The costs and potential causes for tonight's Obamacare delay

Reuters

US President Barack Obama makes a statement about the Supreme Court's decision on his Administration's health care law in the East Room of the White House in Washington, June 28, 2012

Article Highlights

  • The Obama team said it was delaying the provision because reporting requirements were too burdensome

    Tweet This

  • The delay on the employer mandate will inevitably expose some additional consumers to the “individual mandate”

    Tweet This

  • Perhaps the administration was seeing the effects of the insurance requirement on new hiring

    Tweet This

The Obama administration’s apparent decision to delay until 2015, penalties for large employers who do not provide health-insurance coverage to workers under Obamacare, raises some immediate practical issues for consumers. It’s also cause for doubt as to the motivation that drove this measure.

The delayed provision was to take effect this fall. It requires companies with 50 or more workers to provide health benefits to full-time employees or pay fines starting at $2,000 per worker. Businesses were critical of the provision. They argued that it created a disincentive for small businesses to hire new workers, especially if they were bumping up against that 50-person threshold.

The Obama team said it was delaying the provision because reporting requirements were too burdensome. Officials said they needed more time to fix them.

Yet they didn’t delay the tax consumers face for not carrying coverage. The delay on the employer mandate will inevitably expose some additional consumers to the “individual mandate” (ruled a tax by the Supreme Court).

Now fewer businesses will feel compelled to start offering coverage next year. So their employees will face a choice: be forced to go into the Obamacare exchanges or be subject to the new tax.

It’s true that larger firms that would consider dropping coverage would have done it anyway. After all, the fines presumably return in 2015, and firms need to make longer-term decisions about how they will adapt to the new law. But at least for next year, this will expose some additional consumers to the tax.

As to the reason for the change, that’s also rife for skepticism. Especially since it may put more consumers in a financial bind.

The Obama team’s stated purpose seems superficial. It’s doubtful that reporting requirements alone drove this decision.

If it was just a problem with reporting requirements, some of those provisions could have been delayed without nixing the entire provision.

Perhaps the administration was seeing the effects of the insurance requirement on new hiring.

Perhaps they’re staring at a bad jobs report later this week.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Scott
Gottlieb

What's new on AEI

Holder will regret his refusal to obey the Constitution
image 'Flood Wall Street' climate protesters take aim at their corporate allies
image 3 opportunities for better US-India defense ties
image Is Nicolás Maduro Latin America's new man at the United Nations?
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 29
    MON
  • 30
    TUE
  • 01
    WED
  • 02
    THU
  • 03
    FRI
Thursday, October 02, 2014 | 9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
Campbell Brown talks teacher tenure

We welcome you to join us as Brown shares her perspective on the role of the courts in seeking educational justice and advocating for continued reform.

Friday, October 03, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Harnessing the power of markets to tackle global poverty: A conversation with Jacqueline Novogratz

AEI welcomes you to this Philanthropic Freedom Project event, in which Novogratz will describe her work investing in early-stage enterprises, what she has learned at the helm of Acumen, and the role entrepreneurship can play in the fight against global poverty.

No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled today.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.