

It makes him just as bad as your pal. Are you saying you agree with this? What am I saying, of course you are.

And a tanning tax (I’ve heard it refered to as a “cracker tax”)? Where the hell does the fed govt get the power to tax someone for laying in a tanning bed? How can this possibly be construed as interstate commerce? Surely you’re not going to suggest it’s because they use electricity???

Tell me, Jimbo, if they have the power to tax me for using a tanning bed, what do they NOT have the power to tax me for? Be specific, and use a little logic (for once).

runawayyyy on March 31, 2010 at 5:00 PM

Why is the NYT suddenly interested in what’s in this bill? And…the stuff they’re ‘finding’ ia far from the worst of it. Leopards don’t change their spots.

jeanie on March 31, 2010 at 5:06 PM

McCain wanted to tax employer-provided health benefits and then provide a credit to offset the tax for most people. What does that make McCain?

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 4:30 PM

It makes him just as bad as your pal. Are you saying you agree with this? What am I saying, of course you are.

And a tanning tax (I’ve heard it refered to as a “cracker tax”)? Where the hell does the fed govt get the power to tax someone for laying in a tanning bed? How can this possibly be construed as interstate commerce? Surely you’re not going to suggest it’s because they use electricity???

Tell me, Jimbo, if they have the power to tax me for using a tanning bed, what do they NOT have the power to tax me for? Be specific, and use a little logic (for once).

runawayyyy on March 31, 2010 at 5:00 PM

–The federal government can tax you for pretty much anything,

Jimbo3 on March 31, 2010 at 5:30 PM

BuckeyeSam on March 31, 2010 at 2:18 PM

The Mandate.

chemman on March 31, 2010 at 5:33 PM

By making employers put the “value” of health care benefits on W2’s, the government is conditioning people to acknowledge that they are getting a benefit from their employer that has value… then the gov’t will eventually say “you are getting something of value from your employer… which is really just another form of income… therefore we have the right to tax it, so that we can provide the same benefit to all. That’s only FAIR“.

More wealth redistribution… that’s our future from now on.

painesright on March 31, 2010 at 2:25 PM

It is clear that the reason the jug-eared traitor and you all want to do this is to tax either the individual or the employer for all the “benefits” coming out of this very unconstitutional takeover of America. In the past, you rat bastard traitors at least tried to hide your intent. Now we all see who and what you are. Payback will be sweet when we drive you from power. Until then enjoy the coup. It will not be long before justice prevails.

highhopes on March 31, 2010 at 2:39 PM

And this is the truth in a nutshell. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

Jvette on March 31, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Exactly. My employer sent out an e-mail today explaining the impact the healthcare legislation is expected to have on employees. After noting that they will have to start reporting the value of our healthcare coverage on our W-2s, there was this gem:

“In 2013, the new higher payroll tax rates for Medicare and the new Medicare taxes on unearned income will go into effect.”

So apparently this “unearned income” in the form of what our employers pay for our medical coverage will be subject to additional Medicare taxes beginning in 2013, and oh, by the way, the Medicare tax rate will be increased at that time as well.

Wonder if the New York Times has noticed that little tidbit yet, or if they’ve had time to read that far into the bill…

Marauder on March 31, 2010 at 5:43 PM

runawayyyy on March 31, 2010 at 5:00 PM

You misunderstand McCain’s plan. McCain’s plan was to break the link between your employer and your health insurance, which would lead back to a true free-market solution. Obama is just setting us up to create a new tax.

Al in St. Lou on March 31, 2010 at 6:16 PM

This one is ridiculous. How will it cost billions to add another number for a W2?
angryed on March 31, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Software manufacturers can either release such changes as a patch or will require an ‘upgrade’ to the latest version (a.k.a ‘the Microsoft Way’) which will incur costs across the board.
That’s ONE way, anyway.
Sponge on March 31, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Remember angryed were talking about the government.
The same folks who took 18 million dollars to set up ONE web page that didn’t work.

Opps sorry got that one wrong. I don’t know what the original cost was however it was 18 million dollars to “update” it.

After the update Officials tell ABC News so far, they found 700 mistaken Congressional districts out of more than 130,000 stimulus grants.

ABC NEWS Why Was White House Website Riddled With Errors? (listed 700 phantom Cong districts)

Now if you extrapolate this ONE example across EVERY business in the USA billions is a “low ball” estimate.

DSchoen on March 31, 2010 at 6:17 PM

We’re the government, and we’re here to rob you of everything you’ve got!

capejasmine on March 31, 2010 at 7:08 PM

This is kind of trivial, Ed and Allah, but if you need a space-filler and want to highlight it…. some people were wondering who is the dark-haired woman in the main page photo for this post. Well, she showed up on a friend’s facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=975906&id=1537875164

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) . She is married to Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg.

YehuditTX on March 31, 2010 at 10:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2