Precisely what will be the fiscal impact of the Obama administration’s highly questionable unilateral decision to delay — or perhaps, “stall” might be a more apt word — on ObamaCare’s employer mandate for one year (for now), and then their subsequent and wildly questionable decision to rely on consumers’ self-reported income and insurance statuses as a basis for dishing out subsidies? Paul Ryan would very much like to know, via The Hill:
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is requesting a new cost estimate for ObamaCare in light of a decision to delay the law’s employer mandate.
Ryan’s staff asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to reevaluate the law’s budget impact after the White House said Tuesday that larger employers will not be required to offer health insurance until 2015.
The Obama administration also announced Friday that ObamaCare’s new insurance exchanges will not have to verify income information provided by applicants for another year. …
“Chairman Ryan’s staff asked CBO to evaluate the impact of the administration’s recent decisions,” House Budget Committee spokesman William Allison told The Hill.
He added that the healthcare law is “unworkable” and that “workers and families should get relief” from its requirements. …
Indeed. I have the gravest doubts that an open system that hands out “discounts,” and that simultaneously declines to verify whether or not whether or not applicants are actually qualified for said “discounts,” is going to be at all neutral in terms of costs. An updated estimate on that development is in order, please.
But don’t think this little snafu will stop them from promoting the heck out of the whole thing and pushing people to sign up. Here comes the second in a series of Organizing for Action’s campaign-style television ads touting the law’s benefits, beginning to air on Tuesday: