Yesterday's McPaper characterized one aspect of the ObamaTax pricing regime as the "Family Glitch:"
"Congress defined "affordable" as 9.5% or less of an employee's household income ... the "error" was that it only applies to the employee — and not his or her family. So, if an employer offers a woman affordable insurance, but doesn't provide it for her family, they cannot get subsidized help through the state health exchanges."
Why is this both an "error" and a "glitch?" And why presume in the first place that it was not, in fact, intentional? After all, even the folks in Capital City had to foreseen how many employers would bedumping shifting their employees (and retirees) onto the Exchanges in an effort to gain some control over the financial hurdles being placed before them.
Our Elected Betters© wouldn't have done something stupid, right?
Right?
"Congress defined "affordable" as 9.5% or less of an employee's household income ... the "error" was that it only applies to the employee — and not his or her family. So, if an employer offers a woman affordable insurance, but doesn't provide it for her family, they cannot get subsidized help through the state health exchanges."
Why is this both an "error" and a "glitch?" And why presume in the first place that it was not, in fact, intentional? After all, even the folks in Capital City had to foreseen how many employers would be
Our Elected Betters© wouldn't have done something stupid, right?
Right?
Posts
