Thoughts on the 2014 "Obamacare" changes to health benefits.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**djones520**

2 of the largest health insurance providers have stopped providing individual accounts in California because of this. 58,000 people will have to find new insurance.

**whembly**

Yup...

Here's really the big question: From where does the administration derive the right to unilaterally change this misbegotten law without Congressional action? Just because this law is so horribly screwed up... where does the administration think it has the unilateral power to alter it?

Also... notice that this unilateral executive decision puts off the effects of this destructive legislation until after the 2014 elections.

Perhaps congress should do something about this...

EDIT: Also, the people already laid off because of this is going to be really pissed.

**Jihadin**

Another year for the Employers to find ways to cut people hours of work to fall below mandatory insurance requirement. Two more "part timers" hired to make up the slack would be cheaper.

Still no push to get board members yet. Jebus...talk about the golden achievement of a goat rope policy implementation.. Dem's are going to have a hard reelection. This and the fallout from the EPA new policy on coal plants. The Immigration Policy still in the House? I've a feeling they're fine combing it to make better improvements and throw it back at the senate. Hopefully no one's going to add more pork barrel projects into it.

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:

Administration postpones a key Obamacare provision for one year

The Obama administration is postponing for one year the requirement that businesses cover their workers under Obamacare.

The administration said late Tuesday that the move recognized that the reporting requirements – the steps businesses have to take to show they were complying with the rules — were complex and they would try to streamline them over the next year.

There will be no penalties the first year on businesses that don’t cover workers. Small businesses, with fewer than 50 workers, were already exempt from that rule. Most large businesses do cover employees now.

The move does not affect the individual mandate – the requirement that most Americans get insurance. And it doesn’t delay the new marketplaces where people and small businesses can sign up for coverage starting in October.

“The Administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the ACA [Affordable Care Act} mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin. This is designed to meet two goals. First, it will allow us to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law. Second, it will provide time to adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable and accessible for their employees,” the Treasury Department said in a blog post.”

Most big businesses already cover their workers, Treasury noted.

The Treasury Department, which enforces the employer requirements, announced the news in a blog post late Tuesday afternoon. The policy change was initially reported by Bloomberg News.

Remember... this doesn't change the individual mandate.

What this tells me is that business are still uncertain as to how all this plays out... uncertaincy

What it tells me is that, if implemented in 2014 the Democrats would have lost the Senate in a big way, and are running scared of sadnwich O gak that is the ACA. Solution - put it off until after the election!

This of course is going to hammer the Presidential election, but I bet that it gets pushed off again and again.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:

What it tells me is that, if implemented in 2014 the Democrats would have lost the Senate in a big way, and are running scared of sadnwich O gak that is the ACA. Solution - put it off until after the election!

This of course is going to hammer the Presidential election, but I bet that it gets pushed off again and again.

Yeah... the other thing that bothers me is that this administration is unilaterlally putting this off...

This the penalty is a tax... no?

So, another way to look at this is now, this administration to selectively delaying/enforcing a tax.

That's a dangerous precedent dude.

**Rented Tritium**

whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

What it tells me is that, if implemented in 2014 the Democrats would have lost the Senate in a big way, and are running scared of sadnwich O gak that is the ACA. Solution - put it off until after the election!

This of course is going to hammer the Presidential election, but I bet that it gets pushed off again and again.

Yeah... the other thing that bothers me is that this administration is unilaterlally putting this off...

This the penalty is a tax... no?

So, another way to look at this is now, this administration to selectively delaying/enforcing a tax.

That's a dangerous precedent dude.

The law is a million pages long. I'm sure there's something in there that gives the power to postpone the provisions by up to X years to the head of Y agency etc etc etc. That kind of thing is always in these huge laws.

**whembly**

Rented Tritium wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

What it tells me is that, if implemented in 2014 the Democrats would have lost the Senate in a big way, and are running scared of sadnwich O gak that is the ACA. Solution - put it off until after the election!

This of course is going to hammer the Presidential election, but I bet that it gets pushed off again and again.

Yeah... the other thing that bothers me is that this administration is unilaterlally putting this off...

This the penalty is a tax... no?

So, another way to look at this is now, this administration to selectively delaying/enforcing a tax.

That's a dangerous precedent dude.

The law is a million pages long. I'm sure there's something in there that gives the power to postpone the provisions by up to X years to the head of Y agency etc etc etc. That kind of thing is always in these huge laws.

Nope.

No provisions like that all. Even then, that's not a normal thing the congress critters would do.

Case in point: Some tried to put in triggers in the Gang of 8 Immigration bill to secure the border first before provisions of the amnesty stuff kicks in... those never made it in the final bill.

**Rented Tritium**

whembly wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

What it tells me is that, if implemented in 2014 the Democrats would have lost the Senate in a big way, and are running scared of sadnwich O gak that is the ACA. Solution - put it off until after the election!

This of course is going to hammer the Presidential election, but I bet that it gets pushed off again and again.

Yeah... the other thing that bothers me is that this administration is unilaterlally putting this off...

This the penalty is a tax... no?

So, another way to look at this is now, this administration to selectively delaying/enforcing a tax.

That's a dangerous precedent dude.

The law is a million pages long. I'm sure there's something in there that gives the power to postpone the provisions by up to X years to the head of Y agency etc etc etc. That kind of thing is always in these huge laws.

Nope.

No provisions like that all. Even then, that's not a normal thing the congress critters would do.

Case in point: Some tried to put in triggers in the Gang of 8 Immigration bill to secure the border first before provisions of the amnesty stuff kicks in... those never made it in the final bill.

How do you know? I mean it is REALLY long.

**whembly**

Rented Tritium wrote:

How do you know? I mean it is REALLY long.

Depending on the format/output, with the subsequent regulations it's about 20-40,000 pages long.

That's ginormous.

The section that describes that Employer Mandate will have something like "The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013."

It's CONGRESS' job to dictate what/when legislation are enacted.

It's the EXECUTE'S job to implement said legislation on specified date.

The right way to do this is to ask Congress to update it with a new date. Not going to happen though...

The Irony here is this: What's the GOP going to do anyways? Sue Obama to implement this clusterfeth?

**Rented Tritium**

whembly wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:

How do you know? I mean it is REALLY long.

Depending on the format/output, with the subsequent regulations it's about 20-40,000 pages long.

That's ginormous.

The section that describes that Employer Mandate will have something like "The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013."

It's CONGRESS' job to dictate what/when legislation are enacted.

It's the EXECUTE'S job to implement said legislation on specified date.

The right way to do this is to ask Congress to update it with a new date. Not going to happen though...

The Irony here is this: What's the GOP going to do anyways? Sue Obama to implement this clusterfeth?

It's congress' job to dictate when it should be enacted, but if congress passes a law that gives the power to postpone to someone, then that has the force of law.

All it would take is a single line saying something like "The director of the IRS may postpone the enactment of this by up to 12 months for the purposes of x,y,z" blah blah. You know? If congress passed that line, then it counts as congress saying when it will start.

**whembly**

Rented Tritium wrote:

It's congress' job to dictate when it should be enacted, but if congress passes a law that gives the power to postpone to someone, then that has the force of law.

All it would take is a single line saying something like "The director of the IRS may postpone the enactment of this by up to 12 months for the purposes of x,y,z" blah blah. You know? If congress passed that line, then it counts as congress saying when it will start.

That remains to be seen if that's actually in this Act.

I suppose the Whitehouse can simply issue an Execute Order... that might be the other legal way to do that.

**Dreadclaw69**

Frazzled wrote:
What it tells me is that, if implemented in 2014 the Democrats would have lost the Senate in a big way, and are running scared of sadnwich O gak that is the ACA. Solution - put it off until after the election!

This of course is going to hammer the Presidential election, but I bet that it gets pushed off again and again.

Yup. Normally you don't delay something that is a vote winner. And it's not like Obama needs to worry about the next election if he isn't running

**whembly**

Nope... nothing in the ACA bill allows anyone to delay the implementation of the Employer Mandate:

Spoiler:

So... again... what are the Republicans going to do? SUE the whitehouse to implement this?

**Rented Tritium**

whembly wrote:
Nope... nothing in the ACA bill allows anyone to delay the implementation of the Employer Mandate:

Spoiler:

PART II—EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITIES
SEC. 1511. AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT FOR EMPLOYEES OF LARGE
EMPLOYERS.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is amended by inserting
after section 18 (29 U.S.C. 218) the following:
‘‘SEC. 18A. AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT FOR EMPLOYEES OF LARGE
EMPLOYERS.
‘‘In accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary,
an employer to which this Act applies that has more than 200
full-time employees and that offers employees enrollment in 1 or
more health benefits plans shall automatically enroll new full-
time employees in one of the plans offered (subject to any waiting
period authorized by law) and to continue the enrollment of current
employees in a health benefits plan offered through the employer.
Any automatic enrollment program shall include adequate notice
and the opportunity for an employee to opt out of any coverage
the individual or employee were automatically enrolled in. Nothing
in this section shall be construed to supersede any State law which
establishes, implements, or continues in effect any standard or
requirement relating to employers in connection with payroll except
to the extent that such standard or requirement prevents an
employer from instituting the automatic enrollment program under
this section.’’.
SEC. 1512. EMPLOYER REQUIREMENT TO INFORM EMPLOYEES OF COVERAGE OPTIONS.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is amended by inserting
after section 18A (as added by section 1513) the following:
‘‘SEC. 18B. NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with regulations promulgated
by the Secretary, an employer to which this Act applies, shall
provide to each employee at the time of hiring (or with respect
to current employees, not later than March 1, 2013), written
notice—
‘‘(1) informing the employee of the existence of an
Exchange, including a description of the services provided by
such Exchange, and the manner in which the employee may
contact the Exchange to request assistance;
‘‘(2) if the employer plan’s share of the total allowed costs
of benefits provided under the plan is less than 60 percent
of such costs, that the employee may be eligible for a premium
tax credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 and a cost sharing reduction under section 1402 of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act if the employee
purchases a qualified health plan through the Exchange; and
‘‘(3) if the employee purchases a qualified health plan
through the Exchange, the employee will lose the employer
contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by
the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution
may be excludable from income for Federal income tax purposes.

‘‘(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (a) shall take effect with
respect to employers in a State beginning on March 1, 2013.’’.
SEC. 1513. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYERS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 4980H. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYERS REGARDING
HEALTH COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) LARGE EMPLOYERS NOT OFFERING HEALTH COVERAGE.—
If—
‘‘(1) any applicable large employer fails to offer to its full-
time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll
in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-
sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2)) for any
month, and
‘‘(2) at least one full-time employee of the applicable large
employer has been certified to the employer under section 1411
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as having
enrolled for such month in a qualified health plan with respect
to which an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing
reduction is allowed or paid with respect to the employee,
then there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable payment equal to the product of the applicable payment amount and
the number of individuals employed by the employer as full-time
employees during such month.
‘‘(b) LARGE EMPLOYERS WITH WAITING PERIODS EXCEEDING 30
DAYS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any applicable large
employer which requires an extended waiting period to enroll
in any minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2)), there is hereby
imposed on the employer an assessable payment, in the amount
specified in paragraph (2), for each full-time employee of the
employer to whom the extended waiting period applies.
‘‘(2) AMOUNT.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the amount
specified in this paragraph for a full-time employee is—
‘‘(A) in the case of an extended waiting period which
exceeds 30 days but does not exceed 60 days, $400, and
‘‘(B) in the case of an extended waiting period which
exceeds 60 days, $600.
‘‘(3) EXTENDED WAITING PERIOD.—The term ‘extended
waiting period’ means any waiting period (as defined in section
2701(b)(4) of the Public Health Service Act) which exceeds
30 days.
‘‘(c) LARGE EMPLOYERS OFFERING COVERAGE WITH EMPLOYEES
WHO QUALIFY FOR PREMIUM TAX CREDITS OR COST-SHARING REDUCTIONS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If—
‘‘(A) an applicable large employer offers to its full-
time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to
enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible
employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2))
for any month, and
‘‘(B) 1 or more full-time employees of the applicable
large employer has been certified to the employer under
section 1411 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act as having enrolled for such month in a qualified health

plan with respect to which an applicable premium tax
credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid with
respect to the employee,
then there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable
payment equal to the product of the number of full-time
employees of the applicable large employer described in
subparagraph (B) for such month and 400 percent of the
applicable payment amount.
‘‘(2) OVERALL LIMITATION.—The aggregate amount of tax
determined under paragraph (1) with respect to all employees
of an applicable large employer for any month shall not exceed
the product of the applicable payment amount and the number
of individuals employed by the employer as full-time employees
during such month.
‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.—For purposes of this
section—
‘‘(1) APPLICABLE PAYMENT AMOUNT.—The term ‘applicable
payment amount’ means, with respect to any month, 1
⁄12 of
$750.
‘‘(2) APPLICABLE LARGE EMPLOYER.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘applicable large employer’
means, with respect to a calendar year, an employer who
employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees
on business days during the preceding calendar year.
‘‘(B) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYERS.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—An employer shall not be considered to employ more than 50 full-time employees if—
‘‘(I) the employer’s workforce exceeds 50 full-
time employees for 120 days or fewer during the
calendar year, and
‘‘(II) the employees in excess of 50 employed
during such 120-day period were seasonal workers.
‘‘(ii) DEFINITION OF SEASONAL WORKERS.—The term
‘seasonal worker’ means a worker who performs labor
or services on a seasonal basis as defined by the Secretary of Labor, including workers covered by section
500.20(s)(1) of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations
and retail workers employed exclusively during holiday
seasons.
‘‘(C) RULES FOR DETERMINING EMPLOYER SIZE.—For
purposes of this paragraph—
‘‘(i) APPLICATION OF AGGREGATION RULE FOR
EMPLOYERS.—All persons treated as a single employer
under subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of section 414
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be treated
as 1 employer.
‘‘(ii) EMPLOYERS NOT IN EXISTENCE IN PRECEDING
YEAR.—In the case of an employer which was not in
existence throughout the preceding calendar year, the
determination of whether such employer is an
applicable large employer shall be based on the average
number of employees that it is reasonably expected
such employer will employ on business days in the
current calendar year.
‘‘(iii) PREDECESSORS.—Any reference in this subsection to an employer shall include a reference to
any predecessor of such employer.

‘‘(3) APPLICABLE PREMIUM TAX CREDIT AND COST-SHARING
REDUCTION.—The term ‘applicable premium tax credit and cost-
sharing reduction’ means—
‘‘(A) any premium tax credit allowed under section
36B,
‘‘(B) any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and
‘‘(C) any advance payment of such credit or reduction
under section 1412 of such Act.
‘‘(4) FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘full-time employee’ means
an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours
of service per week.
‘‘(B) HOURS OF SERVICE.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, shall prescribe such regulations, rules, and guidance as may be necessary to determine the hours of service of an employee, including rules
for the application of this paragraph to employees who
are not compensated on an hourly basis.
‘‘(5) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any calendar year
after 2014, each of the dollar amounts in subsection (b)(2)
and (d)(1) shall be increased by an amount equal to the
product of—
‘‘(i) such dollar amount, and
‘‘(ii) the premium adjustment percentage (as
defined in section 1302(c)(4) of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act) for the calendar year.
‘‘(B) ROUNDING.—If the amount of any increase under
subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $10, such increase
shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $10.
‘‘(6) OTHER DEFINITIONS.—Any term used in this section
which is also used in the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act shall have the same meaning as when used in such
Act.
‘‘(7) TAX NONDEDUCTIBLE.—For denial of deduction for the
tax imposed by this section, see section 275(a)(6).
‘‘(e) ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any assessable payment provided by
this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the
Secretary, and shall be assessed and collected in the same
manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter
68.
‘‘(2) TIME FOR PAYMENT.—The Secretary may provide for
the payment of any assessable payment provided by this section
on an annual, monthly, or other periodic basis as the Secretary
may prescribe.
‘‘(3) COORDINATION WITH CREDITS, ETC..—The Secretary
shall prescribe rules, regulations, or guidance for the repayment
of any assessable payment (including interest) if such payment
is based on the allowance or payment of an applicable premium
tax credit or cost-sharing reduction with respect to an employee,
such allowance or payment is subsequently disallowed, and
the assessable payment would not have been required to be
made but for such allowance or payment.’’.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for chapter
43 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following
new item:
‘‘Sec. 4980H. Shared responsibility for employers regarding health coverage.’’.
(c) STUDY AND REPORT OF EFFECT OF TAX ON WORKERS’
WAGES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Labor shall conduct
a study to determine whether employees’ wages are reduced
by reason of the application of the assessable payments under
section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added
by the amendments made by this section). The Secretary shall
make such determination on the basis of the National Compensation Survey published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(2) REPORT.—The Secretary shall report the results of the
study under paragraph (1) to the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives and to the Committee
on Finance of the Senate.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section
shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.
SEC. 1514. REPORTING OF EMPLOYER HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart D of part III of subchapter A of
chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by
section 1502, is amended by inserting after section 6055 the following new section:
‘‘SEC. 6056. LARGE EMPLOYERS REQUIRED TO REPORT ON HEALTH
INSURANCE COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Every applicable large employer required
to meet the requirements of section 4980H with respect to its
full-time employees during a calendar year shall, at such time
as the Secretary may prescribe, make a return described in subsection (b).
‘‘(b) FORM AND MANNER OF RETURN.—A return is described
in this subsection if such return—
‘‘(1) is in such form as the Secretary may prescribe, and
‘‘(2) contains—
‘‘(A) the name, date, and employer identification
number of the employer,
‘‘(B) a certification as to whether the employer offers
to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an
eligible employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section
5000A(f)(2)),
‘‘(C) if the employer certifies that the employer did
offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the
opportunity to so enroll—
‘‘(i) the length of any waiting period (as defined
in section 2701(b)(4) of the Public Health Service Act)
with respect to such coverage,
‘‘(ii) the months during the calendar year for which
coverage under the plan was available,
‘‘(iii) the monthly premium for the lowest cost
option in each of the enrollment categories under the
plan, and
‘‘(iv) the applicable large employer’s share of the
total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan,

‘‘(D) the number of full-time employees for each month
during the calendar year,
‘‘(E) the name, address, and TIN of each full-time
employee during the calendar year and the months (if
any) during which such employee (and any dependents)
were covered under any such health benefits plans, and
‘‘(F) such other information as the Secretary may
require.
‘‘(c) STATEMENTS TO BE FURNISHED TO INDIVIDUALS WITH
RESPECT TO WHOM INFORMATION IS REPORTED.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Every person required to make a return
under subsection (a) shall furnish to each full-time employee
whose name is required to be set forth in such return under
subsection (b)(2)(E) a written statement showing—
‘‘(A) the name and address of the person required
to make such return and the phone number of the information contact for such person, and
‘‘(B) the information required to be shown on the return
with respect to such individual.
‘‘(2) TIME FOR FURNISHING STATEMENTS.—The written statement required under paragraph (1) shall be furnished on or
before January 31 of the year following the calendar year
for which the return under subsection (a) was required to
be made.
‘‘(d) COORDINATION WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—To the maximum extent feasible, the Secretary may provide that—
‘‘(1) any return or statement required to be provided under
this section may be provided as part of any return or statement
required under section 6051 or 6055, and
‘‘(2) in the case of an applicable large employer offering
health insurance coverage of a health insurance issuer, the
employer may enter into an agreement with the issuer to
include information required under this section with the return
and statement required to be provided by the issuer under
section 6055.
‘‘(e) COVERAGE PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENTAL UNITS.—In the
case of any applicable large employer which is a governmental
unit or any agency or instrumentality thereof, the person appropriately designated for purposes of this section shall make the
returns and statements required by this section.
‘‘(f) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, any term used
in this section which is also used in section 4980H shall have
the meaning given such term by section 4980H.’’.
(b) ASSESSABLE PENALTIES.—
(1) Subparagraph (B) of section 6724(d)(1) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definitions), as amended
by section 1502, is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of
clause (xxiii), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (xxiv)
and inserting ‘‘or’’, and by inserting after clause (xxiv) the
following new clause:
‘‘(xxv) section 6056 (relating to returns relating
to large employers required to report on health insurance coverage), and’’.
(2) Paragraph (2) of section 6724(d) of such Code, as so
amended, is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (FF), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph

(GG) and inserting ‘‘, or’’ and by inserting after subparagraph
(GG) the following new subparagraph:
‘‘(HH) section 6056(c) (relating to statements relating
to large employers required to report on health insurance
coverage).’’.
(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for subpart
D of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code, as
added by section 1502, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘Sec. 6056. Large employers required to report on health insurance coverage.’’.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section
shall apply to periods beginning after December 31, 2013.
SEC. 1515. OFFERING OF EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING QUALIFIED
HEALTH PLANS THROUGH CAFETERIA PLANS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (f) of section 125 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
‘‘(3) CERTAIN EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING QUALIFIED HEALTH
PLANS NOT QUALIFIED.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified benefit’ shall
not include any qualified health plan (as defined in section
1301(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)
offered through an Exchange established under section
1311 of such Act.
‘‘(B) EXCEPTION FOR EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE EMPLOYERS.—
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with respect to any
employee if such employee’s employer is a qualified
employer (as defined in section 1312(f)(2) of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act) offering the employee
the opportunity to enroll through such an Exchange in
a qualified health plan in a group market.’’.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Subsection (f) of section 125
of such Code is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘For purposes of this section, the term’’
and inserting ‘‘For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term’’, and
(2) by striking ‘‘Such term shall not include’’ and inserting
the following:
‘‘(2) LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE NOT QUALIFIED.—The
term ‘qualified benefit’ shall not include’’.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.

So... again... what are the Republicans going to do? SUE the whitehouse to implement this?

You seriously have to read the entire thing to be sure. Such a provision could be placed anywhere in the law, not just the top level provisions. Other than "the definitions go up front", a law can be written in any order.

**whembly**

But the bigger question is this...

The move raises some bizarro questions of precedent: can a future, conservative administration suspend the mandates? What about the Social Security & Medicare mandate?

See what I mean?

The employer mandate is part of the law itself, duly enacted by the Democrat led Congress and signed by O. What authority does O have to suspend it unilaterally? Is that part of the “Save Democrats’ Asses Enabling Act of 2013″?

Businesses had 4 years to plan/adjust for this... what's another year going to do? This is nothing more than to defer the impact of the law on businesses during the 2014 midterm election year, avoiding ugly headlines about businesses cutting staff levels or reducing worker hours to get around the mandate.

Speaking of which, saw this on twittah... this less than a month old article is fething hysterical now:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dems-2014-strategy-own-obamacare-92172.html

Scarred by years of Republican attacks over Obamacare, with more in store next year, Democrats have settled on an unlikely strategy for the 2014 midterms: Bring it on. [whembly: !!! wth?!?!]

Party strategists believe that embracing the polarizing law — especially its more popular elements — is smarter politics than fleeing from it in the House elections. The new tack is a marked shift from 2010, when Republicans pointed to Obamacare as Exhibit A of Big Government run amok on their way to seizing the House from Democrats.

But the Democratic bear hug, reflecting a calculation it’s probably impossible to shed their association with the law even if they wanted to, is still a high-wire public relations act. The White House has consistently struggled with messaging on Obamacare, hoping the public would gain an appreciation for the health care makeover as its benefits became apparent. That never really happened, but Democrats seem to be banking that it finally will.

The strategy will be put to the test as the law kicks in next year and is implemented in the months leading up to the election — with the inevitable snafus and critical media coverage as the public gets its first up-close view of the massive undertaking.

California Rep. Scott Peters, a freshman Democrat who narrowly won election last year, said he doesn’t agree with every part of the law. But he said he’s not afraid of addressing health care — far from it.

“I don’t have any problem talking about it,” Peters, who hails from a San Diego-area swing district, said in an interview. “I think it’s a big issue. I think it’s going to be talked about more than immigration or guns.”

One early sign of the shift: After House Republicans brought a health care repeal measure to the floor last month — the 37th time they’ve tried — Peters joined a cast of other Democratic incumbents from competitive districts to criticize the GOP for the maneuver.

In 2010, Democratic congressional candidates in tough races actively promoted their opposition to the just-passed law, in some cases running ads blasting it. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee privately instructed members and candidates to change the subject if they were asked about the health care law in town hall meetings or on the campaign trail.

Look for that to change in 2014, say party strategists.

“In 2010, the benefits of ACA were theoretical and Democratic candidates ran away from it. If you were in a tough race and asked about health care,” a senior Democratic official told POLITICO, “you changed the topic. In 2014, Democrats can talk about the positives, position themselves as consumer advocates to make it work and go on offense against Republicans for wanting to take the benefits away.”

That doesn’t mean every Democrat in the country will be singing from the mountaintops about how much they love the overhaul or running TV ads praising it – there’s still plenty in it that turns off voters in conservative-leaning districts where the battle for the House will be waged.

But Democratic strategists are convinced there’s plenty to like in the law — such as coverage for pre-existing conditions, eliminating lifetime caps on coverage and allowing children to stay on their parents’ health care plans until they are 26 — and are coaching lawmakers and candidates girding for tough races next year to hammer home those benefits.

“Fix the bad, keep the good, and move on” is the message House hopefuls are being advised to use. Offer help to voters navigating the ins and outs of the altered health care system. And flip the script on Republicans by accusing them of wanting to do away with the most popular provisions, the strategy goes.

As they lay the groundwork for the midterms, officials from both parties are betting that health care will play a starring role. In 2010, Republicans used the issue to tap into a vein of nationwide anger at Obama’s far-reaching agenda. In 2012, health care took a backseat as the personalities of the presidential race, Obama and Mitt Romney, dominated the campaign.

In 2014, as the law moves from the theoretical to the practical, health care is once again likely to get top billing.

“By the time campaigns are being waged in 2014, the key parts of the law will be in place. It’s a subject that inevitably will be fought over because events will drive it there,” said Geoff Garin, a top Democratic pollster. “Given that, it’s much better to be proactive and the party on offense than be on defense, as was the case in 2010.”

“We’re in a different place than we were four years ago. We’re dealing with something that’s been in law and the only real political question on health care is whether we’re going forward or backward. Democrats feel confident that there is a very positive story to tell about the Affordable Care Act and its benefits for average Americans,” Garin added.

Republicans, for their part, believe Obamacare — along with the IRS scandal and other recent administration controversies — will allow them to make a powerful argument to voters next year about the dangers of government overreach. They’re confident that public wariness of the health care law is bound to grow over the next year and that it will spell trouble for Democrats running in moderate-to-conservative parts of the country.

Last month, the National Republican Congressional Committee conducted a poll in Utah Rep. Jim Matheson’s suburban Salt Lake City and found that 72 percent want implementation of the law stopped or delayed. An NRCC survey in Illinois Rep. Brad Schneider’s suburban Chicago district showed 57 percent favor stopping or delaying implementation.

“No issue should cause more sleepless nights for Democrats than Obamacare,” said Brock McCleary, a GOP pollster who conducted the surveys for the NRCC.

“There’s great concern about the ability to implement the law in seven months,” McCleary said. “I think you have to search high and low for someone who says implementation is going great … Whether you agree or disagree with the law, implementation is a problem.”

The NRCC has already begun targeting Democrats, last week unveiling billboards tying four incumbents to the health care bill.

Democrats admit that implementation will face some hurdles and fully expect Republicans to spotlight those blemishes in TV ads.

But the White House and congressional Democrats have in recent weeks launched a messaging offensive aimed at blunting the anticipated GOP barrage. Before the Memorial Day recess, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi distributed a 78-page binder instructing members on how to sell the bill in their districts, and White House officials ranging from Obama to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack highlighted the benefits of the bill in a spree of university commencement speeches.

In the special House election last month in South Carolina, Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch distanced herself from Obamacare (she supported it, but with major caveats). But that race, which Colbert Busch lost to former Gov. Mark Sanford, was an outlier because the district is more conservative than the typical swing House district.

At the very least, Democrats say, four years’ worth of scrutiny, bad press and political attacks have lowered expectations for success of the rollout of the new system. They figure a smoother-than-anticipated launch will play to their benefit.

“The reality is, this is coming on line,” said John Anzalone, a Democratic pollster who has conducted extensive public opinion research on the health care bill. “The expectations are so low that the Obama administration will meet those expectations and possibly exceed them.”

Now that the Whitehouse is tacitly admitting failure...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:

You seriously have to read the entire thing to be sure. Such a provision could be placed anywhere in the law, not just the top level provisions. Other than "the definitions go up front", a law can be written in any order.

not really... trying to use "CNTRL + F" to find any buzzwords where it empowers the Executive Branch leeway to delay implementation to no luck...

**Rented Tritium**

whembly wrote:

The employer mandate is part of the law itself, duly enacted by the Democrat led Congress and signed by O. What authority does O have to suspend it unilaterally? Is that part of the “Save Democrats’ Asses Enabling Act of 2013″?

As I said a million times, if the law itself has a provision down in its million pages giving that authority, then it too was duly enacted by congress.

Duly enacted by congress actually still counts powers granted in laws duly enacted by congress. If congress enacts a law which contains both a date and the power to change that date, then said law is binding. You don't get to just pick some parts of a law and say that they are duly enacted while saying that others aren't.

Again, this is assuming there's some line in the thousands of pages granting the ability to postpone to some particular agency head.

If there isn't such a line in those thousands of pages, then the authority has to come from somewhere else. Any number of other tax laws might have granted it. This stuff gets really complicated and you're trying to make it really black and white.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

You seriously have to read the entire thing to be sure. Such a provision could be placed anywhere in the law, not just the top level provisions. Other than "the definitions go up front", a law can be written in any order.

not really... trying to use "CNTRL + F" to find any buzzwords where it empowers the Executive Branch leeway to delay implementation to no luck...

Are you claiming to have ctrl+f'd the entire ACA for every possible legal term for postpone?

Gonna have to call BS on that claim.

**whembly**

Rented Tritium wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

You seriously have to read the entire thing to be sure. Such a provision could be placed anywhere in the law, not just the top level provisions. Other than "the definitions go up front", a law can be written in any order.

not really... trying to use "CNTRL + F" to find any buzzwords where it empowers the Executive Branch leeway to delay implementation to no luck...

Are you claiming to have ctrl+f'd the entire ACA for every possible legal term for postpone?

Gonna have to call BS on that claim.

Download the act yourself brah:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf
cntl+f for "postpone"... you'll see TWO instances of that.

Tried other combination/permutations too... still search by the way.

**Rented Tritium**

whembly wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

You seriously have to read the entire thing to be sure. Such a provision could be placed anywhere in the law, not just the top level provisions. Other than "the definitions go up front", a law can be written in any order.

not really... trying to use "CNTRL + F" to find any buzzwords where it empowers the Executive Branch leeway to delay implementation to no luck...

Are you claiming to have ctrl+f'd the entire ACA for every possible legal term for postpone?

Gonna have to call BS on that claim.

Download the act yourself brah:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf
cntl+f for "postpone"... you'll see TWO instances of that.

Tried other combination/permutations too... still search by the way.

There are thousands of ways to word such a provision that you might not expect. Ctrl+f is not sufficient. Someone needs to actually read it all and tell us if it's in there.

I know you want to be mad at obama and claim that he's overstepping his bounds, and god knows I think this postponement is dumb and political, but you need to calm down and do your due diligence here. Law is complicated.

**whembly**

Rented Tritium wrote:

There are thousands of ways to word such a provision that you might not expect. Ctrl+f is not sufficient. Someone needs to actually read it all and tell us if it's in there.

I know you want to be mad at obama and claim that he's overstepping his bounds, and god knows I think this postponement is dumb and political, but you need to calm down and do your due diligence here. Law is complicated.

Just watch the blog-o-sphere.

If there's a provision allowing this, the traditional supporters will be sure to get the word out.

Stay tuned.

**sourclams**

I honestly wonder if the Administration has developed 'buyer's remorse' over Obamacare, or if they think that this is just a little hurdle to get past the midterm elections and then it'll all be rosy after.

One of the ways this economic recovery differs significantly from... every other economic recovery is that decline in unemployment did not 'lead' increases in corporate profits. The typical order of a recovery is 1. Production increases, 2. Unemployment declines, 3. Profits increase. This leads back to 1. and the virtuous cycle gains traction.

What we've broadly seen here is that profits led considerably the decline in unemployment, and continue to do so. A big part of this is the lack of hiring by small companies. A big part of that, according to surveys and simple common sense, is uncertainty over healthcare legislation and the true cost back to the business of that incremental person.

I really wonder if the Obama administration believes that this postponement will 'satisfy' small business owners and a big round of new hirings is imminent that will boost Democratic support into 2014. If so, they're likely to be woefully disappointed as the postponement is indeed applauded but results in no material shift in behavior by these small business owners.

**Rented Tritium**

whembly wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:

There are thousands of ways to word such a provision that you might not expect. Ctrl+f is not sufficient. Someone needs to actually read it all and tell us if it's in there.

I know you want to be mad at obama and claim that he's overstepping his bounds, and god knows I think this postponement is dumb and political, but you need to calm down and do your due diligence here. Law is complicated.

Just watch the blog-o-sphere.

If there's a provision allowing this, the traditional supporters will be sure to get the word out.

Stay tuned.

Yeah, that's fine. If one isn't found, either in ACA or in some other tax law somewhere, within a few weeks, then you can commence freaking out.

**whembly**

Rented Tritium wrote:
whembly wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:

There are thousands of ways to word such a provision that you might not expect. Ctrl+f is not sufficient. Someone needs to actually read it all and tell us if it's in there.

I know you want to be mad at obama and claim that he's overstepping his bounds, and god knows I think this postponement is dumb and political, but you need to calm down and do your due diligence here. Law is complicated.

Just watch the blog-o-sphere.

If there's a provision allowing this, the traditional supporters will be sure to get the word out.

Stay tuned.

Yeah, that's fine. If one isn't found, either in ACA or in some other tax law somewhere, within a few weeks, then you can commence freaking out.

But, who's going to force the Whitehouse to actually implement this on time? Don't you see how hysterical all this is?

My twittah feed is going full bore snark mode... one of the best I've seen:

You know who really feels stupid right now? All those people who bribed the White House for Obamacare waivers. Suckers!

**Rented Tritium**

sourclams wrote:
I honestly wonder if the Administration has developed 'buyer's remorse' over Obamacare, or if they think that this is just a little hurdle to get past the midterm elections and then it'll all be rosy after.

One of the ways this economic recovery differs significantly from... every other economic recovery is that decline in unemployment did not 'lead' increases in corporate profits. The typical order of a recovery is 1. Production increases, 2. Unemployment declines, 3. Profits increase. This leads back to 1. and the virtuous cycle gains traction.

What we've broadly seen here is that profits led considerably the decline in unemployment, and continue to do so. A big part of this is the lack of hiring by small companies. A big part of that, according to surveys and simple common sense, is uncertainty over healthcare legislation and the true cost back to the business of that incremental person.

I really wonder if the Obama administration believes that this postponement will 'satisfy' small business owners and a big round of new hirings is imminent that will boost Democratic support into 2014. If so, they're likely to be woefully disappointed as the postponement is indeed applauded but results in no material shift in behavior by these small business owners.

All of that is more true in a recession based on a lack of supply. This particular recession features a lack of demand, so the order of recovery is a little different and relies heavily on consumer confidence.

So in that sense, uncertainty over ACA is hurting recovery, but not quite in the way you present here. It's the employees worried about losing coverage or having hours cut that aren't spending, which is keeping the businesses from needing to hire people, etc etc.

**Dreadclaw69**

sourclams wrote:
I honestly wonder if the Administration has developed 'buyer's remorse' over Obamacare, or if they think that this is just a little hurdle to get past the midterm elections and then it'll all be rosy after.

You mean in the way that unions and worker on the Hill now want exemptions from the ACA after helping get it passed? It's not a great sign when your supporters and staff want nothing to do with it.

sourclams wrote:
I really wonder if the Obama administration believes that this postponement will 'satisfy' small business owners and a big round of new hirings is imminent that will boost Democratic support into 2014. If so, they're likely to be woefully disappointed as the postponement is indeed applauded but results in no material shift in behavior by these small business owners.

I wonder if this will have much of an impact. Most businesses will know that if they hire someone now they are still liable for their ACA costs in a years time. It could even backfire for the Administration - lots of new hires now, and then lots of redundancies and cut backs once the ACA kicks in.

**Rented Tritium**

Yeah, ACA is undeniably having impacts on hiring patterns.

At BEST, these changes in patterns will make the recovery difficult to predict and track.

At WORST they will slow it down.

**sourclams**

Rented Tritium wrote:
All of that is more true in a recession based on a lack of supply. This particular recession features a lack of demand, so the order of recovery is a little different and relies heavily on consumer confidence.

What 'supply' are you referencing? Monetary supply? The M1 multiple for this go-round is tremendously low as injections mostly just sit hard upon the sidelines, which is indicative of a lack of appetite by the physical producers to embrace 'risky' behavior; i.e. expansion. It's precisely this lack of risk appetite (although we can also look to increased regulation/scrutiny and shift in sentiment over the past 10 years as a culprit) that results in sluggish hirings, translating to lack of demand.

**Dreadclaw69**

Rented Tritium wrote:
Yeah, ACA is undeniably having impacts on hiring patterns.

At BEST, these changes in patterns will make the recovery difficult to predict and track.

At WORST they will slow it down.

Around here a lot of employers aren't offering full time employment, just part time to reduce the impact of the ACA.

**sourclams**

I think it safe to say that "everywhere" employers aren't offering full-time employment. This really does hurt young, non-professionals that rely on part-time employment and are unlikely to have material healthcare needs due to being young and healthy.

**Rented Tritium**

sourclams wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
All of that is more true in a recession based on a lack of supply. This particular recession features a lack of demand, so the order of recovery is a little different and relies heavily on consumer confidence.

What 'supply' are you referencing? Monetary supply? The M1 multiple for this go-round is tremendously low as injections mostly just sit hard upon the sidelines, which is indicative of a lack of appetite by the physical producers to embrace 'risky' behavior; i.e. expansion. It's precisely this lack of risk appetite (although we can also look to increased regulation/scrutiny and shift in sentiment over the past 10 years as a culprit) that results in sluggish hirings, translating to lack of demand.

Goods and services.

See, your first step was production increasing. That's not the problem. There is enough good investment money in the system that production can increase any time it needs to. The problem is that consumer demand for goods and services is too low to warrant increasing production. Look at how many businesses are playing it safe and sitting on reserves. It's not because they're unsure, they have shareholders to answer to and they've got a responsibility to maximize share value. If people with a legal obligation to maximize shareholder value are choosing not to increase production, it actually means there isn't enough demand.

The ACA hurts either way, because both the businesses and the employees are worried about it, but in this case the employees are the ones slowing down the recovery by being nervous.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:
I think it safe to say that "everywhere" employers aren't offering full-time employment. This really does hurt young, non-professionals that rely on part-time employment and are unlikely to have material healthcare needs due to being young and healthy.

Yeah, as if the post-college job market wasn't bad enough, right?

**Dreadclaw69**

Rented Tritium wrote:
sourclams wrote:
I think it safe to say that "everywhere" employers aren't offering full-time employment. This really does hurt young, non-professionals that rely on part-time employment and are unlikely to have material healthcare needs due to being young and healthy.

Yeah, as if the post-college job market wasn't bad enough, right?

Not easy being an immigrant either when your qualifications, and references, are from outside the US