Tag Archives: jobs

Why House Republicans Are Re-Writing Their Obamacare “Replacement”

On Friday, Politico reported that Republicans were considering ways to amend their Obamacare “replacement” legislation, by placing income limits on the bill’s new refundable tax credit for health insurance. The Politico story implied the income cap sought to prevent wealthy individuals like Warren Buffett from obtaining federal subsidies for health insurance, but in reality House staff are re-writing their legislation to correct a major flaw in its structure.

Based on my conversations with multiple sources close to the effort, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had indicated to congressional staff that the prior House framework could see at least 10 million, and potentially up to 20 million, individuals losing employer-sponsored health insurance. Further, CBO stated that that House framework, even after including a refundable tax credit for health insurance, would not cover many more people than repealing Obamacare outright.

By comparison, Obamacare led to about 7 million plan cancellation notices in the fall of 2013. While those cancellations caused a major political firestorm, the framework the House released prior to the recess could cause a loss of employer coverage of several times that number. What’s more, that framework as described looks for all intents and purposes like a legislative orphan appealing to no one—neither moderates nor conservatives—within the Republican party:

  • A significant erosion of up to 10-20 million individuals with employer-provided health coverage;
  • A new entitlement—the refundable tax credits—that by and large wouldn’t expand coverage, but instead cause individuals currently in employer plans to switch to the credits;
  • More federal spending via the refundable tax credits;
  • A tax increase—a cap on the current exclusion for employer-provided health coverage—to pay for the new spending on the credits; and
  • An increase in the uninsured (compared to Obamacare) of at least 15 million—nearly as much as repealing the law outright.

Details of the bill are changing constantly, and no doubt House leadership will claim these figures pertain to prior drafts of the legislation. But even if those numbers reflect outdated drafts, the combination of major re-writes to the bill and the lack of a CBO score at any point in the process thus far should cause significant pause on Capitol Hill. Members are being asked to vote on legislation before knowing its full effects, or even how it will look in its final version.

Coverage Quicksand

According to CBO, the combination of a cap on the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, coupled with an age-rated tax credit for insurance, created a dynamic where expanding health insurance coverage was all but impossible.

An age-rated credit provides much greater incentive for firms to drop coverage, because all workers, not just low-income ones, can qualify for the credit. Moreover, because an age-rated credit provides the same subsidy to all individuals, regardless of income, low-income enrollees—the only individuals who have enrolled on exchanges in significant numbers—would have much less financial incentive to purchase insurance than they do under Obamacare, hence the lower coverage numbers overall.

On their bill, House Republicans put themselves in coverage quicksand. The more they thrashed to get out of the quicksand—by increasing the subsidies or adjusting the cap on the employer exclusion, or both—the deeper they sank, by increasing the erosion of employer-sponsored insurance.

Means-Tested Credit

Moving to a means-tested credit would create the same disincentives to work—individuals taking fewer shifts, or working fewer hours, for fear of losing their subsidies—as Obamacare itself. Here’s what Speaker Ryan’s Better Way document, released last summer, said about the current law:

Obamacare penalizes work. The law’s employer mandate and definition of a ‘full-time’ employee play a significant role in reduced hours, wages, and jobs. Even more critically, Obamacare’s subsidies themselves are riddled with cliffs and phase-outs, and the law includes a direct tax on work. Taken as a whole, CBO found that the law’s policies discourage work in such a way that it will be as if 2 million full-time jobs vanish from the economy by 2025. Our plan would repeal those taxes and work disincentives and implement a flat, simple form of assistance that would grow the economy and ensure work pays.

If House Republicans have turned on a dime, and re-embraced means-tested credits after criticizing them for several years, their plan will have at least some of the same work disincentives as Obamacare. Moreover, a means-tested credit also creates administrative complexities—reconciling payments made based on estimated income with actual income at the end of the year—that make it tougher to implement, as the Obamacare experience has demonstrated.

Obamacare’s Moment of Truth

On Thursday, Sen. Rand Paul sparked a Twitter meme, searching through the Capitol for copies of House Republicans’ current version of “replace” legislation. While Paul raised a valid point about the need for a transparent process, he might have been better served to search for a CBO score of the legislation, for that will show where the rubber meets the road on the bill’s fiscal effects.

House leadership has yet to release any budgetary scores of their legislation, yet apparently plan on marking up the bill this week—before a CBO score becomes available. Given the ways in which several drafts have prompted CBO to warn about a massive erosion of employer-sponsored health coverage, the phrase Caveat emptor applies. Members who vote for a bill without knowing its full fiscal effects, yet will be held politically responsible for said effects, do so entirely at their own risk.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Big Hospital’s Obamacare Hypocrisy

As Republicans prepare legislation to repeal Obamacare, the health care industrial complex has raised a host of concerns. Notably, two hospital associations recently released a report highlighting the supposed negative implications of the reconciliation bill Congress passed, and President Obama vetoed, in January 2016.

While the hospitals allege that repealing Obamacare would decimate their industry, their report cleverly omits four inconvenient truths.

1. They Pushed Bad Ideas Because They Expect Bailouts

In August 2010 at an American Enterprise Institute forum, then-Medicare actuary Rick Foster engaged in a discussion with Chip Kahn, president of the Federation of American Hospitals, about the effects of Obamacare. The non-partisan actuary asked Kahn a simple question: Why did his industry agree to a series of so-called productivity adjustments, which lower hospitals’ Medicare reimbursement rates every year forever, in exchange for a one-time increase in their number of insured patients?

Kahn gave a simple, yet cynical, reply: “You could say, did you make a bad deal, and fortunately, I don’t think I’ll probably be working after 2020 [Laughter.]….I’m glad my contract only goes another six years. [Laughter.]”

Fast-forward those six years to last fall, when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed the effects of various Obamacare provisions on hospital margins. The report concluded that even under the best-case scenario—in which hospitals achieve a level of efficiency non-partisan experts doubt they can reach—the revenue from Obamacare’s coverage expansions will barely offset the negative effects of the productivity adjustments. Under the worst-case scenario, more than half of hospitals could become unprofitable by 2025, and the entire industry could face negative profit margins.

Responding to the CBO report, the Federation of American Hospitals put out a statement from none other than Chip Kahn, wailing that “Medicare cuts are taking a punishing toll on the hospitals that serve all of us.” Translation: “Save me from my own stupidity—and the bad deal I cut six years ago!”

Kahn knew full well in August 2010 that Obamacare would eventually decimate his industry, through the cumulative effect of year-over-year reductions in Medicare payments. The laughter during his comments demonstrates Kahn thought it was one big joke. He and his colleagues cynically calculated first that they wouldn’t be around when those payment reductions really started to bite; and second that Congress would bail the hospitals out of their own bad deal—essentially, that hospitals are “too big to fail.”

2. Hospitals Supported Raiding Medicare to Pay for Obamacare

Last year’s reconciliation bill essentially undid the fiscal legerdemain that allowed Obamacare to pass in the first place. In the original 2010 legislation, Democrats used savings from Medicare both to improve the solvency of Medicare (at least on paper) and to fund the new entitlements.

The reconciliation bill would have repealed the new entitlements, and—in a truly novel concept—used Obamacare’s Medicare savings to…save Medicare. Instead, the hospital industry wants to continue the budget gimmickry that allows Medicare money to be spent twice and used for other projects.

3. Hospitals Believe Entitlements Are for Them, Not You

Last year, researchers from MIT released a major paper using the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment—in which winners of a random lottery won the right to Medicaid benefits, while others did not—to calculate the utility of Medicaid coverage. The study found that most beneficiaries valued their coverage at between 20 and 40 cents on the dollar. In other words, if given the choice between Medicaid coverage valued at $3,000 and cash in the amount of $1,500, most beneficiaries would take the cash.

In theory, individuals receiving cash contributions in lieu of Medicaid coverage could improve their health in all sorts of ways—buy healthier food, obtain transportation to a higher-paying job, move to a better apartment closer to parks and recreation. But who would object to giving patients cash to improve their health instead of insurance? You guessed it: Hospitals.

Hospitals view Medicaid as their entitlement, not their patients’. That’s why hospitals have worked so hard for Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. It’s also why they wouldn’t support diverting money from coverage into other programs (e.g., education, housing, nutrition, etc.) that could actually improve patients’ health more than insurance, which has been demonstrated not to improve physical health outcomes.

4. Insisting Health Care Is Their Personal Jobs Program

Hospitals will claim that repealing Obamacare will cost industry jobs, just as they pushed for states to expand Medicaid as a way to create jobs. But economic experts on both sides of the aisle find this argument frivolous at best. As Zeke Emanuel, a former Obama administration official, has noted: “Health care is about keeping people healthy or fixing them up when they get sick. It is not a jobs program.”

Likewise, conservative economist Katherine Baicker has questioned “The Health Care Jobs Fallacy.” All spending will create jobs, one way or another. After all, if you’re looking to keep people employed, paying them to dig ditches and fill them in again will do the trick. But Baicker notes that it’s a far different thing to argue that health care represents the best and most efficient use of resources—better than, say, building roads and bridges, lowering taxes, or even repaying the deficit.

The health-care sector seems to believe they have a God-given right to consume at least one-sixth of the economy (and growing). Rebutting hospitals’ argument—that they, and only they, can create jobs—might represent the first step in lowering health costs, which would help non-health sectors of the economy grow more quickly.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

What’s Blocking Consensus on Health Care

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell ruling, some have argued that a more bipartisan approach to health policy may emerge. But fundamental philosophical disagreements between liberals and conservatives suggest that rapprochement will be difficult.

Philosophical disagreements played into in the debate over pre-Obamacare health coverage. Many conservatives argued that people should be allowed to keep their plans (as the president originally promised). Most also want to liberalize the ACA’s definition of “insurance.” That involves widening the age rating bands—older people will pay a little more, so younger people can buy cheaper policies—and eliminating some benefit requirements so that, to use a frequently cited example, single men don’t have to purchase pregnancy coverage and retired couples don’t have to buy plans that cover well-baby visits. In a speech in October 2013, just after the failed HealthCare.gov launch, President Barack Obama talked about how some Americans have “cut-rate plans that don’t offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.” The administration had always wanted to eliminate some plans. Political pressure and the technical meltdowns of many exchanges upon their launch that fall forced the administration to extend the period for which some plans were grandfathered. But this was a temporary concession to political reality; its objective has not changed.

Another example of administration flexibility working toward its preferred ends involves the program that allows states to seek years-long waivers from certain provisions of the ACA. By one argument, the “State Innovation Waiver” would allow states to “alter the ACA’s generous ‘minimum essential benefits’ requirements,” which mandate types of coverage. Some of those requirements involve coverage that many people don’t want or need, and that contribute to insurance premium increases. Language in section 1332 of the ACA says that states using a waiver must cover as many individuals, with at least as comprehensive insurance benefits. In other words, states can alter the “minimum essential benefits”—but only in a way that makes them more generous, not less so. If states want to prioritize resources for certain groups—say, individuals with disabilities—over coverage of able-bodied adults, the “flexibility” in Obamacare would prove elusive.

The administration has also been inflexible about some approaches to state Medicaid expansion. Utah proposed adding job search requirements as part of broadening the program, but the administration refused to go along. Last year, Pennsylvania’s then-governor, Tom Corbett (R), proposed a mandatory work/job-search requirement, but administration opposition led to the proposal becoming a voluntary job referral service.

Ideally, states function as laboratories of democracy, and one state’s experiments can spark broader national trends. But when it comes to health care, the administration and Obamacare are offering little flexibility to states whose leaders have differing philosophical objectives. This suggests that, at least in the near term, bipartisan health experiments will remain an elusive goal.

This post was originally published at the Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank blog.

Medicaid Expansion and the Economy

Last week, the White House released a report outlining the economic benefits to states of expanding Medicaid. The report continues a line of argument the Obama administration has used in encouraging states to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, the president’s health-care law.

The administration faces several obstacles in attempting to sell this argument to reluctant states.

The first is the argument I outlined yesterday—namely, the “poverty trap” exacerbated by several elements of Obamacare. In addition to concluding that the law as a whole will reduce the size of the labor force by the equivalent of approximately 2.3 million full-time workers in 2021, the Congressional Budget Office specifically has found that “expanded Medicaid eligibility under [the law] will, on balance, reduce incentives to work.” For instance, while individuals who exceed the threshold for Medicaid eligibility will likely become eligible for subsidized premiums on insurance exchanges, they would also become subject to thousands of dollars in premium payments and cost-sharing—all because of a potentially small increase in income. CBO has found that these kinds of “cliffs” discourage work.

Second, the Obama administration has rejected requests from states to impose work or job-search requirements in conjunction with the Medicaid expansion. While the administration has claimed to offer flexibility to states when it comes to altering the Medicaid benefit, it has steadfastly refused to consider any mandatory work or job-search requirement. Given the CBO’s analysis, the administration faces a rhetorical challenge in explaining how expansion can benefit the economy yet simultaneously reduce incentives to work—particularly as it declines to give states the ability through work requirements to mitigate against those disincentives.

Additionally, the White House report solely examines the benefits of increased federal funding to states without examining the source of that funding. Most notably, the health law included more than 18 tax increases, which according to the most recent CBO estimates will raise over $1 trillion in revenue—with obvious dampening effects on state economies. 

Perhaps most importantly, various economists, including Harvard’s Katherine Baicker, have dismissed the notion that health care should serve as an economic engine. While the administration claims states that expand Medicaid will grow their economies, it has made no attempt to argue that expansion represents the most economically efficient use of those dollars—that the funds could not be better used building roads, returned to citizens, or even remain in the Treasury to reduce the federal deficit. In that sense, then, the administration might do well to heed one of its own former officials—Ezekiel Emanuel, former official in the Office of Management and Budget: “Health care is about keeping people healthy or fixing them up when they get sick. It is not a jobs program.”

This post was originally published at the Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank blog.

CBO’s Dynamic Scoring and Obamacare’s “Poverty Trap”

Congressional Budget Office Director Keith Hall testified before the House Budget Committee last week about how dynamic scoring–considering macroeconomic effects of legislative proposals–affects the agency’s work. It could have a major effect on entitlement spending proposals.

Most of the debate over dynamic scoring has focused on the economic impact of tax cuts and government spending. Dr. Hall’s testimony highlighted a less discussed but equally important related element: the way that means-tested government programs lower economic growth by effectively raising marginal tax rates. For instance, a single mother making $20,000 per year might pay not only 15 cents in taxes for every additional dollar of income raised; her eligibility for food stamps, Medicaid, and the Earned Income Tax Credit might also be reduced or eliminated. The Urban Institute’s Gene Steuerle has calculated that these programs amount to a “poverty trap” for families of modest means by taking away as much as 80 cents out of every dollar in added income through a combination of higher taxes and reduced government benefits.

CBO has conducted two analyses related to Obamacare that showed that the health law would exacerbate this—discouraging work and reducing the size of the labor force. The first analysis, released in August 2010, found that the law would reduce the U.S. work force by about half of one percentage point–the equivalent of approximately 800,000 workers by 2021. The second, released in February 2014, roughly tripled that estimate to 1.5% to 2% of the labor force, or about 2.3 million workers in 2021.

I have written previously about CBO’s analysis of the Affordable Care Act and the impact of dynamic scoring under the agency’s previous director, Doug Elmendorf. In his testimony last week, Dr. Hall said that the reduction in government revenues caused by the way Obamacare discourages work is likely to lower the cost of repealing the law.

As Dr. Hall noted, these are early days for CBO’s obligations of dynamic scoring for major legislation. But to the extent that debates over dynamic scoring focus on whether tax cuts or economic stimulus measures “pay for themselves” through greater economic growth, they miss an important issue. The poverty trap that government policies have created — and possibly was exacerbated by Obamacare — by providing a disincentive for people to take on initiatives that might raise their incomes impedes economic growth and hinders the ability of millions of Americans to achieve their dreams.

This post was originally published at the Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank blog.

CBO, Transparency, and Obamacare’s Deficit Impact

Before a House rules change in January, CBO generally had not applied “dynamic scoring” to major legislation, or considered likely macro-economic effects when analyzing a bill’s potential impact on the deficit. On Friday, in response to follow-up questions from a January congressional hearing, CBO said that had it conducted such an analysis of Obamacare, it would have found that the bill reduced the federal deficit by less than its original projections.

In short: Because CBO believes the health-care law will discourage work, it would lower federal revenues—but the agency did not consider the revenue impacts of these effects in 2010, when it projected that the law would reduce the federal deficit.

Although CBO does not usually estimate macroeconomic effects of major bills, it has done this. In 2013 the agency “relaxed” its score-keeping convention with respect to immigration legislation in the Senate, concluding that the bills under consideration would increase the labor supply and economic growth and thus federal revenues. Both the 2013 Senate immigration bill and Obamacare would have altered the U.S. workforce by millions of workers. That CBO went to great lengths to estimate the macroeconomic and fiscal effects of Senate legislation never enacted but has yet to do so with Obamacare raises questions about the agency’s policies for scoring legislative measures.

CBO has conducted two analyses of the health-care law’s impact on labor markets, but these did not say that the law’s effects on the labor force would impact its potential deficit reduction. The first analysis, released in August 2010, said that Obamacare would reduce the workforce by about half a percent, or approximately 800,000 workers, by 2021. The second analysis, released in February 2014, roughly tripled that estimate, to 1.5% to 2% of the labor force—the equivalent of approximately 2.3 million workers in 2021. CBO could have publicly stated that these labor-force changes, and the related revenue effects, would negatively affect the deficit, even if it could not specify by how much.

CBO said last summer that it would no longer produce estimates for the fiscal impact of the health law as a whole. It also declined to release a score of legislation repealing the law before last month’s House vote. In a blogpost last June, Mr. Elmendorf wrote that CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation “have no reason to think that their initial [March 2010] assessment that the ACA would reduce budget deficits was incorrect.” But the agency’s statement on Friday illustrates that the 2010 deficit assessment was incomplete and could be incorrect. CBO appears to have no intention of correcting this flaw or revealing Obamacare’s true fiscal impact.

CBO’s statement Friday was released to select congressional offices the same day Keith Hall was named as Mr. Elmendorf’s replacement. As CBO’s past analyses of Obamacare’s impact on the labor market received much press fanfare, the down-playing of this information seems straight out of “The West Wing.”

One hopes that under Dr. Hall’s leadership CBO will address a few issues, including a revised score of Obamacare that accounts for the legislation’s impact on labor markets and a broader discussion about the need to consider macroeconomic effects when analyzing bills as large in size and scope as the 2,700-page health-care law. CBO is accountable to Congress and taxpayers; it can act accordingly starting with more transparency.

This post was originally published at the Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank blog.

Morning Bell: Obamacare Undermines American Values

We wrote earlier this week about the ways Obamacare discourages marriage and work. These aren’t the only traditional values it undermines.

Obamacare goes against two values that should be no-brainers: prioritizing American citizens over non-citizens, and prioritizing help for the disabled over assistance for able-bodied adults.

Prioritizing Non-Citizens Over American Citizens

Obamacare includes special provisions that allow many legal, non-citizen residents to qualify for federally subsidized insurance and, in so doing, offers these non-citizens more and better coverage options than American citizens.

The law as implemented creates two inequities that put American citizens at a disadvantage compared with non-citizens.

First, in states that expand their Medicaid programs, citizens with incomes under 138 percent of the federal poverty level will be automatically enrolled into Medicaid, while non-citizens will receive subsidies to purchase coverage in the Obamacare exchange.

Several studies show that patients with Medicaid coverage have worse outcomes than the uninsured, and some Medicaid beneficiaries do not consider the program “real insurance.” Yet Obamacare dumps millions of American citizens into this troubled program, even as it grants many non-citizens the opportunity to pick health plans of their choosing.

Second, in states that do not expand their Medicaid programs, non-citizens will be able to purchase subsidized health insurance in the exchanges, while American citizens below 100 percent of the poverty line may not qualify for subsidized coverage at all.

It simply doesn’t make sense to offer non-citizens more and better coverage options than American citizens. This potentially encourages immigration to the United States by those seeking to benefit from taxpayer-funded welfare programs, which increases the incentives for people not to become citizens, and thus full, integral members of our civic society.

Prioritizing Able-Bodied Adults Over Disabled Americans

A public safety net is necessary for those truly in need. But by spending more than $700 billion on its massive Medicaid expansion, Obamacare puts a greater emphasis on covering able-bodied adults than the disabled, which Medicaid was originally intended to serve.

By extending health coverage to those who should be able to work, Obamacare could jeopardize the coverage of disabled Americans. And by subsidizing health coverage for millions of unemployed and underemployed, Obamacare could accelerate the development of a permanent underclass that has little financial incentive to work.

Given its poor outcomes for patients, Medicaid needs significant changes. However, true reform cannot come from adding able-bodied adults to an already overburdened program. Instead, Congress should focus on improving Medicaid’s quality of care, while restoring its emphasis on providing a safety net for the truly needy.

This post was originally published at the Daily Signal.

Morning Bell: How Obamacare Discourages Work and Marriage

We were told that Obamacare was supposed to be compassionate toward the needy in America.

While President Obama and his fellow liberals may have held the best of intentions while ramming Obamacare through Congress, the law’s policies are far from compassionate toward the uninsured and Americans with low and modest incomes.

In fact, the law perpetuates some of the country’s worst trends that trap people in poverty. It includes disincentives for individuals to marry and for Americans of low and modest incomes to work. Discouraging work and marriage will only perpetuate poverty and income inequality, not alleviate them.

Discouraging Work

The way Obamacare calculates federal premium subsidies and cost-sharing subsidies includes several “cliffs.” A person might qualify for a hefty subsidy at his current income, but if he gets a raise and makes a little more, that Obamacare subsidy disappears.

At these cliffs, individuals and families will actually benefit more by working less because additional earnings could cause them to lose thousands of dollars in taxpayer-funded subsidies.

Families facing these kinds of poverty traps may ask the obvious question: If I will lose so much in government benefits by earning additional income, why work?

Rather than encouraging hard work, initiative, and entrepreneurship, Obamacare instead undermines these essential American values.

Discouraging Marriage

Obamacare contains not one, but two penalties on marriage—one for families with low and moderate incomes and another for families with higher incomes. By continuing failed policies that undermine the institution of marriage, Obamacare will accelerate a root cause of income inequality in the United States.

Here’s an example. A 50-year-old non-smoker making $35,000 per year would qualify for a sizable insurance subsidy, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s insurance subsidy calculator. The individual’s premium would be capped at 9.5 percent of income, resulting in an insurance subsidy of $2,065 paid by the federal government.

However, if this 50-year-old is married to another 50-year-old who also makes $35,000 per year, the couple would receive no insurance subsidy at all. This couple would incur a marriage penalty of $4,130 in one year—equal to the $2,065 that each individual could have received if they were not married.

As Urban Institute fellow Gene Steuerle has said: “Our tax and welfare system thus favors those who consider marriage an option—to be avoided when there are penalties and engaged when there are bonuses. The losers tend to be those who consider marriage to be sacred.”

Obamacare sends a clear message that reliance on government is preferable to these traditional American values—work and marriage.

Our health care policy should not be undermining these foundations of society. For a more commonsense approach to health care reform, check this out.

This post was originally published at the Daily Signal.

Washington versus the American People

Various press reports indicate that Congress is preparing to announce a “deal” that would allow Obamacare to move forward virtually uninterrupted. If that is what happens, such as a “grand bargain” may be a political win inside the Beltway but a loss for the American people.

It’s a loss for the Americans who are losing their health insurance due to Obamacare. It’s a loss for the workers who have lost their jobs due to the law. It’s a loss for those who will pay more next year for their health insurance. And it’s a loss for future generations, who will pay the price for Obamacare’s trillions of dollars in spending.

This debate has never been about satisfying one political party or another; it’s been about common-sense solutions that protect the American people from Obamacare. And the materializing “deal” ensures their pleas to Washington for relief from the health law’s burdens will, for the moment at least, fall on deaf ears.

This post was originally published at the Daily Signal.

Report Reveals Obamacare’s Side Effects: Higher Costs, Fewer Jobs

What will Obamacare mean for American businesses? Higher costs, according to a report released yesterday from consultants at Mercer.

Here are the preliminary results from Mercer’s annual survey of large employers about the impact of Obamacare:

Costs Continue to Rise: Despite the moderating effects of the recession in dampening consumer demand, “employers expect health benefit cost per employee will rise by 4.8 percent on average in 2014.” Recall that then-Senator Obama promised in 2008 that his health plan would lower health costs by an average of $2,500 per family.

Obamacare’s Mandates Hitting Many Businesses: “About a third of all large employer health plan sponsors (those with 500 or more employees) do not currently offer coverage to all employees working 30 or more hours per week, as will be required under the [law] beginning in 2015. Industries that rely heavily on part-time workers will be the hardest hit by this rule. About half of respondents in retail and hospitality currently do not offer coverage to all employees working 30 or more hours per week.”

Obamacare Will Raise Costs by at Least 2 Percent for Majority of Firms: “When asked to consider the impact of higher enrollment and new [Obamacare] fees…about half of the employers surveyed say they will spend at least 2% more on health benefits in 2014 – over and above the normal increase in cost. Another third are unable to predict. Only about a fifth of employers are confident that [Obamacare] will have little or no impact on spending in 2014.” The Mercer consultants also pointed out that Obamacare could impose additional costs on businesses once the delayed employer mandate takes effect in 2015.

More Workers Will See Their Hours Cut: “Some employers will minimize the number of newly eligible employees by cutting back on hours for at least a portion of their workforce – 11% of all large employers say they will do so.”

The impact of Obamacare on the American economy is well-documented, and growing. It’s why Congress needs to stop Obamacare now.

This post was originally published at the Daily Signal.