CBO: Oh, by the way, the ObamaCare employer-mandate delay is going to cost $12 billion extra

posted at 12:21 pm on July 31, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

After the July 2nd announcement of the unilaterally imposed, yearlong delay of ObamaCare’s employer mandate (the legality of which President Obama isn’t even bothering to act like he gives a flying fig about), House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, as is his wont, was quick to request some economic and fiscal estimates about exactly how much this sudden departure from the grand health-care overhaul plan is going to cost us all. The Congressional Budget Office released some of those numbers on Tuesday afternoon, and obviously, it ain’t free, via Reuters:

President Barack Obama’s decision to delay implementation of part of his healthcare reform law will cost $12 billion and leave a million fewer Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance in 2014, congressional researchers said Tuesday.

The report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is the first authoritative estimate of the human and fiscal cost from the administration’s unexpected one-year delay…

The analysts said the delay will add to the cost of “Obamacare’s” insurance-coverage provisions over the next 10 years. Penalties paid by employers would be lower and more individuals who otherwise might have had employer coverage will need federal insurance subsidies.

“Of those who would otherwise have obtained employment-based coverage, roughly half will be uninsured (in 2014),” CBO said in a July 30 letter to Representative Paul Ryan, Republican chairman of the House of Representatives Budget Committee.

In a nutshell, the administration is going to lose the $10 billion or so in penalty payments that some employers would have had to make in 2015 for not providing coverage in 2014; and then they estimate another $3-ish billion in exchange subsidies will go to the half of the million employees they estimate would have gained coverage through employers next year who will now instead take out insurance through Medicaid or the exchanges (if they’re even operational by that point, that is). Ergo, and never mind that the CBO’s estimates have an unfortunate habit of turning out to be dreadfully wrong:

CBO now puts the net cost of Obamacare’s insurance coverage provisions at around $1.38 trillion over the next 10 years, vs. its May baseline projection of $1.36 trillion.

But hey, what’s $12 billion more in debt? Pfffft. Peanuts, am I right, guys?


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

Got to pass it to find out what’s in it.

Flange on July 31, 2013 at 12:23 PM

But hey, what’s $12 billion more in debt? Pfffft. Peanuts, am I right, guys?

I wouldn’t count $10 billion in lost revenue as debt. It’s not government spending. I hate how the government does its accounting, and we shouldn’t encourage it. We may as well label tax cuts as debt spending if we’re going to do the above.

NotCoach on July 31, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Now try to propose a $12 billion tax cut for big business and watch the Libs go crazy about the rich not paying their fair share.

PackerBronco on July 31, 2013 at 12:26 PM

None of us can do anything about it and Congress won’t do anything about it.

albill on July 31, 2013 at 12:28 PM

I wouldn’t count $10 billion in lost revenue as debt. It’s not government spending. I hate how the government does its accounting, and we shouldn’t encourage it. We may as well label tax cuts as debt spending if we’re going to do the above.

NotCoach on July 31, 2013 at 12:25 PM

No no no, it is debt, because that money was supposed to offset spending that’s already baked in the cake. I understand the desire to oppose calling tax cuts “spending”. But here we have real spending, and there’s no money coming in: ergo, it’s a lot of debt.

alwaysfiredup on July 31, 2013 at 12:28 PM

It could cost $100 Trillion more and it woul get a “yawn” from Washington.
No one cares.

albill on July 31, 2013 at 12:29 PM

albill on July 31, 2013 at 12:28 PM

There is always civil disobedience. Perhaps the Tea Party would like to go on a federal tax strike? molon labe, as it were.

alwaysfiredup on July 31, 2013 at 12:29 PM

NotCoach on July 31, 2013 at 12:25 PM

To Dems, the words lost revenue require an immediate response of raising taxes. Debt is something that doesn’t really exist so no action is necessary. Maybe we should let sleeping dogs lie.

antipc on July 31, 2013 at 12:30 PM

President Barack Obama’s decision to delay implementation of part of his healthcare reform law will cost $12 billion and leave a million fewer Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance in 2014, congressional researchers said Tuesday.

What’s Barry care? Means more people in dire consequences imploring Zero to come to the rescue with his Single-Payer snake oil plan.

hawkeye54 on July 31, 2013 at 12:31 PM

No no no, it is debt, because that money was supposed to offset spending that’s already baked in the cake. I understand the desire to oppose calling tax cuts “spending”. But here we have real spending, and there’s no money coming in: ergo, it’s a lot of debt.

alwaysfiredup on July 31, 2013 at 12:28 PM

The spending is the debt, not the revenues. But this thread highlights lost revenues as debt.

NotCoach on July 31, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Let’s get the obligatory “What difference, at this point, does it make?” out of the way.

As Rush as saying right now, once the Santa Claus entitlements kick in from Obamacare, everybody will learn to love it.

Drained Brain on July 31, 2013 at 12:32 PM

I should add to the above “that’s what the Dems hope.”

Drained Brain on July 31, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Where is the cost estimate for the amount of fraud resulting in substituting the “Honor System” for determining subsidies rather than actual documentation?

Take that $12 billion and multipy it by a factor of 2 to 3.

parke on July 31, 2013 at 12:42 PM

I believe the operative phrase is “defund”.

Steve Eggleston on July 31, 2013 at 12:43 PM

All on one topic now – welcome to obamaland.

It’s 1929 all over again.

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 12:43 PM

As Rush as saying right now, once the Santa Claus entitlements kick in from Obamacare, everybody will learn to love it.

Drained Brain on July 31, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Given there have been exactly zero welfare programs killed ever, you didn’t need to add the “that’s what the Dems hope” bit.

Steve Eggleston on July 31, 2013 at 12:45 PM

In obamaland it’s all on the same topic – fluke America!

It’s 1929 again.

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 12:45 PM

The words “MarketWa*ch” are verboten on HA…weird.

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 12:47 PM

God damn the Rs, into the coldest layer in Hell, so they roast slowly, the traitors of the land.

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Since we’re talking about “the numbers”:

First, Jack Lew suspends the debt clock

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/70-straight-days-treasury-says-debt-stuck-exactly-1669939600000000

And now this:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/31/feds-juice-numbers-gdp-still-weak-17

Talk about “fast and furious”, this is YOUR GOVERNMENT moving the goal post daily.

Rovin on July 31, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Got to pass it to find out what’s in it.

Flange on July 31, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Got to pay for it to find out how much it is going to cost.
-Pelousy

Sterling Holobyte on July 31, 2013 at 12:53 PM

We may as well label tax cuts as debt spending if we’re going to do the above.

NotCoach on July 31, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Democrats already do that. Tax credit transfer payments to people who pay no tax are called “tax cuts”, Actual tax cuts are called “spending” and spending is called “investment”. They are rendering Orwell references inadequate.

forest on July 31, 2013 at 12:53 PM

apparently this isn’t real news…the lsm is focusing on christie v paul instead

cmsinaz on July 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM

A little reverse psychology should be used, the House GOP needs to immediately file suit to have the employer mandate ENFORCED. If it is the “law of the land” as so many on the Left want to say then they need to live with it, as-is.

No waivers, no modifications for Congress and full enforcement of the employer mandate in October. Let’s see the train wreck.

Tater Salad on July 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Okay and, how many BILLIONS is House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s ‘AMNESTY for ILLEGALS’ plan going to cost taxpayers if it is rammed through the House?

Pork-Chop on July 31, 2013 at 12:58 PM

A little reverse psychology should be used, the House GOP needs to immediately file suit to have the employer mandate ENFORCED. If it is the “law of the land” as so many on the Left want to say then they need to live with it, as-is.

No waivers, no modifications for Congress and full enforcement of the employer mandate in October. Let’s see the train wreck.

Tater Salad on July 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM

I agree. While we all hate this law, the president acting like a dictator is worse than Obamacare. If it’s the law of the land, it’s the law of the land and even the president must abide by it.

NotCoach on July 31, 2013 at 1:00 PM

the legality of which President Obama isn’t even bothering to act like he gives a flying fig about

I think the correct term is “flying fornication.”

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on July 31, 2013 at 1:01 PM

apparently this isn’t real news…the lsm is focusing on christie v paul instead

cmsinaz on July 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Of course it’s not real news. Their precious Obama might be seen for the inept floundering dishonest fool he really is, and that can’t be allowed.

Liam on July 31, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Imagine if we actually had a Republican party that were not cowards. Every day the Dems hand the Repubs another arrow to shoot this turkey down with. Its a train wreck, Obama illegally halts implementation because it isn’t ready, no you cant keep your doctor, exemptions being granted, capitol hill staffers threatening to leave if put on Obamacare, it will cost 50% more to every family than it does now, now this news. A majority of Americans hate it. It should be a no brainer. Instead these cowardly Repubs are skeered. Of what? Grow a spine or get out of public office. If you don’t you will be forced out because we will primary you.

neyney on July 31, 2013 at 1:03 PM

If you are a young person, why would you sign up for this abortion of a health care law? Pay $95 on your income taxes and if you get sick, just sign up then. So the choice is to pay Obama thousands of dollars in premiums or pay $95 on your income tax form for the same coverage. If you sign up, you are wasting massive amounts of money. In addition, if you pay the thousands in premiums and the system collapses, do you think you’ll ever get any of that money back? No way! Just kiss it goodbye.

stefano1 on July 31, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Charlatanic fool in DC

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Talk about “fast and furious”, this is YOUR GOVERNMENT moving the goal post daily.

Rovin on July 31, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Only in the technical, legal sense; I didn’t vote for any of these wretches who are ruining the country. I just keep getting out-voted.

More important than the money (which is not insignificant) is the lawlessness of the President airily and wilfully ignoring the law. I have never been more unhappy with Congress.

Kevin K. on July 31, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Okay and, how many BILLIONS is House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s ‘AMNESTY for ILLEGALS’ plan going to cost taxpayers if it is rammed through the House?

Pork-Chop on July 31, 2013 at 12:58 PM

“Billions” won’t cover it. I’m thinking we’ll be soon introduced into the concept and use of the term “Quadrillions”, which I doubt our economy could even come close to handling.

At which point, the Left’s dream come true and we become a national Detroit.

hawkeye54 on July 31, 2013 at 1:29 PM

ObamaCare, designed to fail since Day One, and succeeding spectacularly!

GarandFan on July 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Wow, the American public is going to be LIVID once they hear about this on the evening news, right after the somber tally of our current war dead…

Oh, wait…

CaptFlood on July 31, 2013 at 1:42 PM

This must be another reason for Ryan, dead to me, to support amnesty.

GaltBlvnAtty on July 31, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Betsy McCaughey has not only read this entire bill, but studies it.

She explains it better on the result of what Obama did by delaying the Employer Mandate and who will pay the cost. Taxpayers, of course.

But it violates the law and affects 10 million currently uninsured or underinsured workers whose employers would have been subject to the mandate. The cost of insuring these workers is shifted from employers to taxpayers, who foot the bill for subsidized insurance on the new Obamacare exchanges. At an average cost of $5,290 per subsidized enrollee, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this will add billions to the cost of Obamacare next year alone.

Two days later, another whopper. On July 5, the Obama administration revealed that it would also skip the health law’s requirement that applicants seeking taxpayer subsidies to pay for their insurance have their income and insurance eligibility verified. Welcome fraudsters, too bad again for taxpayers.

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/07/30/defunding-the-framers-remedy-f

I didn’t see where Rand Paul or the CBO factored in that many more will be receiving subsidies since the income & insurance eligibility has been waived.

bluefox on July 31, 2013 at 3:13 PM