Could Delay of ObamaCare’s Personal Coverage Mandate Follow Business Delay?

Yesterday the U.S. Treasury announced that businesses with 50 or more employees will have an extra year to comply with the regulations of the Affordable Care Act that they offer health insurance to workers or face fines.

At Reuters, David Morgan analyzes whether the personal mandate might ultimately face the same implementation delay:

Administration officials said a delay in the individual mandate was not under consideration, while former Obama advisers played down the significance of the employer mandate announcement on Tuesday.

"This decision isn't a big deal. It won't affect that many firms," said Nancy-Ann DeParle, a former senior White House aide who was deeply involved in developing the healthcare law.

"People will still have a responsibility to get covered and those who can't get affordable coverage through their employers will be able to come to the new marketplaces and get it."

Of course, those “new marketplaces” known as health insurance exchanges might not be ready on time either, so what happens then?

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    So the delay is an evil ploy to force individuals to use the exchanges if they don't already get coverage through an employer?

  • PapayaSF||

    That's one of the benefits, yes, but the main benefit is to move the pain until after the mid-term elections.

  • Sevo||

    "That's one of the benefits, yes, but the main benefit is to move the pain until after the mid-term elections."

    Let's consider what has happened.
    1) The delay (AFAIK) isn't really yet legal; it was announced in a personal blog by a woman whose legal standing in the government is 'white house nag' or something similar. So I'm still waiting for someone with the authority to delay the process does so.
    2) The woman in question is a political advisor; she advises Obozo on how his actions affect his political prospects.
    2) The woman in question claims the delay is a result of 'consultation with businesses', which is horseshit; neither that woman nor most anyone in the Obozo white house consults with business unless it has to do with contributions or political gain.

    So claims that the delay is for reasons other than to aid Dems in the mid-terms need to be compared to pixy-dust. One more blatant lie.

  • paranoid android||

    I think it's only fair to take her at her word--she consulted with businesses, and the businesses told her that donations to Democrat campaigns would probably see a bit of a bump if that mandate were postponed somehow...

  • Sevo||

    So she shopped the delay and got a good offer?
    OK, but I'll bet the shopping went a bit further. Like to the campaign managers of the guys facing mid-terms

  • PapayaSF||

    I suspect "consultation with businesses" means "angry messages relayed by panicky Democrats up for reelection."

  • Aresen||

    Could Delay of ObamaCare’s Personal Coverage Mandate Follow Business Delay?

    How could you possibly suggest that the Chosen One, Nobel Laureate and Rider of Unicorns delay implementation of the individual mandate to avoid Team Blue getting hammered on November 4, 2013 for anything other than the Good of the Country?

  • Guillotined||

    This is a purely political move. They certainly know this mandate will collectively fuck the economy in the ass. Best move the date so the ill effects happen post-November '14, yet continue talking it up like its a good bargain before that time so we can get the welfare queens out to the polls.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There are few moves they make that aren't calculated political moves. But you have to admit it's encouraging that they're aware enough of the economic upheaval they've created that they're kicking it down the road.

  • Nazdrakke||

    I don't think the economic upheaval matters a whit to them. If they thought they could survive it politically they would be full speed ahead. I think they did the math and realised that going forward now just might damage their TEAM badly enough to cost them in 2016 and lead to repeal. I know everyone's looking at 2014 but really it'll take a little while for this virus to really get its hooks into the economy to the point that both chambers and the presidency are in play.

    I think they believe if they can run out a bit more of the clock they'll be able to hang on somewhere (probably the senate) well enough to derail repeal efforts. If this thing is as fucked as it is more and more seeming to be I think they are striving in vain, but what else is a True Believer to do?

  • Len Bias||

    "But you have to admit it's encouraging that they're aware enough of the economic upheaval they've created that they're kicking it down the road."

    That awareness is encouraging, unless the economic upheaval is the goal, or a welcome side effect, of the legislation.

  • Sevo||

    "But you have to admit it's encouraging that they're aware enough of the POLITICAL upheaval they've created that they're kicking it down the road.'

    I think that scans mo betta, FoE.
    To be clear, I don't think they give a shit so long as they suffer no political damage from it.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    There are few moves they make that aren't calculated political moves.

    Passing Obamacare in the first place seems to be one that wasn't politically calculated.

  • Len Bias||

    I don't think it was passed to gain them political popularity, but to centralize health care as much as possible, which is a political motive when compared to passing a bill that would, say, improve the health care situation in the US.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I think they did it because free healthcare, like they have in Europe has been a dem-prog fantasy for the last seventy years. And in 2008 they though all the stars were finally aligned to make the dream reality.

  • Sevo||

    "Passing Obamacare in the first place seems to be one that wasn't politically calculated."
    Disagreed. It was calculated by ignoramuses who add one and one and get three.
    The idiots hope that providing free shit will continue to work. In this case, the 'free' shit ended up costing those who will vote 'way too much.
    They 'calculated' and I laughed. No, one plus one doesn't equal three.

  • anon||

    They 'calculated' and I laughed. No, one plus one doesn't equal three.

    Disagree. Whenever the government says "it's only going to be another trillion!," I apply the 1+1=3 logic, cause you know there's another dick they're trying to jam up your ass that they aren't telling you about.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yeah, Obamacare's more a case of 1+1 = 11.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    People will still have a responsibility to get covered and those who can't get affordable coverage through their employers will be able to come to the new marketplaces and get it.

    Uh, no they won't. They might be able to go and get coverage, but not affordable coverage. No one will be able to get affordable coverage. Now it will turn from history, to legend, to myth.

  • Tman||

    So does this mean we don't get to find out what's in it yet?

    I'm so confused. NANCY PELOSI COME SAVE US!!! YOU ARE OUR ONLY HOPE!!!

  • Mendelism||

    Someone in the Obama administration needs to google regime uncertainty. Even if the idea here is to postpone the economic disaster this law is sure to create, the postponement itself is almost certain to cause problems of its own. What business owner with more than 50 employees has been sitting around not thinking a whit about how to respond to this law in advance of the deadline?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Exactly. This does nothing but prolong the agony.

  • PapayaSF||

    Yes. And in addition, this is just a suspension of enforcement. The law is still there, and they can decide to enforce it at any time. So the prudent thing for businesses to do is to act as if it is enforced, meaning cutting workers and hours.

  • Ball-sac||

    Shaqford, don't fuck with me.

    I'm really not looking forward to buying many hundreds of dollars of unnecessary coverage. I could really use a reprieve. I don't go to hospital for every sniffle and fart and I hate the idea of paying for everyone who does.

    (That's my weed money they're stealing!)

  • odalysrowan16||

    as Kelly explained I didn't know that a student able to get paid $4595 in one month on the internet. have you seen this web page Go to site and open Home for details
    http://WWW.JOBS31.COM

  • anon||

    So first they jam the law down my throat, then they want to decide arbitrarily when to start enacting the law? What the fuck? How the fuck am I supposed to plan -anything- when the government pretty much changes the law when and how it feels that day?

    Fuck you, Obama. Fuck you. With Pelosi's dick, fucking regurgitated cum-bubble.

  • XM||

    This has nothing to do with the 2014 elections. Nothing at all.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    "This decision isn't a big deal. It won't affect that many firms," said Nancy-Ann DeParle, a former senior White House aide who was deeply involved in developing the healthcare law.

    Then, you know, why make that decision?

    Look, Nancy-Ann, obviously there was enough at stake to push out the roll-out of this wonderful law. If it's that great a law and implementing on time wouldn't affect that many firms, then implement it on time.

    She sounds like one of those people who will say, "It doesn't matter either way" and then fight to the death for her way.

  • JWatts||

    "This decision isn't a big deal. It won't affect that many firms," said Nancy-Ann DeParle, a former senior White House aide who was deeply involved in developing the healthcare law

    That line was purely for the benefit of the True Believers. So that they've got a comeback to anyone who points out how the law is falling apart piecemeal. It's not designed to make logical sense, it's designed to provide an internal cognitive bulwark against the facts of the situation.

    I'm sure Tony has already repeated that exact point since the news first came out.

  • JWatts||

    To be clear, the line isn't intended to convince anyone who's skeptical, it's designed to give the True Believers something to repeat and to mentally latch onto.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement