Quantcast
  

Friday, April 18, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 9 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

White House delays key element of health care law

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar

Associated Press

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 05:41 a.m. HST, Jul 03, 2013


WASHINGTON » President Barack Obama's health care law, hailed as his most significant legislative achievement, seems to be losing much of its sweep.

On Tuesday, the administration unexpectedly announced a one-year delay, until after the 2014 elections, in a central requirement of the law that medium and large companies provide coverage for their workers or face fines.

Separately, opposition in the states from Republican governors and legislators has steadily undermined a Medicaid expansion that had been expected to provide coverage to some 15 million low-income people.

Tuesday's move — which caught administration allies and adversaries by surprise — sacrificed timely implementation of Obama's signature legislation but might help Democrats politically by blunting an election-year line of attack Republicans were planning to use. The employer requirements are among the most complex parts of the health care law, designed to expand coverage for uninsured Americans.

"We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively," Treasury Assistant Secretary Mark Mazur said in a blog post. "We have listened to your feedback and we are taking action."

Business groups were jubilant. "A pleasant surprise," said Randy Johnson, senior vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. There was no inkling in advance of the administration's action, he said.

"We commend the administration's wise move," said Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National Retail Federation. It "will provide employers and businesses more time to update their health care coverage without threat of arbitrary punishment."

But the delay could also whittle away at the law's main goal of covering the nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance.

Liberals immediately raised concerns. Will employees be able to get taxpayer-subsidized individual coverage through new health insurance markets if their company does not offer medical benefits? Uninsured people can start signing up Oct. 1 for the new individual policies.

"If the administration is going to give employers a break, it should not do that at the expense of millions of uninsured or underinsured workers who have been looking to have health insurance available to them on Jan. 1, 2014," said Richard Kirsch, a senior fellow with the Roosevelt Institute in New York, a think tank dedicated to promoting progressive policies.

Under the health law, companies with 50 or more workers must provide affordable coverage to their full-time employees or risk a series of escalating tax penalties if just one worker ends up getting government-subsidized insurance. Originally, that requirement was supposed to take effect Jan. 1, 2014. It will now be delayed to 2015.

Most medium-sized and large business already offer health insurance and the mandate was expected to have the biggest consequences for major chain hotels, restaurants and retail stores that employ many low-wage workers. Some had threatened to cut workers' hours, and others said they were putting off hiring.

Business groups have complained since the law passed that the provision was too complicated. For instance, it created a new definition of full-time workers, those who put in 30 hours or more. It also actually included two separate requirements, one to provide coverage and another that it be deemed "affordable" under the law. Violations of either one exposed employers to fines. But such complaints until now seemed to be going unheeded.

There is no coverage requirement — or penalty — for smaller businesses. Also, for businesses of any size, there is no penalty if their workers are poor enough to be eligible for Medicaid.

The delay in the employer requirement does not affect a provision in the law that requires individuals to carry health insurance starting next year or face fines. That so-called individual mandate was challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled last year that the individual requirement was constitutional since the penalty would be collected by the Internal Revenue Service and amounted to a tax.

Tuesday's action could provide cover for Democratic candidates in next year's congressional elections.

The move undercuts Republican efforts to make the overhaul and the costs associated with new requirements a major issue in congressional races. Democrats are defending 21 Senate seats to the Republicans' 14, and the GOP already had begun to excoriate Senate Democrats who had voted for the health law in 2009.

Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett cast the decision as part of an effort to simplify data reporting requirements.

She said since enforcing the coverage mandate depends on businesses reporting about their workers' access to insurance, the administration decided to postpone the reporting requirement, and with it, the mandate to provide coverage.

"We have and will continue to make changes as needed," Jarrett wrote in a White House blog post. "In our ongoing discussions with businesses we have heard that you need the time to get this right. We are listening."

Republicans called it a validation of their belief that the law is unworkable and should be repealed.

"The president's health care law is already raising costs and costing jobs. This announcement means even the Obama administration knows the 'train wreck' will only get worse," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in an email. "This is a clear acknowledgment that the law is unworkable, and it underscores the need to repeal the law and replace it with effective, patient-centered reforms."

Associated Press writers Donna Cassata, Sam Hananel and Josh Lederman contributed to this report.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 9 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(9)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
inlanikai wrote:
Delay, delay, delay. But it has nothing to do with the mid-term elections. Uh huh. So now the over 50 companies won't have to provide heath insurance during 2014 but the requirement is still there for all Americans to have insurance starting Jan 1, 2014. The one's who can least afford it will be the ones screwed. Brilliant move!
on July 3,2013 | 06:44AM
pcman wrote:
Most people who have had medical insurance before Obamacare have already been required to pay 25-40% more to pay for those who won't be able to pay. It is a a windfall for hospitals and insurance groups. Everyone who has been required to pay more over the past 3 years should get a refund for the windfall. Obama is making me sick of Obamacare. Any excuse to delay all or part of Obamacare should apply to everyone, not only the slow moves.
on July 3,2013 | 10:36AM
serious wrote:
One of the news commentators was saying that many employers found that paying the $2,000 fine for not insuring their workers was cheaper than insuring them. But as Pelosi said, let's pass it and then see what it says. Kicking the can down the road, as usual!!!!
on July 3,2013 | 07:21AM
noheawilli wrote:
Doh! What were those famous words? "We have to pass the bill to see what's in the bill" and now it seems a mistake? Lets starve the leviathan.
on July 3,2013 | 07:52AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Well, our president continues to see himself as some sort of medieval monarch. The Obamacare law doesn't give him the leeway to just decide not to enforce it on the specified date. So, rather than suffer the election consequences from the economy-killing effects of Obamacare, our "president" has just issued a royal decree, sort of like the royal decrees he issued on the unconstitutional NLRB appointments. Whatever. Doesn't matter what us mere citizens think. After all, the most important thing is that we not know enough, not have the awareness to vote out of office the democrat buffoons that put the Obamacare law in place because, you see, that might damage the perfect one's agenda.
on July 3,2013 | 08:49AM
MartyL wrote:
Was there any doubt that Mr. Waffle would do what he does best? Guess his advisers let him know that the dems would be ousted like rats off a ship when the people realized the consequences of Obamacare, let's hold off till after 2014 and maybe we can save some seats. The dumbing down of America has been in full force for years thanks to the teacher's unions.
on July 3,2013 | 09:40AM
kuroiwaj wrote:
Hey Mr. President, the law is for Obamacare to begin on 1 October 2013 (2013 -2014 fiscal year). You are breaking the law. I guess its, "I'm the President of the United States."
on July 3,2013 | 11:00AM
st1d wrote:
finally, the white house is admitting that obama care and health deform will put millions of americans out of a job.

ironic that congress and the white hous is exempt from conforming to the health deform law.


on July 3,2013 | 11:47AM
Denominator wrote:
OBAMANATION!
on July 3,2013 | 12:47PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News