- Gentlemen, start your drones: Judge’s ruling opens door for commercial use
- Soldier who hid, bragged about not saluting flag to be punished — in secret
- ‘Maverick’ of the seas: ‘Top Gun’ school for U.S. ship officers to launch
- Putin declares Sochi Paralympics open amid Ukrainian protest
- ‘In Jesus name, we pray’ sparks ire at Ohio council meeting
- Navy’s first laser weapon ready for prime time; drone killer to deploy this summer
- Billionaire backer: Rick Santorum ‘needs to be heard’ in 2016
- Obamacare fallout: 49 percent pessimistic; 45 percent ‘scared’
- DHS accused of holding U.S. citizen at airport, using emails to pry into her sex life
- Seattle socialist: Minimum-wage discussion skewed by ‘right-wing’ GAO analysis
FEULNER: Obamacare’s unaffordable consequences
Predictions of higher costs are starting to come true
President Obama's signature health law is called the Affordable Care Act. In an ironic twist, though, it may prove prohibitively expensive for many low-income Americans.
The stated goal, of course, is to expand coverage, which the government enforces through certain mandates. To avoid fines, employers who have 50 or more full-time employees must offer coverage that meets certain minimum requirements. That coverage has to cost no more than 9.5 percent of an employee's income.
Run the numbers, as the Associated Press recently did. A worker making $21,000 annually could have to fork over up to $1,995 in premiums under the 9.5 percent figure, almost twice the current average. This is "affordable"?
That's a lot to ask young, healthy workers to pay. As Shannon Demaree, head of actuarial services for the Lockton Benefit Group, points out: "What the government is requiring employers to do isn't really something their low-paid employees want."
This isn't what Americans were promised. "Let's make sure that everybody who is out there working hard and doing the right thing, that they're not going to go bankrupt because they get sick, that they're going to have health care they can count on," Mr. Obama stated at a campaign stop last summer. "And we got that done."
Are you sure about that? "Obamacare may cost more than experts previously thought," CBS News recently reported, citing a new survey of 900 employers.
A higher price tag is not the only unintended consequence of Obamacare. It is likely to lead employers drop employees into Medicaid or the subsidized health exchanges.
Dumping employees may be the easiest and cheapest option for some employers looking to dodge the complexity of Obamacare and the climate of uncertainty that it creates. Just deposit everyone onto the government, and wash your hands of the whole mess.
Small wonder that nearly one-quarter of small businesses say they're likely to stop offering coverage in the next five years. Get out of the game altogether, they reason. Leave it to government. But Medicaid already shows the problems with leaving it to government. More and more doctors, stung by low reimbursement rates, are refusing to take patients from the program anymore.
Medicaid and the exchange subsidies are the most expensive parts of Obamacare. The country is already struggling to pay its current bills, yet we're going to add more bills?
Another unintended consequence of the law: It's pushing employers to cut hours for their workers. Why? Because employers can avoid penalties by moving workers to part-time jobs. So instead of adding more full-time employees, employers are going in the opposite direction. That's hardly a strong signal to an economy that is still in a fragile recovery.
How concerned is the administration? "There has been a lot of conjecture about what people might do or could do, but this hasn't actually happened yet," White House senior communications adviser Tara McGuinness said. "The gap between sky-is-falling predictions about the health law and what is happening is very wide."
To the contrary, employers both private and public have already been taking a hard look at the law — and planning accordingly. "It'll likely affect the number of people we can hire," Five Guys owner John Rigos said earlier this year. "It'll probably have to reduce the staff to some degree, and again, focus on building smaller, stronger teams, rather than being as aggressive in opening up new stores and creating new jobs." Multiply that across an economy, and you've got trouble.
"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi once said of Obamacare. It's proving to be quite an alarming process of discovery.
Ed Feulner is founder of the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
TWT Video Picks
Taxpayers must pay the freight for over-budget train projects
Get Breaking Alerts
- CPAC 2014: Rand Paul urges conservatives to fight for liberty
- Putin has transformed Russian army into a lean, mean fighting machine
- EDITORIAL: Connecticut revolts against gun controls that could criminalize 300,000
- Bill Clinton poses for photo with Bunny Ranch prostitutes
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- Two liberals say Sarah Palin is right: Obama lacks substance
- Malaysia Airlines says plane on route to Beijing missing
- High schooler suing parents for money shot down by judge
- Soldier who hid to avoid saluting the flag to be punished in secret; Army won't release details
Recent Letters to the Editor
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Time for feckless president to show resolve
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Obama reserves 'Chicago way' for GOP
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Public education would wither in free market
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Turkey not committed to Cyprus peace
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Spoiled-kid culture creates greedy adults