Thursday, November 26, 2009
All the bills presently in play the house bill and the two in the senate contain employer mandates, but differ to what degree. This has provoked a few layers of questions.The Senate Finance Committees bill penalize employers who dont propose their workers any kind of coverage, but stops short of making any requirements whereas the bills from the House and the Senate Health Committee flatout require employers offer their employees coverage. As a matter of fact, they go one step further: They require employers to contribute a significant share of the cost (except for small businesses) or pay a fine.
Thats a big difference. And its hard to tell which way Majority Leader Harry Reid will lean in his reconciliation of the two Senate bills alone.
Now, its true that for about 60 percent of Americans at big firms, the point is moot since they get their health insurance through their jobs, where they are covered at about 75 percentą„¤ But it isnt for those who work at smaller companies where coverage and employer contribution arent considerable
Its also important to note that anywhere from 2.3 to 2.6 million businesses are expected to opt to pay the penalty rather than offer group health insurance should that version of the mandate go into law.
It will be interesting to see which provision ends up in the final bill, and even more interesting to see how it pans out.
Post a Comment