The Oct. 26 New York Times took on Sen. Barack Obama's elusive health insurance mandate for employers -- the "play-or-pay" rule that would force businesses to pay a new tax if they didn't contribute a "meaningful" amount toward their workers' insurance. In the debates, Sen. John McCain asked more than once how much businesses would be fined, and Obama declined to say.
Now we know why. Just 'cuz.
“We made a decision even before the plan was rolled out not to decide,” David M. Cutler, a Harvard economist who speaks for the campaign on health care, told the Times. “It’s not that there’s a decision out there that we’re not telling. It’s literally that we’ve decided not to decide.”
The Times's Kevin Sack visited Massachusetts, one of the country's experimental labs for universal health care, and talked with employers about the $295-per-employee penalty they pay for not contributing to their workers' health benefits. Sack reported that amount would likely be peanuts compared to a new federal tax.
Not too surprisingly, the state government has come calling again -- asking businesses to "contribute" more. And business owners fear it could happen on a federal level, too.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
ObamaCare: The
October 27, 2008 - 17:30 ET by Chris NormanObamaCare: The redistribution of health.
McNotObama '08
Keynesianism
October 27, 2008 - 17:35 ET by Josh SNWhen the economy is contracting, the government should expand.
Business, many of them, are making "pro-cyclical" decisions. The economy is slowing so they are cutting jobs, which means there are more people out of work, who are buying less, which further reduces demand, and further slows the economy.
Late term George Walker Bush has become a Keynesian, injecting lots of money (admittedly far too haphazardly) into the economy as it contracts.
Yep, more of that change
October 27, 2008 - 17:38 ET by R D HelmYep, more of that change that just keeps on a changin.'
-Dave
In order for wealth to be spread, it first must be seized.
That Obama - his mantra
October 27, 2008 - 17:40 ET by Chris NormanThat Obama - his mantra covers all bases...
McNotObama '08
When has it not happened?
October 27, 2008 - 18:00 ET by IamTinmanThe nature of a government program is to expand.
If it is found unsuccessful then more money is injected.
If it still fails the name and mission is changed and the managers promoted.
Come on. now
October 27, 2008 - 18:35 ET by KC BeachHow can you make up the rules as you go along if there are already rules? "We decided not to decide"?!?!? Kind of like voting "present".
Down the drain
October 27, 2008 - 21:13 ET by nkviking75If these idiots don't put some numbers in the blanks of this program, how do they know it's going to work?
The truth is, it can't work. Many small employers are cutting back on health bennies, and many large companies' health plans are threatening to drag them down the drain. And that's before Oboobie can enact his "plan". Many people won't get those increased health benefits because many people will be forced out of jobs when employers can't bear the extra burden. And the increase in prices that will result from the added burdens inflicted on business will hurt the poor and the middle class even more.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Of course we know.....
October 27, 2008 - 21:19 ET by sshuffield70what the fine will be........
ONE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLION DOLLARS!
which Dr. Evil (as portrayed by Obama) will have no trouble collecting.
Yeah, just cuz. And the
October 27, 2008 - 21:22 ET by AuH20girlYeah, just cuz. And the sad thing is, the kool-aid drinkers aren't asking.
http://goldwatergirl...
You just gotta have
October 27, 2008 - 21:33 ET by motherbeltYou just gotta have faith. He's gonna save this country and save the world! (His own words)
If I remember correctly
October 28, 2008 - 08:29 ET by dscottIf I remember correctly didn't Maryland try the same stunt on Walmart with this penalty for not contributing "a meaningful amount" to employer sponsored health care?
The same objection still stands in that case, part time workers and those at the bottom end of the wage scale will have their jobs shed in order to avoid the extra cost of penalties and healthcare cost. This is not about greedy corporations, this about the cost of labor as it relates to the cost of goods sold to the consumer. In fact, it's exactly the same problem as the minimum wage, a disincentive for business to hire workers and as a result go even more agressively for automation JUST like what happened in the auto industry when the unions thought they were screwing over the "evil corportions". How did that work out for them? The auto industry shed 30% of it's workforce via automation but continued to produce the same amount of vehicles.
Obama's health care plan is just another in a long line of job killers in order to keep the standard of living down to barely tolerable for the poor. Obama complains about John McCain's healthcare plan but in reality, Obama's plan is a regressive stealth tax upon the poor because guess who will pay most of this in higher consumer prices? Yeap, NOT the wealthy.
The motto of the Dem Party: Screwing over the poor and getting them to say, do it more!
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
D, Read the editor's picks
October 28, 2008 - 09:01 ET by Hunter12D, Read the editor's picks article on the side bar, "How's Obama going to raise $4.3 trillion?". Very informative. The added costs to businesses to do business in the US will be passed on to the consumers. Some people are too stupid to see that evil corporations owe nothing to the average man on the street, but are subservient to that evil being, the stockholder. Any increased costs will be passed along and the wealthy will be best able to pay for them. Adding health care costs and additional charges to small business will force them to reduce their workforce to fall below caps or close their doors. If they could afford health plans and added benefits, they'd probably already be in place. I'm rambling, but I get frustrated that there are people out there that think there is a free lunch.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
But Obama has an answer for that: Wealth Redistribution
October 28, 2008 - 10:53 ET by JohnMcGrew"Refundable tax credits" will solve that problem.
Was doing some math the other day, and came to the conclusion that if it weren't for my mortgage, I could simply turn my business down to idle, collect all kinds of tax credits, and basically take a 3-year vacation until Congress is flushed of brainless liberals, just like in '94.