This week, (July 2, 2013), you’ve read that the provisions of the PPACA related to employer mandate which provides money penalties for employers of 50 or more people who do not provide health coverage options for employees is suspended until 2015, one year.
Is the mandate still law? Yes. Has the text of the law been changed regarding its provision for an effective date of January 2014? No. What Treasury Department officials informed us of this week was that the penalties associated with the law would not be enforced until 2015. This is not a change in the law but instead is a government statement that it will not enforce the law this year. (No such luck for the individual mandate.)
Enter politics…By way of example, from which I will explain my viewpoints, based on my reading, I’m using an article of July 2, 2013, “The Republican Temper Tantrum Against Obamacare Continues,” where Kevin Drum startled me with his naïve comments, “I didn’t expect them to vote for it. I didn’t expect them to support it…But the virulence and durability of their fight against has surprised me.” Mr. Drum continues that he figured that once Obamacare was passed and upheld by the Supreme Court and interestingly adds that it was “…made permanent by the president’s reelection; they’d resign themselves to it.”
Excuse me? Mr. Drum is not alone and importantly highlights a key democratic assumption that is more than a little bit attributable to lack of information. A President’s reelection doesn’t make a law PERMANENT. There are two ways that Obamacare can change, through additional judicial challenges or through Congress changing the law. Even a Presidential veto can be overridden by Congress.
Consider laws that have changed over time including every Act of Congress that repeals or amends current laws, court cases that effectively repeal laws, otherwise there would be no argument over old laws, they’d all simply still be in effect, unchanged from their date of creation.
The next aspect of this political, and by political I mean an article that is primarily focused on promoting a specific view rather than providing information, is the author’s “surprise” that Republicans are not “resigned” to Obamacare. Certainly, Mr. Drum does not expect people to be resigned to environmental policies that might be considered as destructive to the earth, nor I’m guessing would he support being resigned to our current immigration law that requires prosecution and deportation of illegal immigrants in our country.
But here’s where Republicans jump into the fray and continue their self-destructive approach, from quotes of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor arguing to “scrap the entire law” to Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN, Republican) deciding that this “…confirms the law was a historic mistake.” Whoa! It is time to put REPEAL on the back burner and address the issues before them. It’s stupid for Republicans to consider their “REPEAL” tune as Americans are struggling to understand what’s going on with the law we have.
Overcoming Gullible, first, as consumers, we don’t need to DO anything in response to this piece of news.
Second, in terms of understanding the flexibility of a law, from its survival to its enforcement, the delay of enforcement of the employer mandate is important.
Third, for yourself, characterize the treatment by the media concerning the event. For me it is as follows:
Words like “Tantrum” used by Mr. Drum, are loaded, and the same way we don’t characterize the President as having a “Tantrum” when he pushes for amnesty for illegal immigrants, Republican responses to situations and occurrences should not be described as “Tantrums.”
Another article that appeared on July 3, 2013 by Brett Logiurato, had the headline “Republicans are Gleefully Shredding Obama Over Obamacare’s Latest Big Glitch.” Gleefully? Great word for reinforcing the mean-spirited and hostile character attributed to Republicans in general.
Fourth, determine what the “news” means to you, eg what does the decision not to enforce the employer mandate mean? As the Democrats argue regarding the impact of any of the many provisions that are likely to burn consumers, it’s SPECULATIVE, it hasn’t happened yet. No action required on our parts this week.
What we do know is that Democrats aren’t sure. From Secretary Sebelius’ comments on rate increases which in her professional opinion, might go up for some people and go down for others, DUH, to guesses about what will happen to employer hiring, it’s largely SPECULATIVE, and unhelpful for consumers.
Fifth, what is the other side arguing? As far as the hopeless Republicans, nobody needs more tax money spent on an investigation of the decision, nor do we need to hear more longwinded arguments in favor of repeal.
As usual, in my view, Republicans are missing the opportunity to use this week’s news as a jumping off point for a consideration of parity, arguing for the delayed enforcement of the individual mandate penalty similarly to the delay of the employer mandate penalty. Republicans could also use the determination not to enforce the law as an example of why more laws are not always the answer by focusing on the failure to enforce existing laws on everything from Medicare fraud to illegal immigration to gun laws, in addition to this week’s enforcement failure for Obamacare.
