Analysis: Could the U.S. delay Obamacare's mandate for individuals, too?

[cali]

President Barack Obama can expect mounting pressure to make new concessions on healthcare reform, especially the requirement that all Americans obtain insurance, after delaying penalties for businesses for the first year of his plan.

The U.S. Treasury said late on Tuesday it would grant businesses with 50 or more workers a one-year reprieve from having to provide health coverage to full-time staff.


The move appeared to ease the concerns of major companies about being ready in time for a January 1 deadline. But it raised new questions on whether Obama's signature domestic policy is unraveling or falling prey to fears about the Democratic Party's election prospects next year.

"It does represent the inability of the administration to implement the law as planned," said Robert Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health. "The big question now is whether they're still going to require individuals to pay a penalty if they don't obtain coverage, if they're not going to require it of businesses."

<snip>

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/03/us-usa-healthcare-reform-idUSBRE96213M20130703

[pnwmom]

1. What would be the point? n/t

[cali]

3. politics for one thing. A lot of dems will be pissed off that

businesses get a pass for a year while individuals do not.

[JenniferJuniper]

2. Businesses have no business being involved with their employees' health care

My health should not depend on whether I'm employed and if I'm am employed, it should not be connected in any way to who my employer is or what sort of coverage that employer provides.

It's a bad provision and it's effect would be to move us further away from the goal of true universal health care rather than closer to it. And it's a bad provision for a host of other reasons as well.

Ezra Klein opines http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/02/obamacares-employer-mandate-shouldnt-be-delayed-it-should-be-repealed/

[leftstreet]

4. +1

[KamaAina]

10. You know where I learned that?

From Mike Freakin' Huckabee. I kid you not. I was digging through all the '08 candidates' health care plans for my boss, who served on a national healthcare committee. Not much on the repuke side, obviously -- but the Huckster pointed out that employer-based health coverage is actually a relic of World War II-era wage and price controls! Back then, you see, companies couldn't outbid each other for executive talent, so some started getting around that by offering benefits, like health coverage. Soon the unions (this was decades ago) got into the act, bargaining for the same benefits for their members. After a while most companies above the Walmart bottom-feeder level offered them as a matter of course, to compete for employees.

Get rid of it and put in single-payer!

[madville]

5. Does the Administration have the authority to change the law?

Unless specifically granted in the law, wouldn't Congress have to make these changes?

[Fumesucker]

6. The individual mandate was the entire point of the law in the first place

Everything else was just lipstick on that particularly loathsome pig.

[mick063]

7. Until the root problem is solved

The insurance debate is a complete waste of time.

Health care costs are out of control. No form of insurance, public or private, can deal with the cost.

That is unless, the public funded insurance mandates price controls. In fact, that is the only way that single payer is actually viable.

So let's cut to the chase. It isn't simply about the type of insurance, it is about getting the cost under control. It is may be easier to do so with public funded insurance, and conversely, it may never happen in a impactful way with employer based insurance, but in the end, we are ultimately talking about controlling cost. The recent boasts about Obamacare reducing costs are token at best because it does not address the root problem aggressively enough.

The current format will allow the health care industry to rape the taxpayer. I expect a break down of the system and a bail out if measures to curb costs aren't significantly strengthened. Once any corporation, in any endeavor, knows that taxpayers are on the hook, they consider it "soak them" time. The one positive feature is that fleecing taxpayers can cause change due to politics. The problem is that they have to get fleeced first.

[HiPointDem]

9. "The current format will allow the health care industry to rape the taxpayer."

[djean111]

8. Oh, that cash cow is gonna happen.

And if any form of single payer does not include negotiating prices with the drug companies, the ACA is officially a boondoggle.
If the only price control on premiums is a frowny face from Washington, those insurance companies who are now lowering proposed premiums will, IMO, start raising them with impunity. Insurance is not subject to anti-trust laws.
Will the IRS penalty be a lot less than premiums?

[Safetykitten]

11. Oh, this should be an interesting topic, don't you think?

[limpyhobbler]

12. I would rather be on a government plan. My employer is a psychopath I want nothing to do with him.nt

[cali]

13. but most people won't be able to choose a government plan

they'll have to choose a private plan from the exchange

[limpyhobbler]

14. Well that doesn't seem very fair.

Just sounds like a huge victory for insurance companies, at the expense of the most vulnerable people.