Why ObamaCare Needs the Employer Mandate
RAND Corporation analysis [finds] that a one-year delay ― which the Obama administration announced in July ― would mean that about 300,000 U.S. residents who would have received employer-sponsored health coverage would be without it for the year and the government would collect about $12 billion less over a decade in revenue as a result of lost penalties, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. However, a full repeal of the provision would cost the government $149 billion over same period, the analysis found. (The Hill)
All about the money!
once again, the government has mis-budgeted our money!
When do we quit blaming it on mismanagement and start calling it what it is: the nature of government.
I think most people assume that it is a sunk cost, that government will always be inefficient, corrupt, or incompetent. I don’t know how some people can reasonably think that we should be expanding government’s influence.
You need to remember that government operates as well as its society does. It’s a mere reflection of the level of engagement of a society. The problem is not government per say, it’s human nature.
“However, a full repeal of the provision would cost the government $149 billion over same period, the analysis found.”
Unfortunately, it is probably worth it at this point.
$12 billion over a decade is way better than $149 billion.
True, although there are other costs that come from an inefficient system, ones that aren’t represented here. We are way better off killing this thing now.
My analysis has found that the subsidies available in the state health insurance exchanges is far more generous for most moderate-income workers than what they would receive through work. However, the CBO estimates that most people will continue to receive their health benefits through work. The ACA needs the employer mandate to lower the cost of subsidies for the few it believes will get coverage in the exchange. CBO and others erroneously assume that employers won’t drop coverage when there’s a low-cost option available in the exchanges.
It is hard to trust what the CBO puts out.
Legislative malpractice is what it is.
Interesting terminology.