Businesses are dropping full-time employees’ hours to part-time so they can avoid the high costs of Obamacare, costs which they cannot afford. In fact, it was the main reason unemployment numbers dropped this past month – businesses cut full-time workers to part-time and hired more part-time workers (involuntary part-time work increased by 278,000, the U-6 increased to 13.9% from 13.8%, and the work hour week decreased by .2 hours).
Thirty-three states have decided not to set up the very costly and regulation-burdened healthcare exchanges (state clearinghouses that supposedly make it easier for people to buy health insurance) because they found it was cheaper for them to let the federal government do it.
The government can’t force states to form exchanges but they can offer subsidies.
The IRS, the enforcement arm of Obamacare, has written a subsidy expansion rule which circumvents the law and ignores Congress. It makes the IRS very powerful if allowed to stand.
- States that don’t buy into the exchanges do not give state subsidies
- Fewer subsidies added to incomes means fewer people make enough money to be required to buy into the healthcare exchanges
- The IRS rule – a subsidy expansion – gives subsidies whether the state or federal government set up the exchange
- When the subsidy is added to incomes, more people must now buy healthcare from the exchanges
- Having more people in the exchanges triggers the employer mandate
- Individuals and small business people who were formerly exempt from the healthcare exchanges are no longer exempt
One of the reasons the states did not sign up for their own exchanges was because of the financial benefit to their citizens. This rule erases much of that advantage.
Individuals and small businesses in six states are suing the IRS because they say the rule is illegal. They are asking the court to ban the rule’s implementation.
“The Affordable Care Act authorizes health insurance subsidies to qualifying individuals in states that created their own healthcare exchanges,” the group explained in a press release. ”Those subsidies trigger the employer mandate (a $2,000/employee penalty) and expose more people to the individual mandate. But last spring, without authorization from Congress, the IRS vastly expanded those subsidies to cover states that refused to set up such exchanges. Under the Act, businesses in these nonparticipating states should be free of the employer mandate, and the scope of the individual mandate should be reduced as well. But because of the IRS rule, both mandates will be greatly enlarged in scope, depriving states of the power to protect their residents.”
If the government elite fail to win in court, they simply write their own laws.
Read about it at Human Events.