Obama Administration Delays Obamacare’s Employer Mandate, Again

Whitehouse.govWhitehouse.govAnother day, another Obamacare delay. Once again, the employer mandate, which in theory requires businesses with 50 or more employees to provide qualifying health coverage for employees, is the target.

Las summer, the administration put the requirement on hold for an extra year. Now it’s tweaking the provision even further. Businesses with between 50 and 99 employees will not be subject to the employer mandate until 2016. The administration says it will require employers participating in the delay to certify that they aren’t cutting back on jobs strictly to fall under the 100-employee threshold.  

The administration is also tweaking the coverage rules for larger businesses. Employers with 100 or more employees will now only have to provide coverage for 70 percent of their workers through 2016. Previously, those firms had been required to give coverage to 95 percent of their workers to meet the requirement.

Where does the White House get the authority to tweak and delay the rules like this? I’m not sure how much the administration actually cares at this point, but I suspect it derives at least partly from the—whoalookablimpbehindyougottarun!

To some extent this is just one of the many perils of attempting to make a law as complex and controversial as Obamacare work. The administration is attempting to please employers who don’t like the requirement and mitigate some of the potential economic destabilization that could come with the requirement. It’s a political move as much as anything. But it could further undermine the law’s already shaky policy foundations. As Obamacare’s supporters argued before the law was passed, the employer mandate is one of the key mechanisms the law relies on to keep costs down and coverage up. But the administration has now twice weakened that mechanism. (And at this point, you have to wonder if there aren't more tweaks to the provision coming down the line.) 

At the same time, the administration’s pick-and-choose approach to implementation has destabilized the law politically.  Because the Obama administration won’t be running the show forever. And future administrations, which might not be so sympathetic to the law or so tied to its fortunes, are likely to take advantage of the flexibility the Obama administration has made for itself here. Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry might be overstating the case a little bit when he writes at Forbes that President Obama is “giving conservatives all the tools they need to transform the country.” But with legally dubious moves like this, the Obama administration is almost certainly setting a precedent that will eventually come back to haunt Democrats. 

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.

  • Swiss Servator, Befehl!||

    TREASON! SETTLED LAW OF THE LAND!

    I am sure Tony will come explain how this is perfectly legit and shriek will yell "Boooosh! Reagan! Argle Bargle!"

    I find it hard to believe someone doesn't whomp up a writ of mandamus to force implementation and challenge the delays.

  • Ted S.||

    I'm sure Obama can find a judge to claim such a person doesn't have standing.

  • Swiss Servator, Befehl!||

    Would make for a quick split of authorities, and expedite the appeal.

    Holder still has not managed to justify or give any of the source of authority for any of these delays...

  • wareagle||

    Holder still has not managed to justify or give any of the source of authority for any of these delays...

    FYTW. Come on, man; that was obvious.

  • gaijin||

    writ of mandamus

    Wouldn't that require the Administration to be positioned as an inferior entity?

  • Swiss Servator, Befehl!||

    Not necessarily - often that is the case, but going to the SCT to compel the Exec Branch is one use (in fact that is how the SCT said it had the power!!! Marbury v Madison was such a writ vs the SoS)

  • gaijin||

    ah. thanks for that.

  • OneOut||

    "Holder still has not managed to justify or give any of the source of authority for any of these delays.."

    LOL..Has not managed ? I doubt he's even given it one moments thought.

  • Swiss Servator, Befehl!||

    He was directly asked by Sen Mike Lee at a hearing - he hemmed and hawed and stammered, then Lee said "why don't you just go ahead and send that over, in writing, by Jan 31st."

    Needless to say, Holder has not bothered to do so.

  • Nazdrakke||

    I think his official reply went something like "How many divisions has the pope?"

  • ||

    If Obama was a Republican, you can bet that progressives would be filing lawsuits left and right demanding that the President enforce their 'right" to get insurance through an employer.

    This is one of those times when I suspect that Obama is some sort of Libertarian Manchurian Candidate, considering that undermining the employer-based system should be our #1 goal.

    Get everyone onto individual policies, then repeal the law.

  • Sevo||

    HazelMeade|2.11.14 @ 9:26AM|#
    "If Obama was a Republican, you can bet that progressives would be filing lawsuits left and right demanding that the President enforce their 'right" to get insurance through an employer."

    Ad the propaganda sheets that pass themselves off as news papers would have 3" headlines.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    President Argle Bargle is seriously underrated, likely because nobody could understand what he was saying in his SOTU addresses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    They had to pass the law to find out what loose suggestions were in it.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    "They're more guidelines than actual rules."

  • gaijin||

    Kicks in in 2016 huh? a gift to Hillary's election campaign.

  • db||

    It will be.such.a clusterfuck she'll have to.run.on.fixing.it.

  • gaijin||

    ugh. you are right. Only the government that broke your leg can provide the cast and crutches to fix it. ;)

  • SugarFree||

    And to think that those crazy Republicans were willing to hold the country's finances hostage to delay implementation of the law. What were those madman thinking?!?

  • gaijin||

    I seem to remember some calling for them to be tried for sedition even.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    What's interesting is that there are no negative political ramifications for the Democrats. The opposition party wanted at least this so they're not going to push the issue. And news media aren't going to challenge the administration on its legal authority to do this.

  • wareagle||

    does the media believe the legal authority is even an issue? I doubt its daily White House-approved talking points make mention of that.

  • db||

    And the ratchet closes tighter around the neck of the rule of.law.

  • Swiss Servator, Befehl!||

    The noose has already been tied, fitted and we are just finishing shoving the law off the chair to finish breaking its neck,

  • Ken Shultz||

    If a Republican president had orchestrated this delay, the Democrats would be denouncing it as a giveaway to corporations at the expense of the working class.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Boehner is trying to push that message now but we'll see just how much of that gets echoed by journalists.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Don't hold your breath.

    This might be a much better country once the baby boomers who populate our media get old and die.

  • ||

    Don't worry, their brainwashed children will replace them.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Sometimes, I think the baby boomers are so virulent in their hatred of free markets and the Republican brand is because of their memories of Nixon and Reagan.

    Just mention Reagan to a baby boomer Democrat and they still start sputtering.

    Their kids don't have that. Maybe there's hope.

    Their kids hate Republicans for being racist and homophobic. Their hatred isn't really about the economy.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    Curse that Nixon and his lazzes-faire economic policies!!!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, Reagan wasn't as much of a free market capitalist in practice as I would have liked either, but the baby boomers' hatred of Reagan (and Nixon) carried over into whatever polices the left associated with them anyway.

    Also, try to consider Nixon within the context of his time. Don't compare Nixon to what Milton Friedman would have had him do--compare Nixon to Lyndon Johnson.

    Just before Nixon, Lyndon Johnson created Food Stamps, Head Start, the National Endowment for the Arts, Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, and he started funding public schools with huge amounts of federal money for the first time.

    By way of comparison from where the Democrats were at the time? Nixon was a free market radical, and, yeah, the left hated him for it.

  • ||

    'Scuze me, Bush?

    Bush was much worse than Reagan. Anyone who hated Reagan was already firmly a member of the hippie liberal set.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They don't hate Bush because of his free market capitalist agenda.

    They hate Bush because of the warmongering--not even the civil rights violations anymore, since Obama more or less continued them.

    For many baby boomer Democrats, they hate free market capitalism because it was advocated by Ronald Reagan.

    They hated Reagan before he was president--the left hated Reagan and made an icon of him when he was the governor of California to throw hate at--just like they hated on Sprio Agnew.

    They hate deregulation because it was advocated by Reagan, too.

    If the baby boomers kids hate warmongering because they associated it with Bush, I really don't have too much of a problem with that. Baby boomers hating capitalism because they hate Reagan--that's a bigger problem, and it isn't going away until the baby boomers die of old age.

  • Carolynp||

    You overestimate their intellect, just as they themselves do. Ask them why they hate Bush, and they'll sputter for five minutes about economics, which they clearly know nothing about. The problem is that they firmly believe that conservatives are evil. They can't tell you why...

  • OneOut||

    Read this and it will explain it better than anything else I have read or heard. Anything. After reading it I truly understood the liberal thought process .


    Boomeritis: A Novel That Will Set You Free........ is a polemical 2002 novel by American philosopher Ken Wilber principally designed to explain Wilber's integral theory and to explain his concept of "Boomeritis". Wilber characterizes this as the deadly combination of a modern liberal, egalitarian worldview with a deep unquestioned narcissism commonly held by Baby Boomers and their children.

  • Cyto||

    I don't believe they even care about the war mongering. They hate Bush because he won a very close election against Clinton's successor. After impeachment the idea that they lost to a moron who could not speak cogently is inconceivable. Add in the Florida controversy and they had every "team" button possible pressed. After that it didn't matter what Bush did - he was evil enemy number one. He was bigger at big government than any of their guys and they still hated everything about him.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They hate Bush becasue of the warmongering.

    This is the Baby Boomers' kids we're talking about. Not the Baby Boomers.

    Democrat Baby Boomers hate Bush because of the warmongering and because he was a Republican, and the Republicans are the party of Reagan and Nixon.

  • ||

    You've got it totally backwards. They didn't hate capitalism because Reagan advocated it. They hated reagan, because he advocated capitalism.

    We're talking about people who were educated in the 60s by closet communists, here. They were already brainwashed with the whole left-socialist mindset way before Reagan took office. They hated Reagan because HE BEAT THEM. He turn the country aside from it's long march towards socialism.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    If a Republican president had orchestrated this delay, the Democrats would be denouncing it as a giveaway to corporations at the expense of the working class.

    This is why neither the Sebelius or Pelosi creatures will be returning to The Daily Show anytime soon. Even some folks having Special Access Passes to the punch-bowl are not drinking the Kool-Aid - so the punch-bowl gets taken away.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    The teahadists were literally going to nuke the country, SugarFree! Don't you care about gramma and the Troops (who we will block from their own memorials)?

  • SugarFree||

    Not gramma!

    The sheer will it takes to be a media whore for Obama amazes me.

  • Homple||

    Who cares? Team Red is against pot, abortions and gay marriage so we don't support 'em here. Right?

  • db||

    How many laws is Congress going to let Obama unilaterally rewrite.before.impeaching.him? I guess all of them. Are they like prosecutors who.are trying to.rack up a high charge count?

    Oh, I really amuse myself.

  • Cyto||

    After the Clinton fiasco every democrat for the remainder of the generation gets a free pass. The bar for a democrat president being impeached is somewhere around assassination of political enemies. Even then they would need video proof and a few democrat defections.

  • OneOut||

    They will never impeach Obama because he is black. Period.

    If the mid terms send the Senate to a Rep supermajority they will still not impeach a black President.

    There is nothing Obama could do to rise to the level of impeachment. Nothing. Murder. Child molestation. Nothing.

  • BoxyBoxyBoxyBoxy||

    I took a vacation to Las Summer last summer. It was pretty nice.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    I know what you did at Las Summer!

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Where does the White House get the authority to tweak and delay the rules like this?"

    Nowhere.

    I don't see why the GOP - or somebody - isn't taking the administration to court over all this illegal executive branch legislating.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Because why throw the One Ring into the volcano when you'll eventually be wearing it yourself?

  • db||

    Good analogy, but it's.not.like anyone is standing.on the.slopes.of.Mount Doom. More.like lounging around the Shire smoking a pipe wondering why all these orcs.have been raiding the place.recently.

  • Swiss Servator, Befehl!||

    *applause*

    Bravo. Take a bow!

  • pan fried wylie||

    lounging around the Shire smoking a pipe

    Take a bowl!

    *re-reads*

    Oh.

  • Carolynp||

    Bingo.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I don't see why the GOP - or somebody - isn't taking the administration to court over all this illegal executive branch legislating."

    Because the employer mandate would be a disaster.

    Part of me wants to see that disaster happen sooner so, maybe, we can get rid of ObamaCare, but what Obama is doing really is, probably, saving us from a big disaster. And I think the Republicans are probably relieved that they don't have to implement this delay in law.

    Like I said, if the Republicans had orchestrated a delay in the employer mandate, the Democrats would denounce it as a giveaway to corporations at the expense of the average working American.

    Why would the Republicans in Congress want to subject themselves to that in an election year?

  • Bryan C||

    There's a method of torture that involves dragging the victim out of their cell from time to time and staging a mock execution. Or maybe a real one. They wake up each morning not knowing if this is the day their world will end. The uncertainty and fear are intended to make it very clear to the victim that they have no control and no ability to prepare even for what they know is inevitable. They're utterly powerless.

    Do you think they thank their captors each time for "saving" them?

  • ||

    Yes. Stockholm Syndrome.

    In a few years there will be a virulent lobby to extend the delay one more year, just like the "doc fix". This lobby will be very lucrative for the Democrats.

  • ||

    It's almost like a way that political parties can extract taxes directly, instead of having them go into the government coffers. If you get the campaign donations directly, you don't have to deal with all that pesky business of routing it to government contractors and 401(k) groups who will eventually funnel it back to you. Instead of raising taxes on evil capitalists by 2%, you threaten them with crippling legislation that compells them to give 2% of their income to lobbyists, who give it to you.

  • R C Dean||

    This lobby will be very lucrative for the Democrats TEAM BE RULED.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think they're glad every time they don't get shot.

    I see this as like balancing the budget--which will happen, eventually! Eventually, we'll either make massive cuts, like Greece did--because our economy collapses and we have no choice--or we'll find the fortitude to make the necessary changes and avoid a lot of suffering before it happens.

    Sometimes, I wish we'd start seeing inflation so the right people would get the hint, but the point of being a budget hawk is to avoid all the human suffering that will happen if we don't make the necessary budget cuts.

    Who here thinks the employer mandate, when implemented, won't mean a lot more unemployed people--among other bad things? I don't want to see people lose their job unnecessarily--just because of Obama's stupid healthcare reform.

    Even Obama sees what would happen if he didn't delay the mandate! The problem with what Obama is doing is that it's extra legal and it avoids changing the law when the law needs to be changed. But in terms of real world effects, if getting rid of the employer mandate is the best thing that can happen, then delaying must be up there near the second best thing that can happen.

  • LynchPin1477||

    If employers cut workers in response to ObamaCare, the administration will just come up with some penalty to try and prevent it. They already seem to be doing this. It's unintended consequences all the way down.

  • Bryan C||

    See, this is where a Libertarian party will some balls could make themselves useful. Though it might be hard to recruit even Libertarian candidates to act as a Constitutional Suicide Squad.

  • ||

    What sort of horrible laws are the Libertarians going to threaten people with to make them donate more money?

    That the problem with Libertarians. Too ethical. They actually think people should be allowed to keep their money instead of giving it to them. You'll never acheive real power that way.

  • Carolynp||

    Yes, beware the evil libertarians, they'll take over and then they'll leave you alone...

  • ||

    "Where does the White House get the authority to..."

    Everybody say it with me now.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    It's as if they had no real understanding of how any of this stuff works, but thought, "Since mean well, if we wish really really hard, we can magically transform this vast, complex system. Because we're totally smart."

  • Ken Shultz||

    The Obama Administration knew none of this stuff would work when they pushed it through Congress.

    That's why none of it was implemented until after his reelection.

    That's why they've been trying to stop us from calling it "ObamaCare" since day one.

    The Obama Administration just passed it because failing would have made them look feckless--like Clinton did after HillaryCare failed. America hates losers--especially when they're presidents, and HillaryCare failing had cost Bill Clinton dearly. So, they passed something they knew wouldn't work--even though they knew it wouldn't work.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Why would they push through legislation they KNOW won't work? OK, BHO gets elected, but it does nothing to help the party in the years that follow.

    They had NO IDEA it wouldn't work. They may have been told by some people they then sought to marginalize, but it was because they didn't want their egos bruised.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They knew it wouldn't work.

    I mean, they didn't tell anybody that, but the only thing they could get passed was what they got passed.

    And why would the Obama Administration care about what this does for Democrats in the future--once they're out of office?

    These are politicians we're talking about. Once they're out of office, why should they give a happy damn?

    They still got reelected despite it because they made sure it didn't go into effect until after they were reelected, and four years from now is an eternity in politics. The important issue of the next presidential election could be anything.

  • John Thacker||

    Eh, split the difference. Some people knew it wouldn't work, some people thought it would. Washington conspiracies (and parties) aren't unified enough to prevent that. Even a campaign isn't a unified "they."

  • JW||

    Wow, this program must be fucking awesome, that they keep delaying it so.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Obama must love the stop and go method.

  • Bryan C||

    "The administration says it will require employers participating in the delay to certify that they aren’t cutting back on jobs strictly to fall under the 100-employee threshold."

    WTF? How is that supposed to work? Oh, that's right. It isn't expected to work. It's just to give political cover while providing a pretext to selectively target mouthy businesses what don't know what's good for 'em. Nevermind.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The administration says it will require employers participating in the delay to certify that they aren’t cutting back on jobs strictly to fall under the 100-employee threshold."

    Yeah, it's a presidential CYA Memo.

    ...written like an incompetent federal bureaucrat.

  • LynchPin1477||

    If they can keep pushing back the mandate, what is to stop them from only selectively enforcing it on companies that are "cutting back on jobs strictly to fall under the 100-employee threshold"? The rule of law? Ha!

    Actually, that might not be the worst outcome. If they did do something like that, then I imagine the company could take the administration to court. Of course then it is in the hands of SCOTUS, so I guess be careful what you wish for.

  • AlgerHiss||

    Nikita was correct.

    And it's chilling to observe.

  • John Thacker||

    one of the key mechanisms the law relies on to keep costs down and coverage up.

    Technically, one of the key mechanisms the law relies on to "shift the costs from general taxpayers to companies, who will inevitably pass those costs onto their workers through compensation cuts, yet so when other compensation, benefits, or insurance premiums are affected by this, workers will loudly blame the employers or insurance company for the changes, not the law." As in the recent case of AOL, which reported a large increase in recurring costs due to the law (plus a couple especially expensive rare cases), and then passed that on to employees, causing a firestorm.

    Costs shifted are not costs reduced. Indirect costs imposed by regulation are just as real costs as direct taxes.

  • Bryan C||

    But people who are dishonest, or don't know any better, can readily deny that the indirect costs have anything to do with the regulation at hand.

    A law making health care more expensive leads to more expensive health care? Nonsense! Why, it's obvious those darned [Republicans | insurance companies | enemy corporations | Jews | military industrial complex] hurting people just to spite our lovely new regulations! Let's pass more! That'll show 'em!

  • ||

    People who are too dumb to understand economics will believe whatever is in the personal self-interest to believe.

    All they know is "more free shit for me". Everything else is a plot by evil capitalists to brainwash you.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "People who are too dumb to understand economics will believe whatever is in the personal self-interest to believe."

    Just follow the money, Hazel.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Incidentally, I don't know if there was a post on the following here at H&R; it's from an interview with Aetna's CEO did a couple of weeks ago:

    "Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini told CNBC on Wednesday that Obamacare has failed to attract the uninsured, and he offered a scenario in which the insurance company could be forced to pull out of program.

    The company will be submitting Obamacare rates for 2015 on May 15.

    "Are they going to be double-digit [increases] or are we going to get beat up because they're double-digit or are we just going to have to pull out of the program?" Bertolini asked in a "Squawk Box" interview from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland."

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101354183

    What he's saying is that in order for their participation to remain viable, they may have to raise their premiums dramatically. If regulators won't tolerate that increase, then they may have to pull out of the program in order to remain viable.

    He says all of this is predicated on how much insurance participation we get from the uninsured over the next few months, but we all know how that's going.

    You can watch the interview yourself at the link.

  • Adam330||

    I'm surprised no one has commented on the requirement to certify that they aren’t cutting back on jobs strictly to fall under the 100-employee threshold. What a lovely way to stop all these damaging media stories about companies holding back on hiring to fall under the law's thresholds. Now any business owner admitting they did this is guilty of tax fraud!

  • Ken Shultz||

    See Byran C's comment above.

    You're right, it's ultimately just media manipulation.

  • GILMORE||

    "
    Adam330|2.11.14 @ 10:04AM|#

    I'm surprised no one has commented ...re: 'certification'..."

    Me, PM links last evening =

    "Did you not hear the shittiest scumbag detail the admin tacked onto the 'delay'?

    "Employers with fewer than 100 workers will have to certify to the government that they haven’t fired workers to get under the threshold and qualify for the delay until 2016. They also must certify they won’t drop health plans they already offer, officials said. "

    Why the 'certification'? Not to actually *prevent* employers from dumping employees to avoid penalties, or dumping coverage to force employees onto exchanges... (because how would that be actually *track-able and enforceable* until years after the fact? At which point its simply a fait accompli, and any lawyer not Bo Cara Esq could easily find reasonable excuses why changes were made...

    ...No, the reason for the certification is *obvious*. The admin wants to be able to claim [in the interim] that "no one was fired" because of this law. How do they know? "People told us so".

    Its handing out some temporary delay in burden on small employers in exchange for faux political-cover for the real impact of the law.

    Please, anyone out there who really thinks it actually serves some legitimate purpose, try and defend it. Shreek? Tony? Please, tell me how this shit sandwich is prime rib au jus.

  • Adam330||

    You beat me to it.

  • GILMORE||

    The only reason I drew attention to this again is because I think this is a more compelling angle to the story than simply the 'delay', which as far as most people care has been done 3 times already...

    The news REQUIRING people to certify something, and potentially expose themselves to legal liability for *simply behaving in ways they have every economic and regulatory incentive to*, is a wholly new and crass gesture which I think deserves extra special attention from the media.

    The question would be = why do they grant extensions only to those who are willing to accept some conditional, extra-legal requirement?

    A business owner's primary focus should be on what is in the best interests of his business = if that means firing 4 people in order to get prevent hundreds of thousands in fines per year, then THAT MAKES SENSE. The alternative might require dumping EVERYONE's coverage, which would potentially result in a business losing valued employees who resent losing benefits without negotiation.

    The government is imposing a regime which forces business owners to make painful changes to their business - but then asks them to DENY any painful changes are being made. Because, that's not what they *intend*, right? The government *wants* people to lie so they can report the bullshit #s.

  • Pinky||

    I think the important aspect of the certification requirement is what happens when an employer tells the administration to shove it's certification requirement up its ass? What does the law say about that?

    Suppose yourself an attorney for a small employer asked to opine upon certifying compliance to something that has no force of law. That's a tough call. But very certainly it would be prudent to submit a statement that admits nothing while at the same time satisfies the adminisrtration.

    "I certify, to the best of my knowledge, that my employment practices are compliant with the laws and statutes of the United States, as interpreted by the current administration, or whatever."

  • GILMORE||

    ""I certify, to the best of my knowledge, that my employment practices are compliant with the laws and statutes of the United States, as interpreted by the current administration, or whatever."

    Yes, which is my point. The admin wants to be able to deny that anyone was "forced out of work". They want employers to *pretend along with them* by certifying.

  • prolefeed||

    Businesses with between 50 and 99 employees will not be subject to the employer mandate until 2016. The administration says it will require employers participating in the delay to certify that they aren’t cutting back on jobs strictly to fall under the 100-employee threshold.

    I'm sure those businesses will certify the crap out of their business need to lay off employees, entirely unrelated to the massive costs that Obamacare would have imposed, so as to coincidentally bring them down to about 98 employees.

  • R C Dean||

    A couple of other issues:

    (1) What's the budget impact? Delaying the mandate means delaying the fines for companies that don't give ObamaSurance to their staff. What's this do to the deficit?

    (2) If my employer had 50 - 100 employees and asked me what to do, I'd have to tell them that this is essentially a press release with no legal authority, and that they would rely on it at their peril. The mandate is still on the books, and they are actually in violation of it right now, as it went into effect 01/01/2014, because the initial delay was just as unauthorized by law as this one.

  • Zoobs||

    Good point. Any policy issued under the Obama-waivers is technically not lawful. Doctors and hospitals should refuse care based on unlawful coverage and cite complicity to a crime as being their cover. Then sit back and watch the stuff hit the fan!

  • John Thacker||

    It probably increases the deficit, at least if companies dump more people on the exchanges. That's according to the CBO analysis of a no-employer mandate bill.

    Note, however, that that's almost kind of a sideshow, or at least just makes it more honest. It mostly only increases the deficit by bringing "on-budget" the cost of the mandate regulatory impact. The regulations always did cost that much, just indirect methods are preferred for hiding the cost (and allowing people to blame employers and insurance companies instead.)

  • R C Dean||

    Standing to challenge this is an interesting issue. You'd think any member of Congress could challenge it, but probably not. You have to show some kind of harm, so I'm thinking the best plaintiff would be working shmoe at a 50 - 99 employee company that offers no or sub-Obama insurance. Wouldn't be that hard to find, if anybody really wanted to torture TEAM BE RULED on this.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Progressives fundamentally reject any axiomatic foundation for government as part of their core philosophy. Therefore, capricious self serving behavior is just part and parcel of the Progressive mind set that can be distilled into: FYTW.

  • ||

    Right.

    There are many progressives who honestly don't think that's there's any such thing as objective fairness or justice. All they know is some people are rich, and some people are poor, and the poor people should use whatever power they have to take stuff for themselves. All the economics and the theory is beyond them.

  • Invisible Finger||

    But they insist they aren't overgrown children because they went to college and got good grades by kissing the instructors' asses.

  • Ron||

    Obama is clearly changing laws which is the job of Congress not the president. So I ask when will congress get a #$%^& backbone and force him to stop.

    clearly this is a rhetorical question we all know that team red is just waiting there turn to make laws out of whole cloth.

  • Pinky||

    You think there might be any Democratic senator or representative that wants to stick his dick in the middle of this?

  • John Thacker||

    The House has actually passed bills to do the same thing that the Prez is doing by Executive Privilege. But the Senate isn't going to do anything; Leader Reid certainly isn't going to let anything embarrassing reach the floor.

  • Sevo||

    You have to navigate through two sub-menus to find the story in the Chron:
    "Health care mandate for midsize employers delayed until 2016"
    http://www.sfgate.com/health/a.....223247.php
    I'm saying centered on page one if the GOP managed to get the courts to delay it.

  • Paul.||

    The question that no one's asking is, who's gonna stop him?

  • Pulseguy||

    People aren't so bright. The banking crash was brought on principally by Democrat policies in various States and by the repeal of Glass Steagal during Clinton, but it occurred under GWB so he got the blame. If it had happened 6 months later, which it could have, it would have happened under Obama and he would have gotten at least some of the blame.

    Obama will delay this past 2016, past his tenure hoping it won't tarnish his legacy. His supporters will blame whoever is in power for ruining such a beautiful piece of legislation. I hope his ploy won't work. But, he got elected twice so anything is possible.

  • John Thacker||

    I find it hard to credit the idea that repealing Glass Steagall was responsible.

  • OneOut||

    "Obama will delay this past 2016, past his tenure hoping it won't tarnish his legacy. His supporters will blame whoever is in power for ruining such a beautiful piece of legislation. I hope his ploy won't work. But, he got elected twice so anything is possible."

    That will allow his sycophants to spread the blame but it won't budge an honest historian.

    Small solace I admit.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Why does the Obama administration hate workers? I mean, if the law is so great and making healthcare better, shouldn't they requiring compliance sooner so more people can enjoy it?

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    So if the next Prez is a Repub, he/she can simply postpone all aspects of Obamacare until infinity. I'm sure based on the precedents set by Obama, the Dems won't have any problem with this.

  • Zoobs||

    The only way to show the American public the real disaster the ACA is would be to force the full implementation so that the impacts can be fully felt as opposed to the slow drip of pain. Its the "law of the land" so why not get the courts to settle whether laws are made by Congress or the President. At least we will know for certain.

  • iEagleHammer||

    Part of the reason team Red isn't going to say anything about these delays, is because then they will be responsible for the policies being implemented (or so the Dems will say). The last thing Repubs want is to be somehow responsible for this disaster.

    Of course one could argue that they are responsible anyway, because their incompetence cost them an election against a terrible incumbent. But you can't blame a retarded kid for being retarded.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement