Romney says no to employer assessment

The Boston Globe is reporting that, in a show of his Republican colors, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will sign the new health bill, but veto the employer assessment (you know, the paltry $295?). 

This bill is shaped with the assumption that the vast majority of employers will not drop coverage of their employees.  It does not make plans for what to do (and in particular, how they would pay for it) if that is the case.  $295 is significantly lower than originally proposed, and that number is already causing uneasiness.

Fortunately, there are more than enough Democrats to override Romney's veto.  But it still sends a message that employers shouldn't be punished for not providing insurance.  If you're like me, and you want to uncouple the employer-insurance relationship, that's just fine.  But MA hasn't planned for it, and who knows how they'll handle it if there's an exodus of employers from the system.

It's never good to leave people without a parachute, and if Romney had his way we might see a lot of people crashing to the ground as their insurance is pulled out from under them. 

Comments

[spike]

I was thinking the same thing today. It's not necessarily a bad thing because having insurance tied to your employer is so dumb anyway. Even if it will cause some short-term suffering while they scramble to cover what is, in my opinion, almost guarenteed to happen. But it will still be better in the long run because I do not believe a state like MA will allow people to just go without health insurance after they're kicked out by their employers. Then we have the end-around to a more single payer system that is separated from employment. My hope anyway.

[Lauren]

I have mixed feelings about the $295 fee myself, since I also believe that tie between employment and health coverage is archaic and inefficient, but given that it's a tie that won't be severed just yet, at least with this legislation, it seems like some kind of penalty to employers not providing coverage is appropriate.

But I find Romney's position against the fee incoherent. From the New York Times:
Mr. Romney said in an interview last week that the bill's charge of $295 per worker, which would yield about $48 million a year, was "not necessary for funding" the law. He also said that $295 was "such a small figure," much less than the cost of insurance, "that it doesn't have any significant incentive value" to encourage companies to insure their workers.

On Wednesday, Mr. Romney told reporters, "There were many businesses that have been flooding my office with calls as well as business associations that were very concerned about it," adding, "There's no reason to put an extra charge on certain employers."

So, he's saying: "This fee is so small that it won't provide any significant funding or disincentive against dropping employees from coverage, but we can't put that kind of burden on our state's companies."

Huh?