The House Health Care Bill: The Mandates

Posted October 29th, 2009 at 6.24pm in Health Care.

The new House bill, H.R. 3962, builds on its predecessor from July in increasing the financial burden on low-income and moderate-income Americans.

The Individual Mandate. Like the earlier version, this bill requires the uninsured to pay an extra income tax — 2.5% of adjusted gross income above the filing threshold, capped at the national average premium. Paying that tax wouldn’t “buy” anything; those paying this tax would remain uninsured. However, in a bid to decrease the government’s costs, this bill contains higher premiums that low- and moderate-income individuals and families would have to pay for health coverage to avoid the tax. Those premiums would increase rapidly with income, amounting to an additional tax on those with incomes below 4 times the federal poverty level (equivalent to about $88,000 per year for a family of four) ranging from 1.5% to 12%. This tax on low and moderate income Americans would be in addition to a “surtax” on higher incomes ranging up to 5.4%.

The Employer Mandate. The bill imposes a new 8% payroll tax on employers who don’t cover specified percentages of their employees’ health insurance. Employers would have to get the money to pay the tax from someplace, and much of it would come from cutting wages or other benefits. This tax would also not go to pay for any coverage; the bill specifically says that the tax paid by the employer “shall not be applied against the premium of the employee.” Furthermore, since this tax would be lower than the cost of providing health care, especially for low-income workers, this would reduce the incomes of those most likely to be uninsured, or cause them to lose their coverage.

Furthermore, health plans would have to meet new requirements to be specified later by the new “Health Choices Commissioner.” If your employer’s health plan doesn’t meet those requirements, you couldn’t keep it – employers would have five years to bring their plans into compliance. The Commissioner could require coverage of services people don’t want (increasing premiums), and then in the name of “cost containment” prohibit plans from covering services people want but that the Commissioner doesn’t want.

The bottom line is: Almost everybody will pay more, and a new appointed bureaucrat will make your health care choices for you.

Author: Robert Book
Interact: Sphere
Share This

20 Comments

October 29, 2009 Leon, Durango, CO writes:

Isn’t that just like these Democrats, the fine money would not count towards your Health Care. But look at the fines on Doctors and Health Insurance providers, that’s a bonanza for the government gangsters. How to make Health Care twice as expensive and half as effective. This time the vanishing hamburger is your life, not to mention your life savings.

October 30, 2009 Ken, Napa, CA writes:

All I can say is that Jonal Goldberg is right.
We are going the Third Way - Brick by Brick

October 30, 2009 Ken, Napa, CA writes:

All I can say is that Jonah Goldberg is right.
We are going the Third Way - Brick by Brick

October 30, 2009 the B2 Journal | New House Health Care Bill Mandates writes:

[...] New House Health Care Bill Mandates – 30 oct – The new House bill, H.R. 3962, builds on its predecessor from July in increasing the financial burden on low-income and moderate-income Americans. Furthermore, health plans would have to meet new requirements to be specified later by the new “Health Choices Commissioner.” If your employer’s health plan doesn’t meet those requirements, you couldn’t keep it – employers would have five years to bring their plans into compliance. The bottom line is: Almost everybody will pay more, and a new appointed bureaucrat will make your health care choices for you . . . [...]

October 30, 2009 gm, Pennsylvania writes:

Sounds good to me! If you don’t buy insurance or if your employer doesn’t offer insurance a tax will be levied. And the there will be a governments commisioner ensuring that health insurance plans meet minimum requirements.

It’s about time.

October 30, 2009 Headlines Exposed 10.30.2009 — ExposeTheMedia.com writes:

[...] The House Health Care Bill: The Mandates [...]

October 30, 2009 GF, Portland OR writes:

It is too bad to see this health care going this way. In Oregon they have already denied care to an elderly woman that the government program thought was too expensive but offered to pay for assisted suicide. So we will end up being taxed and taxed again until we are too old to work and instead of getting any benefit for all the years we paid in for those of us who work will just to be offered free suicide so we can pay for the people who live off the system. Isn’t that fantastic. That is the democratic way except for the politicians and elite of course they get the best.

October 30, 2009 Ed L., Turtle Creek, Pa writes:

Just what this country needs - more taxes, and more government agencies thus expanding the federal government. The truth is in the details. This administration is taking us further away from the freedoms we now enjoy and “fundamentally changing our country”.

October 30, 2009 donal mastrangelo writes:

This is insane.

October 30, 2009 Thomas, Northern NY writes:

I’m just going to close my business - 8% tax cuz no health insurance, about 8% for social security, 10% for NY state unemployment = 26% right off the top for taxes. Additionally, I pay $42,000 per year real estate taxes on my business site, and the town just announced they are looking at a 54.3% increase for next year. It’s no longer worth it to me, and I can afford to stop working. No more income tax from me either! This is not an idle boast, my business will be closed by the end of this year. Bye Bye Obama.

October 30, 2009 JFK - Virginia writes:

Both the Individual Mandate and the Employer Mandate impacts all Americans, but the proposed legislation will most assuredly and unfavorable impact the very people that it is intended to help the most.

THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE:

The “Affordable Health Care for America Act” provides that a family of four without Health Insurance and with an gross income of $88,000 will pay a stiff penalty tax of 2.5 % of adjusted gross income.

Seems illogical, if we presume that the family cited in the example cannot afford to pay for Health Insurance, but is expected to pay a large tax penalty with the money they don’t have.

Perhaps a government supplement or subsidy is the answer, but then doesn’t that defeat one of the principle objectives of the new legislation, namely, to decrease the Government’s cost of uninsured Health Care.

THE EMPLOYER’S MANDATE is not much better.

The employer must pay a 8% payroll tax if, a yet to be determined percentage of employees’ health insurance is not covered.

The effect of such a government mandate will be the loss of jobs through the use of overtime, fewer hours of opertion, less products and/or services.

The cumulative effect will not be better or more Health Care for Americans but reduced staffing and government confroming insurance for fewer employees.

October 30, 2009 gm, Pennsylvania writes:

JFK-Virginia, the purpose of those mandates is to dissuade individuals who might decide not to buy insurance from doing so, and employers who might not offer health insurance to employees to do so.

It is imperative that everyone have affordable health insurance coverage. Some people, particularly the young and well, CHOOSE not to pay for it and take their chances. As a result, they aren’t paying into the system and if they do get very sick, they end up getting ER treatment at no cost to them but great cost to others.

November 2, 2009 Adam, Chicago writes:

No Gm. The primary purpose of the individual mandate is to have the young and healthy pay a wildly disproportionate share of the costs relative to what they use in order to subsidize the old and sick. It’s not that many young CHOOSE to remain uninsured. We have people graduating with $70,000 - $150,000 in school loans. Unprecedented! They cannot afford the premiums at this early stage in their working life. When the difference between what the old/sick pay vs what the young/healthy pay is legislatively restricted, young people’s premiums will skyrocket. This will cause many young to opt out, pay the fine, and everyone’s premiums will rise. If the fine is too steep for me, and I’m forced to buy into an overly bloated package, I’ll make it my goal to utilize as many healthcare resources as possible even if not medically necessary. I refuse to throw money away on a monthly basis and get nothing in return. This will also really hurt those that make too much money to qualify for subsidies but too little to afford the forced monthly premiums while the welfare population just sits back and leeches free healthcare in maoboma’s great socialist experiment.

November 2, 2009 Mark, Lansing Michigan writes:

To gm, Pennsylvania:

Did it ever occur to you that people who go to the ER actually pay for services rendered. I have and I do. It is inaccurate to claim “no cost to them”. Your premise is faulty.

Mark, Michigan

November 5, 2009 Bobbie Jay writes:

To Mark,

You’ve been duped. You are one person. Millions have never taken or ever been held to the accountabilities of their personal/parental health care expenses. All at the cost of someone elses. It is very accurate to suggest many will get their health care expenses FREE and at the cost of others. This is Obama’s plan he promised. He is obviously making sure to protect his favorites at the expense of others. I do not note ONE PERSON IN FAVOR OF OBAMA’S PLAN. Where are the people Obama promised this corruption to?

November 7, 2009 John - Vancouver, WA writes:

It is still possible to get our word out even today at this late time. Call your Rep, e-mail your Rep and tell them that you do not support this bill, that you will remember this vote come re-election time. It is up to us.

November 8, 2009 U.S. House Votes in Favor of Obamacare : Conservative Blog: Urban Conservative 2.0 – Conservative News & Politics writes:

[...] President, the House bill would impose new taxes on all Americans regardless of class or income. The employer mandate and the individual mandate would tax the middle class. While the country is trying to recover from a deep and dangerous recession, it is ironic that the [...]

November 9, 2009 U.S. House Votes in Favor of Obamacare | Fix Health Care Policy writes:

November 10, 2009 thoughts on healthcare bill - Page 13 - In the News - MilitarySOS.com writes:

[...] however, here is a link I found with the proposed amount mandated for some employers/employees. The House Health Care Bill: The Mandates ? The Foundry It looks as if though depending upon what situation your in, whether you meet your employers [...]

November 20, 2009 Set, Pennsylvania writes:

Hey gm from PA.

You do realize that those companies who are going to get fined 8% if they don’t offer health care to their employee’s are going to accept the fine, and still not offer health care to their employee’s. Therefore, there are now many, many, many more people without health care. In addition, those same companies, that just got fined, are going to pass those fine costs on to their payroll and you/me (the consumer’s). So, please, tell me/us how this “plan” is so great.

The Heritage Foundation - Leadership for America

The Foundry