A Look at Health Care's Business Battle

REPLAY VIDEO
Your next video will start in
Pause

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments

  • VIDEO TEXT

July 3 (Bloomberg) -- Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Avik Roy, Cato Institute Senior Fellow Michael Tanner and National Federation of Independent Business's Amanda Austin discuss the health-law mandate delay with Deirdre Bolton on Bloomberg Television's "Street Smart." (Source: Bloomberg)

Mandate provision in the signature health-care law until 2015. businesses have one more year before they need to provide their workers with health insurance.

It could be a sign that more health-care dominoes are getting ready to fall and house speaker john boehner said it is a clear acknowledgment that all law is not workable and it underscores the need to repeal the law.

We bring an expert panel to you now.

Michael tanner is with us.

Amanda austin is with us.

Glad to have you all with us.

What do you make of this?

A 1-year delay is not that big of a deal if it is only one- year.

Is it going to be only one year?

Will it be a provision of law that goes on and on not being implemented for ever?

Will it get repealed because there is political leverage to repeal its?

That's where the future of this goes and if we repeal the employer mandate or it never gets implemented, that will be a huge change in the entire private insurance market.

Less employers or offer coverage and more people will buy insurance on their own.

At the very least, conservatives take this idea and will fight every we have elections coming up in november for congress.

You are in d.c., how do you see this?

This actually makes a bad situation worse.

The employer mandate was a terrible idea making the cost of employing workers more expensive.

Now you have a situation where the individual mandate is still in effect.

Employers are off the clock.

They don't have to provide insurance but their workers have to buy insurance.

Otherwise the workers will get stuck with a penalty.

You are saying essentially the government and business get a grace.

But for individuals who have to sell by their own insurance, they're the ones getting punished?

That's right, there may be more workers now who have to buy insurance on their on because they do not get it through their employer, plus, it was the employer mandate that was the key to getting subsidies on the exchanges.

Without that data being collected which will now be postponed for one year, it seems unlikely they will be able to continue to provide subsidies for people to buy insurance on their own.

Amanda, what does this mean for businesses and workers?

Many people work 30 hours or less and that is part time and companies don't have to be sure them.

As far as job creation, does it mean that companies will fire full-time workers and make them part time?

I don't think this will do much to change employer behavior moving forward.

This is a significant provision in the health care law that will damage jobs and it will harm the economy long term.

Employers are already planning for the employer mandates.

This brief acknowledgment from the administration that they will give us one year to work out the complexity is really just a simple band-aid on a larger problem.

Employers are probably going to move forward with eager reducing their workforce, not hiring and not investing in their business to comply with this in 2015 cannot use a this is a band-aid, defined a bigger problem?

Bigger problem is putting mandates on business.

When you put a mandate on business, it is borne out through the economy and as health care: the increased costs for employers and individuals long term.

The big issue is that more employers drop coverage because there is no employer mandate but there are these requirements that people buy coverage, obama care drives up the cost of individually purchased insurance.

Today, health insurance is relatively inexpensive.

Explain why you think that is.

Is it because businesses will not be bargained down for lower rates?

There is a tax on high-value sponsored health insurance plans which kicks in in 2017. it will discourage employers from continuing to sponsor coverage.

Because health insurance gets more expensive every year, people might say i want to give my workers higher paychecks than pay for their coverage.

All of the interaction is important to understand it if you have to drive towards individually purchased insurance, that is a good thing.

People shop for their on on automobile or life insurance.

In the affordable care act, it drives up the cost of individually purchased insurance and that will hit people where they cannot get insurance through their employer.

Let us also remember that there is considerable doubts about whether these exchanges will be up and running on october 1 the way art they are supposed to.

The gao report suggested they don't think the exchanges will be ready in time.

If they are delayed, that is more problems for individuals trying to buy insurance on their own without subsidies, without much choice but you're pointing to the fact that 27 states are still in flux.

Are not sure what they are going to do about state exchanges.

How does that figure in?

That just complicate things further.

I don't think you have seen many states looking at a reduction in premiums for small businesses and individuals.

I think we are going to see an increased cost in benefits.

We've got taxes like the health insurance tax, the new medicare tax, we got a number of taxes on top of an already ever- increasing benefit package.

In totality, and businesses will continue to struggle with offering insurance and we will have to look at ways long term to drive down costs.

We don't believe this held insurance for this health care law addresses that.

We thank you.

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.

Advertisement

BTV Channel Finder

Channel_finder_loader

ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change