Obama Delays Portion Of Employer Mandate Till 2016

I can see through your webcam that there was no surprise in your eyes in the least. At most, you simply rolled your eyes that Obama has unilaterly changed It’s. The. Law. yet again

(Washington Post) The Obama administration announced Monday it would give medium-sized employers an extra year, until 2016, before they must offer health insurance to their full-time workers.

Firms with at least 100 employees will have to start offering this coverage in 2015.

By offering an unexpected grace period to businesses with between 50 and 99 employees, administration officials are hoping to defuse another potential controversy involving the 2010 health-care law, which has become central to Republicans’ campaign to make political gains in this year’s midterm election.

So, let’s see, Obama has changed a portion of the law for strictly political convenience with the mid-terms approaching, not too mention that he’s applying the law inconsistently while treating different sized companies differently (equal protection under the law, anyone?), oh, and he really has no statutory authority to do this, and the WP yawns. Imagine if a Republican president acted in a lawless manner.

Even the nation’s largest employers got a significant concession: They can avoid a fine by offering coverage to 70 percent of their full-time employees in 2015 and 95 percent starting in 2016. Under an earlier proposal, employers with at least 50 employees would have been required to offer insurance, beginning 2015, to 95 percent of those who work 30 hours or more a week, along with their dependents.

Remember, though

Except where King Obama wants to change it for political power and elections.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

22 Responses to “Obama Delays Portion Of Employer Mandate Till 2016”

  1. gitarcarver says:

    And then there is this:

    In his State of the Union address, President Obama urged Congress to “give America a raise.” Well, it turns out that Obama is giving America a $70 billion annual pay cut, courtesy of Obamacare.

    That is the overlooked nugget in the new Congressional Budget Office report detailing the economic costs of Obamacare. While much attention has been paid to the report’s finding that Obamacare will reduce employment by as much as 2.5 million workers, buried on page 117 (Appendix C) is this bombshell: “CBO estimates that the ACA will cause a reduction of roughly 1 percent in aggregate labor compensation over the 2017-2024 period, compared with what it would have been otherwise.”

    Translation: Obamacare means a 1 percent pay cut for American workers.

    How much does that come to? Since wages and salaries were about $6.85 trillion in 2012 and are expected to exceed $7 trillion in 2013 and 2014, a 1 percent reduction in compensation is going to cost American workers at least $70 billion a year in lost wages.

  2. If the GOP can’t take advantage of this for the midterms, they should just disband and start over.

  3. Jeffery says:

    I thought Republicans wanted to delay the ACA.

  4. gitarcarver says:

    At best Jeffery, Republicans wanted to delay the ACA in order to revisit the law itself.

    Obama and liberals do not want to revisit this law because it would show how massive a failure it is. Instead, they are willing to allow Obama to make unConstitutional executive orders on the ACA.

    So when you say that Republicans want to delay the act, either you don’t know the reason why in which case you are ignorant of the subject matter, or are trying to say something different in which you are a liar.

  5. Jl says:

    J-The proper name is UACA

  6. Jeffery says:

    gitar,

    You’re desperate.

    “Obama and liberals do not want to revisit this law because it would show how massive a failure it is.”

    How does “revisiting” the law show what a failure it is, since, according to RWNJs it is already seen as a massive failure.

    What are the unconstitutional policies associated with the ACA, and why are they unconstitutional?

    Republicans did not want to “revisit” the law but hoped to kill it.

    Desperate…

  7. Jeffery says:

    gitar,

    Um, no.

    Read as Dean Baker flays Thiessen’s lame and misleading screed on the CBO and the ACA.

    http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/

    from Dr. Baker:

    “We checked with Mr. Arithmetic and he pointed out that if hours fall by 1.5 to 2.0 percent, but compensation only falls by 1.0 percent, then compensation per hour rises by 0.5-1.0 percent due to the ACA. In other words, CBO is telling us that for each hour worked, people will be seeing higher, not lower wages. That is the opposite of a pay cut.

    However because people may now be able to afford health insurance either without working or by working fewer hours than they had previously, many people will choose to work less. That is worth repeating since it seems many folks are confused. Because people may be able to afford health insurance either without working or perhaps by working less than they had previously, many people will choose to work less.

    Yes, just like people will opt to retire because they have more money in their retirement accounts, some people will opt to work less because Obamacare has made it easier to afford health care insurance. This is a voluntary decision that CBO is calculating people will make.”

    So the $70 billion in “lost wages” represents the VOLUNTARY sacrificing of income by free Americans freely choosing to work less. Just like Americans 65 and over who choose to not work because they have Social Security, Medicare and their own retirement funds.

    Republican elites HATE the concept of free Americans not being indebted to their workmasters.

  8. gitarcarver says:

    Jeffery,

    You’re desperate.

    Sure. Keep believing that. I am so desperate that you never address the point.

    How does “revisiting” the law show what a failure it is, since, according to RWNJs it is already seen as a massive failure.

    You can’t be that stupid. If the Democrats revisit the law, it will show that they passed a law that was and is a massive failure. Secondly, as long as Obama signs EO that are unConstitutional, they are happy not to address that as well. And if you are even dumber so that you cannot understand what is unConstitutional about the EO’s, please give a Constitutional basis for the President making laws on his own while the Congress is sitting.

    Oh, and by the way, if the law is so great, why postpone it?

    Read as Dean Baker flays Thiessen’s lame and misleading screed on the CBO and the ACA.

    Um no.

    The problem is, of course, that people aren’t going to drop out of the job market as liberals such as you believe. The only way that is going to happen is if more people give subsidies to those who are not working which is what you support. You always want your hand in someone elses pocket stealing their money.

    The fact of the matter is that the CBO report doesn’t say that people will be working less, but rather that there will be fewer hours to work. That is totally different than what liberals are saying, but who doesn’t expect liberals to lie?

    Furthermore, the CBO says that a $70 billion dollar pay cut will come out of the pockets of people. That is $70 billion out of the economy which once again shows that liberals and this President don’t understand how to grow the economy.

    This is a voluntary decision that CBO is calculating people will make.”

    Yet the IRS has made rules that prohibit employers from dropping people due to the associated costs of the ACA. Please explain why an individual can change jobs but a company cannot eliminate jobs?

    The only reason is that the IRS through this administration is going to try and take over the market and force hiring decisions on companies. In fact, the IRS regulation says that if a company fires someone they must certify under the threat of perjury that they are not doing so to lower costs under the ACA.

    Please explain where the IRS gets the authority to add another circumstance to the US Code? As the IRS is part of the Executive Branch, please explain how the Executive Branch makes laws? Isn’t that the job of the legislative branch? Or did you not learn that in 2nd grade?

    Republican elites HATE the concept of free Americans not being indebted to their workmasters.

    Not THAT is desperate.

    Liberals hate the idea of people working to advance. Instead of lifting themselves up, they have to preach that pulling down others makes them better.

    That is all liberals have. Hate. They hate people of other races. They hate freedom. They hate work. They hate the country. They hate the military. They hate those who are not like themselves. They hate those who are more successful than they are.

    Centering your life around hate is no way to live, but it is clear that is what you like to do Jeffery.

  9. Jeffery says:

    gitar,

    What are the unconstitutional provisions associated with the ACA?

    Thanks

  10. Jeffery says:

    gitar,

    What does “revisit the law” mean? Please define.

    “Instead, they are willing to allow Obama to make unConstitutional executive orders on the ACA.”

    What are the unconstitutional EOs on the ACA?

    Thanks.

  11. Jeffery says:

    gitar typed:

    “That is all liberals have. Hate. They hate people of other races. They hate freedom. They hate work. They hate the country. They hate the military. They hate those who are not like themselves. They hate those who are more successful than they are.”

    Look inside yourself, gitar, and never forget that with conservatives, “It’s always projection”.

    Most liberals I know hate just a few things: willful ignorance, cruelty, injustice, inequality.

    But nice try at changing the subject. Can you tell us more about Obama’s unconstitutional EOs on the ACA?

  12. For one thing, the text of the ACA specifically states that the employer mandate will take effect of 1/1/2014. Period. No delays. It. Is. The. Law.

  13. gitarcarver says:

    Jeffery,

    What are the unconstitutional provisions associated with the ACA?

    I am not going to answer questions based on things I did not say. Perhaps you have a reading comprehension issue?

    What does “revisit the law” mean? Please define.

    I’m sorry Jeffery, just what part of “revisit the law” don’t you understand? Or are you trying to look to redefine well understood meanings again as you have done in the past?

    What are the unconstitutional EOs on the ACA?

    Already answered that Jeffery. I think that now all you are doing is proving to people that you either cannot read or are unwilling to actually debate an issue because you are wrong.

    Most liberals I know hate just a few things: willful ignorance, cruelty, injustice, inequality.

    Most liberals, like yourself, promote those things.

    Look in the mirror, Jeffery.

    Thanks for not dealing with any of the points that were raised though. It is clear that you can’t which is fine.

    Mature people learn from their mistakes, admit them and move on. One would think that as a person of your advanced years you would have that skill but alas you do not.

  14. Awaiting_Springy_Gumballs says:

    J, the EOs that Obama has passed relating to ObamaDoesntCare are all unconstitutional. If the law as written says to do something (not just as a written regulation based upon a broadly written law), then he is violating the law.

    Yes, we conservatives hate ACA as it is wholly unconstitutional and goes against all that American stands for. Proof is shown in how Obama continues to change the law to suit his needs and desires. Those are actions of a dictator.

    The fact that we do not have anyone willing to stand up to him, stand up FOR the rule of laws, means we have a corrupt Congress and a crony FBI that are as flaccid as they are corrupt.

    a reckoning will come.

  15. Jeffery says:

    g and g and p,

    Got it. You do not stand by your own words. You spout portentous nonsense, “unconstitutional”, “revisit the law”, “executive orders”, but can’t even explain what you mean or give one example.

    Can one of you justify calling changes in the ACA “unconstitutional” or even illegal?

  16. gitarcarver says:

    Jeffery,

    You’ve got nothing.

    We have spelled out the issues and yet you continue to try to divert from them.

    If you have comprehension issues, may I suggest a 2nd grade level reading course?

    The fact of the matter is that we aren’t playing your silly little game of feigned ignorance. Or maybe your ignorance isn’t feigned and is real.

    Either way your questions have been answered repeatedly.

  17. Can one of you justify calling changes in the ACA “unconstitutional” or even illegal?

    As I already wrote, It’s. The. Law. states that the employer mandate starts 1/1/2014. That wasn’t a suggestion. It was baked in. Delaying it without congressional approval is what would be called illegal and unconstitutional. As any 2nd grader would understand.

  18. jl says:

    Which is why Jeffery can’t.

  19. gitarcarver says:

    I mentioned this last night but like a scalded pig, Jeffery ran away from this:

    Further, Treasury officials said Monday that businesses will be told to “certify” that they are not shedding full-time workers simply to avoid the mandate. Officials said employers will be told to sign a “self-attestation” on their tax forms affirming this, under penalty of perjury.

    Here are some questions for Jeffery:

    1) Under what authority does the IRS have to interfere with the hiring or firing practices of private businesses?
    2) The ACA allows the IRS to track certain aspects and collect fines / fees/ taxes from people for the ACA, but the ACA does not allow for the IRS to make rules outside the breadth and scope of the ACA. Under what authority does the IRS (the Executive branch) make laws which have not gone through the Legislative branch?
    3) The IRS is adding another case of “perjury” to the United States Code. Please tell us all under what authority the IRS may change or add perjury laws?

    Unless you get the answer “the IRS is acting in an unConstitutional manner,” go back, read the Constitution, read the laws and repeat until you get the right answer that their actions are unConstutional.

    When you do that, you can enter the discussion like an adult.

  20. Jeffery says:

    g2,

    Let me be perfectly clear: You lads are making accusations and claims without supporting them.

    “Instead, they are willing to allow Obama to make unConstitutional executive orders on the ACA.”

    I’m asking you to support this claim. If you can’t just say so like and adult, but saying you’ve answered when you haven’t is childish.

    If it was just hyperbole on your part and you’d like to withdraw, that would be ok, too.

  21. gitarcarver says:

    Jeffery,

    Let me be perfectly clear: You lads are making accusations and claims without supporting them.

    Actually Jeffery, we have supported them multiple times and in multiple ways. It is not our fault that you do will not look at what is being said.

    I’m asking you to support this claim. If you can’t just say so like and adult, but saying you’ve answered when you haven’t is childish.

    I would agree that you are being childish Jeffery as you are the one standing in the corner screaming “I DON”T WANT TO READ THAT!”

    We have tried to explain that in some cases, the laws passed by Congress allows the President to make some modifications. There is no such clause(s) in the ACA. Therefore when he changes dates by executive order instead of going back to Congress to change a law as required by the Constitution, he has acted in an unConstitutional manner.

    If it was just hyperbole on your part and you’d like to withdraw, that would be ok, too.

    If you would learn to read that would be great as well. I explained this all to you previously. Teach explained it twice. jl threw in his understanding. Gumballs made comments on this issue as well.

    If you want to withdraw out of sheer ignorance or the inability to understand English, that would be okay. We have recommended that you take a 2nd grade reading and civics class that would explain the basis of this for you, but you have declined. We have offered the Constitution and you have declined to read or understand it.

    I am sorry that the American education system has failed you so badly that you cannot understand basic things.

    The rest of us can and do.

  22. Awaiting_Springy_Gumballs says:

    J is off his meds again. He’s being combative, obstinate, belligerent, willfully ignorant, and just a down-right snit.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6842 access attempts in the last 7 days.