Health care law foes seek delay
WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans pressed President Obama on Tuesday to delay a requirement under his health care law for Americans to obtain insurance next year because the administration gave employers a one-year reprieve from having to provide it to staff.
The Treasury and White House announced last week that businesses would not be required to offer health coverage, or pay a fine, in 2014 because the administration had not issued final regulations in time for employers to comply.
The move sparked a new wave of Republican efforts to discredit Obama's health care reform law and raised questions about whether the effort will be enacted as planned.
In a letter to Obama signed by Speaker John Boehner and 10 other leading House Republicans, they asked for a detailed explanation of the delay of the “employer mandate,” asking for a reply from the president by Aug. 1.
“Please ... provide to Congress your justification for only delaying the employer mandate at this time and not the new mandate on individuals and families,” they wrote. “We agree with you that the burden was overwhelming for employers, but we also believe American families need the same relief.”
But White House spokesman Jay Carney said the individual mandate would go forward because Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides financial assistance to help lower-income people pay for insurance while exempting those who cannot afford coverage.
“Next year, millions of Americans will get the help they need to purchase quality health insurance they currently cannot afford,” he said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Military pilot was killed in Va. crash
- U.S. waffling on ISIS feeds confusion among possible allies
- Military: Pilot was killed in Virginia F-15 crash
- Study examines body’s bacteria on move indoors
- Judge reaffirms Texas’ ‘Robin Hood’ system of school funding unconstitutional
- Ferguson sued over police actions amid riots
- Arizona county clears girl shooter in gun range death
- Senate to look at earthquake risks at California nuke plant
- Police: Drugs, alcohol not factors in Freeh crash
- Obama backs off immigration vow
- White House ricochets in nonprofits’ birth control coverage fray