‘Obamacare’ Poll Finds 42% of Americans Unaware It’s Law
[ABCNews.com]
A new poll finds that many Americans are confused about the health care overhaul legislation commonly called “Obamacare. ”The Kaiser Family Foundation released results of a non-partisan study today finding more than 40 percent did not even know the law was in place.“Four in ten Americans (42%) are unaware that the ACA [Affordable Care Act] is still the law of the land,” the report says, “including 12 percent who believe the law has been repealed by Congress, 7 percent who believe it has been overturned by the Supreme Court and 23 percent who say they don’t know enough to say what the status of the law is.”
The survey showed public opinion on Obamacare is at its second-lowest rating in the past two years. Less than half – 40 percent – of adults viewed the ACA favorably, whereas 35 percent said they viewed it unfavorably. Another 24 percent said they did not know or refused to answer.
How’s That Obamacare Waiver Workin’ Out for Ya?
[MichelleMalkin.com]
Copyright 2012
How’s That Obamacare Waiver Workin’ Out for Ya?
Exactly two years ago this week, the Obama administration announced it had issued more than 100 waivers en masse to a select group of companies, unions and other health insurance providers seeking relief from the onerous federal health care law. The Obamacare waiver winner’s club now totals 2,000. Where are they now?
Answer: In the same miserable boat as every other unlucky business struggling with the crushing costs and burdens of the mandate.
Among the first and most prominent recipients of the Obamacare waivers for favors were large restaurant chains that provide low-wage, seasonal and part-time workers with low-cost health insurance plans called “mini-med” plans. An estimated 1.7 million workers benefit from such plans. Obamacare forced companies carrying such coverage to raise their minimum limits on coverage to no less than $750,000 annually. Another Obamacare provision forces all employers to spend at least 80 percent to 85 percent of their premium revenue on medical care.
Supreme Court opens door to another challenge to Obamacare
[FoxNews.com]
Published October 01, 2012
Tucked inside the Supreme Court’s lengthy list of orders on Monday was an indication that the fight over President Obama’s health care law soon could be back before the high court.
Since the court’s June decision upholding the law’s individual mandate to buy insurance, one of the first Obamacare plaintiffs has been fighting for a new hearing on challenges to other portions of the law.
Liberty University, a Christian college in Virginia, has been fighting the employer mandate since the law was enacted, while challenging the law on other constitutional grounds. The school got as far as the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which refused to hear the merits of the case. That federal court decided that the original Liberty University lawsuit was barred because of the Anti-Injunction Act, which would block any challenge to a “tax” before a taxpayer actually pays it, in this case referring to the penalties associated with failing to obtain health insurance.
In June, the Supreme Court ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act did not serve as a barrier to lawsuits challenging the health care law. On that basis, Liberty University immediately petitioned the court to allow it to renew its original case.
McConnell Ready to Cut-and-Run from Repeal?
[Breitbart.com]
Posted: July 3, 2012 by Joel B. Pollak
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell appears to be waving the white flag on repealing Obamacare. The Tea Party is ready to fight. The Republican National Committee appears to be ready to fight. But the day after the Romney campaign backed away from the argument that Obamacare is now a tax, the GOP’s leadership in the Senate is sending signals that it may be willing to give up before the battle over Obamacare truly begins.
Local ABC affiliate WHAS-TV in Louisville, KY reports that McConnell told constituents he would work to repeal Obamacare, and thought he would have the votes in the Senate to repeal it–but that he did not expect to succeed: “If you thought it was a good idea for the federal government to go in this direction, I’d say the odds are still on your side, because it’s a lot harder to undo something than it is to stop it in the first place.”
However difficult repeal might be from a procedural point of view, it can be done–and the odds are definitely in favor, if polls reflect probabilities. The country is split evenly on the Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling, yet the majority still wants the law repealed. That is the majority for which Republicans, and the Republican nominee, ought to speak. Yet for some reason, Republican leaders refuse to lead. What are they afraid of?
Like Warren, Obama Claims Cherokee Ancestry–But Offers No Proof
[Breitbart.com]
May 21, 2012
President Barack Obama and Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren have more in common than just their liberal political ideology, Harvard Law pedigree, and Democratic Party affiliation. Both claim Cherokee ancestry, and neither can prove it.
Ms. Warren’s claims are current and well known, but President Obama’s claims were made back in 1995, when his memoir, Dreams from My Father, was published. On pages 12 and 13 of the 2004 paperback edition, the President unequivocally asserts his Cherokee ancestry:
If asked, Toot [Obama’s maternal grandmother, Madelyne Payne Dunham] would turn her head in profile to show off her beaked nose, which, along with a pair of jet-black eyes, was offered as proof of Cherokee blood.
Let It Be (Political)
American [Spectator.org]
By Ross Kaminsky on 3.30.12 @ 6:10AM Posted April 1, 2012
Obamacare, politics, and the modern Supreme Court.
And in my hour of darkness
She is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be
Democratic political strategist and organizer Robert Creamer claims that overturning Obamacare would make the Supreme Court the “most activist [and] partisan in modern history.”
Radical leftist MSNBC host Rachel Maddow says that the Obamacare decision “may as much be a referendum on the Supreme Court and whether or not the Roberts court is so conservatively politicized that it will make a decision to hurt the President, rather than sticking closely to precedent here.”
Obamacare Goes to the Supreme Court
[Townhall.com]
March 26, 2012
Kate Hicks Web Editor, Townhall.com
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), or Obamacare, is off to the Supreme Court for a three-day marathon of oral arguments. Lawyers representing the federal government will attempt to prove the law’s constitutionality; those representing private individuals, the National Federation of Independent Business, and most prominently, 26 states, will argue that PPACA violates the supreme law of the land.The Court has allotted six hours for arguments, and while it doesn’t seem like much time for such a contentious and crucial issue, bear in mind that the court typically grants a case just one hour. This is the most argument time given in 47 years.
So what questions will the Court answer? What will the lawyers argue? How might the Justices vote? I have a seat inside the courtroom for all six hours of arguments, so expect a full report on the proceedings, as well as a preview each morning of the question before the Court that day. For now, however, we’ll take a general look at the schedule, the questions, and the basic arguments each side will make, in preparation for Obamacare’s big day in court.
[Please Click to follow the agenda this week and pray for our Nation's freedoms...]
Obamacare Mandate says Pregnancy is a Disease [Reader Post]
[FloppingAces.net]
Once Barack Obama said that babies were a punishment:
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.
But now we learn that in Obamacare, pregnancy is not simply a punishment, it is a disease.
“Covering contraception is cost neutral since it saves money by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services,”
Preventing this “disease” is supposed to save big money.
Democratic chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “[Contraception costs] about $700 a year. That’s real money.”
Typical of democrats, something is provided for “free” at someone else’s cost.
Privately, however, insurers say there’s nothing “free” about preventing unwarranted pregnancies. They say the mandate also covers costly surgical sterilization procedures, and that in any case even the pill has up-front costs.
“Saying it’s revenue-neutral doesn’t mean it’s free and that you’re not paying for it,” an industry source told The Hill.
Doctors still have to be paid to prescribe the pill, drugmakers and pharmacists have to be paid to provide it – and all that money has to come from insurance premiums, not future hypothetical savings, the source said.
Bill Gates Supports Socialized Medicine: ‘I’d Take Any Rich Country’s Medical System Over Ours’
BigGovernment.com
Posted Mar 20th 2011 at 1:50 pm
[Editor: Either Bill Gates got a bad diagnosis from a U. S. doctor he didn't like, or Mr. Macrohard has been drinking some of that Socialist cool aid! If he like Germany or Swiss medicine, he should move there. As for me and my family, we're optimistic about American Health Care; not socialist or single payer, but GOOD AMERICAN HEALTH CARE.]
Bill Gates of Microsoft fame (or infamy) visited the Claremont Colleges this past week. You can watch that visit here. What follows is a transcript typed by one of my associates of that event.
Gates, after discussing his foundation’s work, had harsh words for America’s health care system.
Our health care system has huge problems. It’s got equity problems where the poorest in the country of all the rich countries our poorest quarter get the worst health care so the accessibility is a huge problem.
Obama Must Obey the Court on Obamacare
Newsmax.com
By Betsy McCaughey
Judge Roger Vinson took the president to the woodshed last week for a lesson on which branch of government has the final word on the Constitution.
Twenty six states brought a lawsuit to a Florida district court challenging the constitutionality of the Obama healthcare reform law. On January 31, Vinson ruled the mandatory insurance provision unconstitutional and, going further, declared the entire law void. The White House brushed off Vinson’s ruling as “extreme” and an “outlier” and told the nation “implementation would proceed apace.”
Vinson clarified his ruling on March 3, warning the president’s lawyers that it was “not just a bit of friendly advice.” The administration suggests “that a single federal judge” cannot halt an entire regulatory scheme. Wrong, said Vinson. A court’s judgment is binding.
De-Fund the Predators of Planned Parenthood
Townhall.com
Thanks to the persistent investigative work of young pro-life journalists, Planned Parenthood’s ruthless, money-grubbing colors are on full, fresh YouTube display. But as shocking as the illicit new videos from Live Action Films are, the routine, parental authority-sabotaging advice the taxpayer-funded abortion racket gives teens every day deserves more front-page headline news, too.
Live Action is a California-based “new media, investigative and educational organization committed to the protection and respect of all human life” led by Internet undercover pioneer Lila Rose. The group’s latest video footage at abortion clinics in Perth Amboy, N.J., the Bronx and four cities in Virginia shows Planned Parenthood officials aiding and abetting individuals posing as criminal sex traffickers seeking abortions for underage girls.
GOP: Defeat of Health Law Repeal Is Step Toward Victory in 2012
FoxNews.com
Associated Press
Published February 03, 2011
WASHINGTON — To hear Senate Republicans tell it, the defeat of their attempt to repeal the Democrats’ health care overhaul was really a victory of sorts on the long the march to the 2012 congressional and presidential elections.
The repeal effort sank Wednesday along party lines, 51-47 as expected. But in the process, Republicans forced Democrats on the record in favor of President Barack Obama’s signature overhaul and launched what they described as a two-year effort to discredit it in the lead-up to a bid for a second term.
“These are the first steps in a long road that will culminate in 2012, whereby we will expose the flaws and the weaknesses in this legislation,” said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the party’s campaign chief.
“We think this is just the beginning,” said Republican leader Mitch McConnell. “This issue is still ahead of us.”
Deficit Commission: ObamaCare Savings are a Myth
HotAir.com
posted at 10:55 am on December 2, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly
AOL Opinons editor John Merline notes that the deficit commission titled its proposal “The Moment of Truth,” and perhaps rarely for a government effort, it actually delivers on its advertising. The report exposes six truths about the federal government and its spending addiction. Perhaps even more importantly, it exposes a couple of key myths about the Obama administration and its agenda:
2) Health reform’s cost savings apparently were bogus. Remember how Democrats boasted that health reform would cut the budget deficit by $170 billion over the next decade and far more after that? The deficit commission must not have gotten that memo. It says health spending projections under the new law “count on large phantom savings” and the reform law’s new long-term care program that the report calls “unsustainable.” As a result, Congress will still need to enact “a number of other reforms to reduce federal health spending and slow the growth of health care costs more broadly.” …
5) Obama is a big spender. Although President Barack Obama has talked about fiscal discipline — and set up this deficit commission — his own budget plan would spend $350 billion more on so-called discretionary programs over the next decade than if the government were just left on autopilot, according to the report.
My goodness — does this mean that Obama isn’t really a “Blue Dog Democrat“? Perhaps the media might also notice that the deficit explosion coincided with the FY2009 budget that Obama helped delay as a member of the Senate and signed as an omnibus in March 2009 as President, too. It would be nice to see the “I inherited this deficit” myth exploded as well.
The supposed cost savings in ObamaCare have been repeatedly exposed as mythical, even during the debate prior to its passage. The “doc fix” that amended the reimbursement rates settled that question, but even apart from that, the assumptions built into the plan were always based on the rosiest perfect-world scenarios. We have already seen private-sector employers act to dump retirees out of prescription coverage in far larger numbers than pre-passage estimates, which will create heavier burdens on Medicare. Employers will also eventually stop buying health insurance altogether — especially if Congress adopts the debt commission’s proposal to end the tax exemption on that compensation. Employees will demand that compensation in cash rather than taxable health subsidies in order to take advantage of the tax-financed subsidies in the health exchanges mandated by ObamaCare. Expect the system to spiral into the deep end of the red-ink pool when that happens.
DEMOCRATS ARE LOSING WOMEN!
Ever since the abortion debate burst on the American political scene in the wake of the Roe v Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, women have voted more Democratic than men. Particularly unmarried women have since typically backed Democratic candidates – attracted by their pro-choice positions – by between ten and twenty points in each election.
But now the trend has stopped! In one of the most important findings in the post-election polls, the McLaughlin and Associates polling firm has found that men and women both voted for Republican candidates in the 2010 midterm elections! Pollster John McLaughlin – one of the best – noted that “The Republican candidates for Congress had a 12-point advantage among men (53-41) and a 7-point advantage among women (50-43).” This finding is historic.
New study shows ObamaCare subsidies potentially five times higher in first year than predicted
HotAir.com
posted at 3:13 pm on October 21, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly
In passing ObamaCare, Democrats argued that it would provide a net relief to the budget deficit in its balance of new taxes and fees, drastic cuts to Medicare Advantage, and the subsidies it would provide to Americans making $88,000 a year or less. A new study commissioned by Families USA, a group that supports ObamaCare, shows that the Democrats and the CBO badly miscalculated the level of subsidies provided. In the first year (2014), 28 million Americans would have eligibility for more than $110 billion, outstripping the Congressional/CBO estimate by almost 600%:
Families USA commissioned The Lewin Group to use its economic models to estimate how many individuals would benefit from the new premium tax credits in 2014 and the value of the dollars going to help pay for insurance (see the Methodology on page 12 for more details). We found that an estimated 28.6 million Americans will be eligible for the tax credits in 2014, and that the total value of the tax credits that year will be $110.1 billion.
The new tax credits will provide much-needed assistance to insured individuals and families who struggle harder each year to pay rising premiums, as well as to uninsured individuals and families who need help purchasing coverage that otherwise would be completely out of reach financially. Most of the families who will be eligible for the tax credits will be employed, many for small businesses, and will have incomes between two and four times poverty (between $44,100 and $88,200 for a family of four based on 2010 poverty guidelines). However, because the size of the tax credits will be determined on a sliding scale based on income, those with the lowest incomes will receive the largest tax credit, which will ensure that the assistance is targeted to those who need it the most.
Dean: ‘Elections Are Not The Time to Educate People’ (Stupid Remark)
TheBlaze.com
- Posted on October 18, 2010 at 4:32pm by
Meredith Jessup
With the power balance of Congress on the line, Democrats have been noticeably unwilling to tout their largest legislative success: President Obama’s landmark health care overhaul.
Scott Simon, host of NPR’s Weekend Edition, recently asked former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Howard Dean why his party has been silent about the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act while campaigning. According to Dean, Democrats are waiting until after they win before “educating” constituents about the new law provisions.
“I don’t think we should be making the case right now,” Dean said during a Saturday interview. “Elections are not the time to educate people. You win the election, then you educate people afterwards.”
“But the president’s doing what he should be doing,” he continued. “This is a bare-knuckle fight. It’s b
etween the far right, which has taken over the Republican Party, and the rest of us.”
Dean also predicted that the public’s opinion of the health care law will increase once people are “educated” as to how it will help them.
“Well, I think actually you’re seeing more and more people that are,” Dean said. “The more people that begin to understand the bill, which is incredibly complex, the better I think the bill does.”
A partial transcript from the NPR interview follows (via CNSNews.com):
Simon: Why haven‘t Democratic candidates been out on the hustings boasting about having passed President Obama’s comprehensive health care reform?
Cuccinelli Says ‘Liberty’ on the Line as Judge Weighs Virginia Health Care Suit
FoxNews.com | AP
Published October 18, 2010
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli speaks at the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Convention in Richmond, Va., Oct. 9. (AP Photo)
Virginia’s top-ranking attorney warned Monday that the federal government will be able to order Americans to “buy anything” if the state’s lawsuit against the health care overhaul goes down, after a federal judge in Richmond heard arguments in the landmark case.
U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson said he will rule by the end of the year on the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s health care law. The case is proceeding separately from one in Florida, where a federal judge last week allowed a multistate challenge to go forward.
The Virginia challenge is led by state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who claims Congress lacks the constitutional authority to require Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. He described the so-called individual mandate as “unprecedented” and warned Monday that personal “liberty” is on the line as the judge considers the case.
“If Virginia loses this fight and the federal government is allowed to cross this line, Congress will be granted virtually an unlimited power to order you to buy anything,” he said. “That’s not rhetoric. That’s reality of the circumstances of this case.”
Invoking Revolutionary War-era struggles, Cuccinelli suggested that not even the British would have attempted to force Americans to buy a product. His argument is that the federal government is attempting to “stretch” the definition of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause in order to “regulate inactivity.” In other words, the government wants to force Americans to buy a product and then fine those who don’t buy that product — a scenario Cuccinelli described as “non-commerce.”
The insurance mandate, which takes effect in 2014, is the most contentious element of the new law and the chief issue in the state’s lawsuit.
The Criminal Intent of ObamaCare
American Spectator
The Right Prescription
By David Catron on 10.8.10 @ 6:08AM
A couple of weeks ago the President and his allies in the press made much of ObamaCare’s six-month anniversary, using the occasion to tout a selective list of minor provisions that went into effect on September 23. We heard a lot about dastardly insurance industry practices, such as the fiendish refusal to insure people against maladies they have already contracted, from which we are now shielded by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). There was no mention, however, of a more important provision that has also gone into effect. This obscure provision of PPACA, buried deep in Section 6402, has received little attention from health policy wonks and even less from the “news” media. Nonetheless, it has very serious implications for the legal rights of health care providers, the American justice system and ability of many patients to access medical care.
A fundamental principle of our justice system holds that a person cannot be convicted of a felony unless it has been proven that he acted with “criminal intent.” It must be shown, in other words, that he intentionally engaged in conduct he knew to be illegal. This is a venerable legal principle whose pedigree reaches back to the beginnings of Western Civilization, and it was an important element of the English common law upon which the American justice system is based. The requirement to prove criminal intent has, however, been something of a nuisance to Beltway bureaucrats seeking to bend private industry to their will. And it has been particularly inconvenient for federal prosecutors trying to throw doctors and hospital executives in jail for violating hopelessly obscure and Byzantine regulatory statutes. But that pebble has been removed from the federal shoe by ObamaCare.
Why ObamaCare has gaping holes
HotAir.com
posted at 5:45 pm on August 7, 2010 by Karl
printer-friendly
AoSHQ’s Dave In Texas is a bit surprised that the voluminous new healthcare law does not, in fact, define health care:
Wait until the public discovers the government is now literally determining what qualifies as “health care” in America.
That isn’t a typo. ObamaCare mandates that insurers spend a certain percentage of premium dollars on benefits, but Democrats never got around to writing the fine print of what counts as a benefit. So a handful of regulators are now choosing among the tens of thousands of services that doctors, hospitals and insurers offer. Few other government decisions will do more to shape tomorrow’s health market, or what’s left of it.
It Didn’t Take Long For The Stupidity In The New Obama Laws To Surface [Reader Post]
FloppingAces.net
Posted by: DrJohn @ 11:25 am, July 30, 2010
Well, either they were stupid or they were planned. Usually the folly of poorly done laws takes a bit longer than this to become recognized but in truth some of these were fairly predictable.
Captain Obvious
Let’s start off with the tremors in Obama care that have become palpable.
Stronger children’s coverage rules may raise insurance costs
Some families might face higher insurance premiums because of a requirement in the new healthcare law that plans cover sick children, state insurance commissioners said Friday.
The rule barring insurance plans from turning away sick children or denying coverage for specific illnesses for children who are already covered was one of the most popular parts of the new law.
Democrats Attack Small Business Owner for Speaking Out Against Obama’s Policies
BigGovernment.com
by Sean Mahoney
The liberal Democrats in New Hampshire have sunk to a new low. They are smearing a private citizen in the press because he opposes the Obama-Pelosi agenda. I’ve never really seen anything like it, but I fear it is emblematic of what will happen to other small business owners who are suffering from Obama’s policies.
Last Thursday I held a press conference in my race for Congress in New Hampshire’s First Congressional District with a gentleman named Alan Silberberg, whose auto dealership was shut down arbitrarily by Chrysler, Obama’s “car czar” and his “Auto Task Force.” The purpose of the press conference was to demonstrate how Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and my Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter’s policies are destroying our economy.
It’s important to know that Alan wasn’t shut down because his business was failing. He was shut down because the government’s policies put his business on the chopping block without transparency and without accountability. To let people know how he felt, Alan painted a sign on his storefront that reads, “This business now closed because of Obama’s economics.”
None Dare Call it a Coincidence: Andy Stern and the White House Biodefense Program
BigGovernment.com
Posted Jul 10th 2010 at 7:47 am in
There are many who argue that President Obama has (repeatedly) broken his promise to bring transparency and openness to the White House. In literal terms, however, Obama may not have actually broken that specific promise (as opposed to all the others he has broken), it’s just that people may not have understood what Obama meant by transparency and openness.
For example, President Obama’s ”openness and transparency” is really open and transparent if you break it down into three categories:
Category One: Everything’s in the open, you’re just looking in all the wrong places
An example of this would be the current flap over White House staffers meeting with lobbyists. Obama’s staffers are meeting with lobbyists in the open, it just happens to be away from the White House—at Starbucks. You see, it’s not the President’s fault the press corp doesn’t follow White House staff to get a cup of coffee. Why wouldn’t the press think his staff would meet with lobbyists in the open over cups of iced mocha frappuccinos?
Waxman Drops The Bomb, We Cant Afford Obama’s Healthcare [Reader Post]
FloppingAces.net
Posted by: Skookum @ 4:45 pm
On Friday, Congressman Henry Waxman D CA, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Finance, was on the floor pleading with Democrat Congressional members they need to push for an immediate 22.9 Billion Dollar ‘Fix’ for Medicare to cover doctor’s fees.
The Bill that was supposed to lower the cost of Health Care has now shown itself to have costs that are spiraling out of control: Barack assured the nation upon signing the Health Care Bill,
“This legislation will lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades,”.
In just two months, Waxman has discovered this new need for a 102 billion in federal spending that would increase the national debt by 54 billion over the next ten years, 25 billion going out to cover costs for the next few months of the fiscal year.
According to Waxman:
“It’s absolutely critical to do this if we are going to keep doctors in Medicare and keep the promise to Medicare beneficiaries that they will have access to physicians’ services, This provision will provide a moderate increase in physicians’ fees, 2.2 percent for the rest of the year. If we don’t act, doctors’ fees will be cut by 21 percent from where they are today. This would be unconscionable.”
In his ’sudden’ desire for truth and solvency, Waxman pleaded with colleagues:
to vote for a bill that includes $102 billion in new federal spending and would add $54 billion to the national debt over the next 10 years — $25 billion of it in the few months remaining in this fiscal year.
Common Sense vs. the CBO on ObamaCare
From: BigGovernment.com
Both the House and Senate versions of the healthcare reform bill would require employers above a certain size to provide health insurance for their workers or face some sort of penalty. The House bill that passed last month would require employers to pay an 8% additional payroll tax for not insuring their workers. The Senate bill now under consideration is much less punitive, requiring employers who do not provide insurance to pay a $750 annual fee per full-time worker, but only if one or more of their employees receive a government subsidy in the insurance exchange.
Quite a difference between the two bills. By way of example, take an employee earning $50,000 per year. Under the House bill, an employer who did not provide insurance would be required to pay an additional tax of $4,000 to the federal government. Compared to only $750 under the Senate bill – a difference of more than 500%.
Now consider whether it would make more sense financially for the employer to provide insurance or pay the penalty. In our example above, under the House bill it would probably be close to a break-even if the employer is providing coverage only for the employee. According to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the average monthly insurance premium for private industry employers across all worker categories was $317.63. Or just over $3800 annualized (compared to the $4,000 penalty). However, it would be quite a bit more expensive if the employer was providing family coverage (BLS data: $737.68/mo – $8850/yr).
Obviously under the Senate bill it would be far less expensive for the employer to just pay the $750 penalty rather than provide the insurance.
CWNews Posted Comments