What An Employer Mandate for Health Insurance Might Look Like

July 3, 2009

By Goldstein

Swimming against the corporate tide, Wal-Mart yesterday sent an open letter to

President Obama supporting a federal mandate that would require most employers

to contribute to their workers' health-insurance coverage. Here's the letter

that was cosigned by the leaders of SEIU, the huge union, and by a left-leaning

think tank; here's the story from this morning's WSJ.

The employer mandate has been opposed by many Republicans and by most business

groups, who argue that it could force business to cut jobs or lower wages. Those

who support the mandate say employers should take some responsibility for health

insurance, and warn that the absence of a mandate could encourage businesses to

cut benefits.

While we wait to see how the backing of the nation's largest private employer

changes the political calculus in Washington, it's worth taking a look at what a

mandate might look like.

As the WSJ noted late last month a few different options have been bouncing

around. The all-important Senate Finance Committee has been considering

requiring businesses to pay 50% of the cost if their employees ended up on

Medicaid, or 100% of the cost if the employees received government subsidies to

help purchase insurance through new health-insurance exchanges.

House Democrats have created a plan that would require employers to provide

coverage to workers, or contribute 8% of their payroll outlays toward the cost

of insuring workers. Small businesses would get an exemption. The Senate Health

panel has also called for an employer mandate, though the details remain

unclear.

The head of the Congressional Budget Office, the group that estimates the

long-term cost of health-reform proposals, has said that some sort of

requirement for employers will be an essential piece of keeping health-reform

costs under control for the government, CongressDaily recently reported.

ance-might-look-like/

Recommended Posts