Skip to main content

Obamacare penalty delay no big deal

By Aaron Carroll, Special to CNN
updated 4:15 PM EDT, Sun July 7, 2013
Obamacare will not perform as efficiently without the employer penalty, Aaron Carroll says, but it will still function.
Obamacare will not perform as efficiently without the employer penalty, Aaron Carroll says, but it will still function.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Employer penalty for not providing full health care delayed for a year, till 2015.
  • Aaron Carroll: Outcry oversized since penalty applies only to companies with 50-plus workers
  • Employer penalty will likely apply to about 10,000 companies out of about 6 million, he says
  • Carroll: It's all political theater -- Obamacare would hurt without penalty, but it would function

Editor's note: Dr. Aaron E. Carroll is an associate professor of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine and the director of the university's Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research. He blogs about health policy at The Incidental Economist and tweets at @aaronecarroll.

(CNN) -- Few laws can drive political discourse and posturing like the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. The individual mandate was one of its most contentious aspects. Today, though, it's another mandate -- the employer penalty -- that is garnering headlines.

The Obama administration announced it would delay the implementation of the employer penalty for a year, until 2015. This move is sure to please businesses that employ a large number of lower-wage employees who don't receive comprehensive health insurance. But it's also been met with other cries of dismay.

Aaron Carroll
Aaron Carroll

Some have declared the delay another bit of evidence that Obamacare is fatally flawed and that it should be repealed immediately. Others have declared that this delay bodes poorly for the individual mandate, which should not be attacked. And still more have taken it as a larger indication of the state of the administration, that it spells doom for immigration overhaul, that it's a sign of a tyrannical administration, or that it's just one more illustration of incompetence in getting Obamacare off the ground.

For the most part, these are all political posturing. The employer penalty, like the individual mandate, is just one small part of a very large law. It serves a specific purpose, and although Obamacare will not perform as efficiently without it, it will still function.

The employer penalty is complicated. The first thing to know is that it only applies to businesses with more than 50 full-time-equivalent employees. Any "small business" with 50 or fewer employees doesn't have to provide insurance at all.

If you have more than 50 workers, you have to provide comprehensive insurance to your employees that covers a core set of benefits, and the premiums can't cost workers more than 9.5% of their income. If you don't, you pay a penalty of $2,000 for each full-time worker -- your total of employees minus 30.

Obamacare requirement delayed
Free breast pumps under Obamacare

Alternatively, you can provide them with much less comprehensive plans that meet "minimum essential coverage." But employees can refuse this coverage and instead go to an exchange in their state to obtain health insurance. If they do, businesses will pay a penalty of $3,000 for each employee who goes to an exchange and qualifies for a subsidy from the federal government.

These penalties can add up to millions for large employers. So companies are taking them seriously. But it's important to put things in perspective. It's likely that more than 95% of businesses are smaller than the 50-employee limit, so few need concern themselves with the penalty at all.

Moreover, of the 4% of employers who are large enough to have the penalty affect them, about 95% already offer coverage. When all is said and done, the employer penalty will likely apply to about 10,000 companies out of about 6 million in the United States. Those companies employ about 1% of American workers. But the penalty will still be real to these companies. They will be thrilled to see it delayed, and they will certainly fight to see it pushed back even further, or repealed.

Any 'small business' with 50 or fewer employees doesn't have to provide insurance at all.
Aaron Carroll

There are some reasons to cheer them on. The employer penalty, as designed, has a lot of flaws. It encourages employers to push people into part-time jobs to have fewer full-time employees to count. It also is an incentive to get people to hire more well-off employees as opposed to poorer employees, because they can't get subsidies in the exchanges and won't incur a penalty for the employer if insurance isn't offered.

So why have an employer penalty at all? The simple reason is that it lowers the cost of Obamacare.

Helping people buy insurance is expensive. When people get their insurance in the exchange with a subsidy, it costs the federal government money. When they get their insurance at their job, it costs the federal government much less. So pushing the uninsured to their employers, through the penalty, lowers the cost of Obamacare overall.

If we get rid of the employer penalty, the likely effect is that the number of uninsured will not drop as much, and the cost of the law will go up. It's really that simple. Supporters of the law don't like the former, and opponents don't like the latter. So everyone will have something about which to complain. But still, the law will function, albeit less efficiently.

These (criticisms) are all political posturing. The employer penalty, like the individual mandate, is just one small part of a very large law.
Aaron Carroll

As for me, I've never had a huge problem with the employer penalty. For better or for worse, we have an employer-based insurance system in the United States. The majority of people living here get their insurance through a job. Partly that's historical, because of wage freezes in World War II, and partly that's because the tax deduction for employer-sponsored insurance makes it all the more enticing to get insurance instead of wage increases. So if we want to continue this type of system, it makes sense to have employers either provide insurance to their workers or pay some sort of tax, or penalty, to help the government do it for them.

That doesn't mean there aren't better ways to do this. First of all, we could uncouple insurance from jobs entirely. There's really no good reason to have the system function this way. Past proposals, such as the Wyden-Bennett plan, would reduce employer-based insurance substantially. Sen. John McCain proposed eliminating the employer-sponsored insurance deduction in his 2008 presidential campaign. Even a single-payer plan, such as Medicare for all, would accomplish this task.

Short of that, if you want to keep this system intact, other mechanisms such as an overall payroll tax instead of this employer penalty would have removed the various bad incentives to favor wealthy or part-time employees. It's a fixable problem.

But fixing it would require a functioning government. It would need Congress to pass a bill replacing or eliminating the employer mandate, and then the president to sign it. That's not going to happen.

Opponents of Obamacare don't appear eager to fix the law in ways that would make it less unpopular or repeal less likely. Supporters don't appear eager to spend political capital to tinker with a law that cost them so much to pass in the first place. So we'll get administrative fixes such as this one, which wind up pleasing few, other than those who enjoy political theater.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Aaron Carroll.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 6:45 PM EDT, Mon July 28, 2014
LZ Granderson says the cyber-standing ovation given to Robyn Lawley, an Australian plus-size model who posted unretouched photos, shows how crazy Americans' notions of beauty have become
updated 7:56 AM EDT, Mon July 28, 2014
A crisis like the Gaza conflict or the surge of immigrants can be an opportunity for a lame duck president, writes Julian Zelizer
updated 2:22 PM EDT, Sat July 26, 2014
Carol Costello says the league's light punishment sent the message that it didn't consider domestic violence a serious offense
updated 8:51 AM EDT, Mon July 28, 2014
Danny Cevallos says saggy pants aren't the kind of fashion statement protected by the First Amendment.
updated 2:52 PM EDT, Mon July 28, 2014
Margaret Hoover says some GOP legislators support a state's right to allow same-sex marriage and the right of churches, synagogues and mosques not to perform the sacrament
updated 2:31 PM EDT, Mon July 28, 2014
Megan McCracken and Jennifer Moreno say it's unacceptable for states to experiment with new execution procedures without full disclosure
updated 2:50 PM EDT, Mon July 28, 2014
Priya Satia says today's drones for bombardment and surveillance have their roots in the deadly history of Western aerial control of the Middle East that began in World War One
updated 12:35 PM EDT, Mon July 28, 2014
Jeff Yang says it's great to see the comics make an effort at diversifying the halls of justice
updated 11:55 AM EDT, Sat July 26, 2014
Rick Francona says the reported artillery firing from Russian territory is a sign Vladimir Putin has escalated the Ukraine battle
updated 2:22 PM EDT, Sun July 27, 2014
Paul Callan says the fact that appeals delay the death penalty doesn't make it an unconstitutional punishment, as one judge ruled
updated 6:25 PM EDT, Thu July 24, 2014
Pilot Robert Mark says it's been tough for the airline industry after the plane crashes in Ukraine and Taiwan.
updated 11:10 AM EDT, Fri July 25, 2014
Jennifer DeVoe laments efforts to end subsidies that allow working Americans to finally afford health insurance.
updated 11:33 AM EDT, Sat July 26, 2014
Ruti Teitel says assigning a costly and humiliating "collective guilt" to Germany after WWI would end up teaching the global community hard lessons about who to blame for war crimes
updated 8:45 AM EDT, Fri July 25, 2014
John Sutter responds to criticism of his column on the ethics of eating dog.
updated 9:02 AM EDT, Fri July 25, 2014
Frida Ghitis says it's tempting to ignore North Korea's antics as bluster but the cruel regime is dangerous.
updated 2:50 PM EDT, Fri July 25, 2014
To the question "Is Putin evil?" Alexander Motyl says he is evil enough for condemnation by people of good will.
updated 2:03 PM EDT, Thu July 24, 2014
Laurie Garrett: Poor governance, ignorance, hysteria worsen the Ebola epidemic in Sierra Leone, Guinea, Liberia.
updated 9:49 AM EDT, Thu July 24, 2014
Patrick Cronin and Kelley Sayler say the world is seeing nonstate groups such as Ukraine's rebels wielding more power to do harm than ever before
updated 6:05 PM EDT, Wed July 23, 2014
Ukraine ambassador Olexander Motsyk places blame for the MH17 tragedy squarely at the door of Russia
updated 7:42 AM EDT, Thu July 24, 2014
Mark Kramer says Russia and its proxies have a history of shooting down civilian aircraft, often with few repercussions
updated 2:53 PM EDT, Thu July 24, 2014
Les Abend says, with rockets flying over Tel Aviv and missiles shooting down MH17 over Ukraine, a commercial pilot's pre-flight checklist just got much more complicated
updated 9:17 AM EDT, Thu July 24, 2014
Mark Kramer says Russia and its proxies have a history of shooting down civilian aircraft, often with few repercussions
updated 12:37 PM EDT, Thu July 24, 2014
Gerard Jacobs says grieving families and nations need the comfort of traditional rituals to honor the remains of loved ones, particularly in a mass disaster
updated 10:13 AM EDT, Thu July 24, 2014
The idea is difficult to stomach, but John Sutter writes that eating dog is morally equivalent to eating pig, another intelligent animal. If Americans oppose it, they should question their own eating habits as well.
updated 12:30 PM EDT, Wed July 23, 2014
Bill van Esveld says under the laws of war, civilians who do not join in the fight are always to be protected. An International Criminal Court could rule on whether Israeli airstrikes and Hamas rocketing are war crimes.
updated 10:08 AM EDT, Wed July 23, 2014
Gordon Brown says the kidnapped Nigerian girls have been in captivity for 100 days, but the world has not forgotten them.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT