Washington Report: Delay of Health Care Mandates Should Apply to All

Earlier this month, the Obama Administration announced it would delay enforcement of the employer mandate – a major component of the President’s 2010 health care law which requires businesses to provide government-approved insurance for their employees or pay a fine.  The delay was justified by the Administration as a way to allow businesses more time to prepare for the burdensome reporting requirements created by the law.

 
While this is welcome news for businesses, hardworking American families and individuals have not been offered the same relief despite having similar concerns and facing comparable reporting requirements.  I hear from businesses, individuals, school districts, municipalities, and other organizations in Nebraska concerned about the new rules and increasing costs of health care under the new law.  There is no reason a mandate should apply to one group and not another.

Some have also claimed the Administration does not have the authority to delay the employer mandate without the consent of Congress.  In bypassing Congress, the Administration has not only signaled its growing concern about implementation of this flawed law, but also its disregard for the separation of power.

To address these problems, the House of Representatives passed two bills this week; one to approve the delay of the employer mandate, and another to give all Americans the same relief.  If businesses need more time to comply with a burdensome law which is not ready to be implemented, then so do individuals.

 

The first bill, H.R. 2667, the Authority for Mandate Delay Act would give congressional approval of the Administration’s decision to provide businesses temporary relief from the employer mandate.  While we agree this mandate is not ready and would have disastrous economic consequences if implemented at the end of the year, the President’s decision fits into a larger pattern by the Administration of selective enforcement of the law to meet its legislative and political goals.

The second bill, H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families Act would extend the same temporary relief businesses have received to the American people by delaying the individual mandate by one year.  It would be inconsistent to postpone the onerous requirements of the health care law on businesses while hardworking families are still subjected to the individual mandate. 

 

It also does not make sense to enforce the individual mandate without the employer mandate because qualification for many of the individual subsidies to purchase insurance is dependent on the availability of employer coverage.  If you do not know whether someone has actually been denied employer coverage – how can you know whether or not they actually qualify for a subsidy?  This discrepancy invites massive fraud, waste, and abuse.

 

These problems are indicative of a poorly structured law which was rushed through Congress with little understanding of its complexity.  Full repeal would be in the best interest of the country, but we do not have the votes in the Senate to realize this goal.  However, I am hopeful the Senate and the President will acknowledge the law’s significant structural problems and agree to delay the individual mandate.  The bills passed by the House this week could ease the growing concerns of the health care law and give Congress the opportunity to find further common ground to implement other reforms to lower costs and expand access to care for all Americans.   

 

 

ADRIAN SMITH
Member of Congress