The Obamacare Chronicles: Like your family’s insurance? Suckers!

August 20, 2013
"Quack medicine"

“Quack medicine”

Great news! Because Obamacare imposes higher costs on employers, but doesn’t require employers to cover spouses, more and more companies are dropping spousal coverage:

A growing number of companies are looking to clamp down on rising health care costs by dumping coverage for their employees’ working spouses.

Others are requiring their workers to pay extra money to cover a spouse who could get health insurance elsewhere. And some may even consider making employees pay the full cost of insuring their children.

The moves are viewed as low-hanging fruit for companies that are expecting higher costs next year under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

“We’re seeing costs going up,” said J.T. Shilling, a benefits consultant who runs the Pittsburgh office of consulting firm Mercer. “Taxes, fees, more enrollment are driving up costs, and employers are looking for ways to reduce costs. And this is a pretty easy one.”

The higher charges and exclusions for spouses are part of a national trend that’s hitting home in Western Pennsylvania.

Or, if you’re “lucky,” they’ll only impose a surcharge.

Again, the companies are acting rationally in the face of an irrational law: since Obamacare vastly increases costs for the employer, it makes sense to drop spousal coverage when that spouse has coverage through his or her employer, even if it’s not as good as what the first company is offering.  But, you know, Obamacare is for the children, and therefore everything is okay.

Oh, wait:

Although the law requires plans to cover children, it allows companies to pass along the full cost of so-called dependent coverage to the employee, McTiernan said.

“Some employers were in fact contemplating” whether to make workers pay for their children, he said. “It’s one way to mitigate the cost.”

Nice. They’ll give you the required coverage, perhaps more than you need, and then stick you for the full cost — thanks to Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

Remember that when election day rolls around.

Via Jim Geraghty, who asks a darned fine question:

Why does most of the media coverage suggest that Republicans are crazy for wanting to repeal this legislative monstrosity, and the Democrats are sane for wanting to keep it in place?

Because most of them are toe-kissing heralds for their Sun King, Obama? Just a guess.

BTW, Jim, it’s “anti-constitutional monstrosity.” Let’s keep our terms straight, okay? 😉

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Advertisements

#Benghazi: Cover up complete, scapegoats rehabilitated

August 20, 2013

They’ve served their purpose, after all:

Secretary of State John Kerry has determined that the four State Department officials placed on administrative leave by Hillary Clinton after the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi do not deserve any formal disciplinary action and has asked them to come back to work at the State Department starting Tuesday.

Last December, Clinton’s staff told four midlevel officials to clean out their desks and hand in their badges after the release of the report of its own internal investigation into the Benghazi attack, compiled by the Administrative Review Board led by former State Department official Tom Pickering and former Joint Chiefs chairman Ret. Adm. Mike Mullen. Those four officials have been in legal and professional limbo, not fired but unable to return to their jobs, for eight months … until today.

Former deputy assistant secretary of State Raymond Maxwell, the only official from the State Department’s Near Eastern Affairs bureau to lose his job over the Benghazi attack, told The Daily Beast on Monday he received a memo from the State Department’s human-resources department informing him his administrative leave status has been lifted and he should report for duty Tuesday morning.

“No explanation, no briefing, just come back to work. So I will go in tomorrow,” Maxwell said.
Maxwell previously told The Daily Beast that the reasons for his administrative leave designation had never been explained to him. He contended that he had little role in Libya policy and no involvement whatsoever in the events leading up to the Benghazi attack.

“The overall goal is to restore my honor,” Maxwell had said.

The honor of the Department, however, and that of the United States, was sacrificed to preserve The Deal.

"Forget honor. What about justice?"

“Forget honor. What about justice?”

Good question.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)