Obama’s Arbitrary Health Care Flexibility

In the Affordable Care Act’s never-ending revisions, the only pattern is chaos.

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 31: U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks about his plans to help America's long-term unemployed during an event in the East Room of the White House January 31, 2014 in Washington, DC. During the event Obama signed a memorandum directing the federal government not to discriminate against long-term unemployed job seekers. 
Getty Images
Major Garrett
Add to Briefcase
Major Garrett
Feb. 11, 2014, 5:12 p.m.

The Af­ford­able Care Act means what it says and says what it means.

Un­til it doesn’t.

The ar­bit­er is Pres­id­ent Obama and a phalanx of health care ad­visers and polit­ic­al strategists.

To­geth­er, they try to im­ple­ment what even Obama’s hearti­est loy­al­ists con­cede is an oner­ous and com­plic­ated law. They do this amid myri­ad Demo­crat­ic midterm anxi­et­ies. And frothy Re­pub­lic­an ob­jec­tions.

But it’s time to con­cede that no one has been more ad­ept or ag­gress­ive about delay­ing and de­fanging Obama­care than Obama him­self. Sys­tem­at­ic­ally and with an eye to­ward his party’s im­me­di­ate polit­ic­al troubles, Obama has re­shaped, photo-shopped, re­ima­gined, and reen­gin­eered Obama­care. It all sounds techy and cool and flex­ible — at least to the ad­min­is­tra­tion. To those who must live with and live un­der the law, the ar­bit­rary is the norm. The only pat­tern is chaos. Obama­care’s worst en­emy is Obama.

The New York Times has com­piled a help­ful list of re­cent changes to the Af­ford­able Care Act — 13 in just over a year. That comes out to more than one sub­stant­ive change to policy or le­gis­lated dead­lines per month. This, in a land­mark law near­ing its fourth birth­day.

The latest switch­eroo deals with the em­ploy­er man­date, which the ad­min­is­tra­tion has delayed for an­oth­er year for me­di­um-sized busi­nesses and softened for big em­ploy­ers. Com­pan­ies with 50 to 99 em­ploy­ees will not have to provide health in­sur­ance un­der fear of fines (between $2,000 and $3,000 per full-time em­ploy­ee) un­til Janu­ary 2016. Un­til Monday, the dead­line was Janu­ary 2015. Also, com­pan­ies with more than 100 em­ploy­ees can provide in­sur­ance cov­er­age to just 70 per­cent of their work­force in 2015 in­stead of the ori­gin­al 95 per­cent re­quire­ment.

The em­ploy­er man­date is a sig­ni­fic­ant com­pon­ent of the law that was sub­ject to strenu­ous the­or­et­ic­al de­bate in the 2008 pres­id­en­tial cam­paign and lengthy le­gis­lat­ive tuss­ling dur­ing the draft­ing of Obama­care. This is a not an Af­ford­able Care as­ter­isk, al­though health care eco­nom­ists ar­gue it has little im­pact on in­creas­ing in­sur­ance cov­er­age.

That may be true, but it drove me­di­um-sized busi­nesses to dis­trac­tion, and they lob­bied the White House for a re­prieve — and won the midterm polit­ic­al lot­tery.

Obama de­scribed the change sooth­ingly in his joint press con­fer­ence with French Pres­id­ent François Hol­lande. “This was an ex­ample of, ad­min­is­trat­ively, us mak­ing sure that we’re smooth­ing out this trans­ition, giv­ing people the op­por­tun­it­ies to get right with the law, but re­cog­niz­ing that there are go­ing to be cir­cum­stances in which people are try­ing to do the right thing and it may take a little bit of time,” Obama said.

It may take a little bit of time.

El­ev­en of the 13 al­ter­a­tions to the Af­ford­able Care Act in the past 12 months have giv­en in­di­vidu­als or busi­nesses more time. The bur­den of com­pli­ance is palp­able. And so the White House has had to again and again smooth out the trans­ition, in a law it craf­ted ex­clus­ively with Demo­crats.

“Our goal here is not to pun­ish folks,” Obama said, un­wit­tingly ad­mit­ting that com­pli­ance with his own law amounts to eco­nom­ic and ad­min­is­trat­ive sanc­tion. “Our goal is to make sure that we’ve got people who can count on the fin­an­cial se­cur­ity that health in­sur­ance provides.”

Of course, those em­ploy­ees who work for com­pan­ies that just hap­pen to have 50 to 99 em­ploy­ees and were hop­ing, pos­sibly ex­pect­ing, to re­ceive health cov­er­age next year — well, they can­not count on Obama­care. Or Obama, who help­fully ex­plained why:

“Where we’ve got com­pan­ies that want to do the right thing and are try­ing to work with us, we want to make sure that we’re work­ing with them as well.” Trans­la­tion: If you want to provide cov­er­age but not right now and in com­pli­ance with the law as writ­ten, and you com­plain loud enough and weak­en the polit­ic­al foot­ing of Sen­ate Demo­crats, you don’t have to eat your Obama­care spin­ach — or cov­er your em­ploy­ees.

In the same breath, Obama made clear that this pro­cess of photo-shop­ping, re­writ­ing, and re­ima­gin­ing will con­tin­ue apace, de­pend­ing on the hassle that is Obama­care com­pli­ance and the polit­ic­al ter­rain.

“That’s go­ing to be our at­ti­tude about the law gen­er­ally: How do we make it work for the Amer­ic­an people and for their em­ploy­ers in an op­tim­al sort of way?”


How would you like to work for a com­pany (more than 115,000 of them in 2012) that you thought would have to provide health care cov­er­age for you next year but now won’t? And how would you like to be one of the em­ploy­ees who works for a big com­pany (more than 94,000 of them in 2012) but falls just on the oth­er side of the 70 per­cent cov­er­age threshold in 2015? Your health falls on the oth­er side of Obama’s ar­bit­rary cov­er­age line, and you don’t have cov­er­age.

I’m will­ing to bet “op­tim­al” is not the word that will come read­ily to mind.

For Obama, it’s all about flex­ib­il­ity. He was asked if the Af­ford­able Care Act would ush­er in the end of em­ploy­ee-based in­sur­ance in Amer­ica.

“I don’t think that an em­ploy­er-based sys­tem is go­ing to be, or should be, re­placed any­time soon,” Obama said.

Con­sid­er­ing the cre­at­ive clock-man­age­ment and time-ma­chine qual­ity of Obama­care im­ple­ment­a­tion to date, “any­time soon” sounds al­most wist­ful. For Obama, that is, not ne­ces­sar­ily for em­ploy­ees who have care they like and want to keep (yes, that phrase still mat­ters … and will mat­ter more as Obama­care’s reg­u­lat­ory reach be­comes fully mani­fest).

“What the Af­ford­able Care Act does do is, it gives people some flex­ib­il­ity.”

But which people? And why?

There is no op­tim­al an­swer.

The au­thor is Na­tion­al Journ­al Cor­res­pond­ent-at-Large and Chief White House Cor­res­pond­ent for CBS News. He is also a dis­tin­guished fel­low at the George Wash­ing­ton Uni­versity School of Me­dia and Pub­lic Af­fairs.

What We're Following See More »
Is McMullin Building the GOP in Exile?
57 minutes ago

Evan McMullin, the independent conservative candidate who may win his home state of Utah, is quietly planning to turn his candidacy into a broader movement for principled conservatism. He tells BuzzFeed he's "skeptical" that the Republican party can reform itself "within a generation" and that the party's internal "disease" can't be cured via "the existing infrastructure.” The ex-CIA employee and Capitol Hill staffer says, “I have seen and worked with a lot of very courageous people in my time [but] I have seen a remarkable display of cowardice over the last couple of months in our leaders.” McMullin's team has assembled organizations in the 11 states where he's on the ballot, and adviser Rick Wilson says "there’s actually a very vibrant market for our message in the urban northeast and in parts of the south."

Clinton Up 9 in USA Today Poll; Up 3 According to Fox
1 hours ago

A new USA Today/Suffolk University poll finds Clinton leads Trump by 9 points nationwide, 47% to 38%. A Fox News national poll has Clinton up just three points, 44% to 41% over Trump.

Too Many Potential Enrollees Paying Obamacare Penalties Instead
2 hours ago

One of the main reasons for the recent Obamacare premium hikes is that many potential enrollees have simply decided to pay the tax penalty for remaining uninsured, rather than pay for insurance. More than 8 million people paid the penalty in 2014, and preliminary numbers for 2015 suggest that the number approaches 6 million. "For the young and healthy who are badly needed to make the exchanges work, it is sometimes cheaper to pay the Internal Revenue Service than an insurance company charging large premiums, with huge deductibles."

Cruz: Eight Justices Could Be an Ongoing Situation
3 hours ago

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that "there was “precedent” for a Supreme Court with fewer than nine justices—appearing to suggest that the blockade on nominee Merrick Garland could last past the election." Speaking to reporters in Colorado, Cruz said: "I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.”

Chaffetz Also Caves, Says He’ll Vote Trump
5 hours ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.