Sometimes liberals pretend to care about how much things will cost taxpayers. Recently, the CBO reported that the 20-week abortion ban would increase government spending by as much as $400 million because of all the additional people being born that would have otherwise been aborted in utero. If we can keep the population down to a “reasonable” level, government spending will also be reduced. “How can a ‘fiscal conservative’ be against that?” Democrats might have asked.
Compared to the national debt, $400 million is a microscopic drop in the bucket. But a slightly larger drop is the cost of Obama’s all-of-a-sudden, one-year delay of the employer mandate. And this delay wasn’t mandated by the GOP. The Obama administration called for it, so this is on them.
Reuters reported that because of the mandate delay, employers won’t be making any non-compliance penalty payments. And since about half of those employees who would have received coverage through their employer won’t be receiving insurance through their jobs, they’ll be looking at receiving government subsidies:
“Most large employers already offer health insurance and CBO said few are expected to drop coverage because of the delay. But the change will still result in a $10 billion reduction in penalty payments that some employers would have made in 2015 for failing to provide coverage next year, CBO said. The change also means another $3 billion in added costs for exchange subsidies. That is because about half of the 1 million workers who would have gained employer-sponsored coverage next year will now obtain insurance through the exchanges or via public programs including Medicaid, CBO said. Other changes, including an increase in taxable compensation resulting from fewer people enrolling in employment-based coverage, will offset those factors by about $1 billion.”
So, the delay itself will be costing taxpayers. Imagine how much it will cost once the delay is over. The CBO estimates that over the next 10 years as Obamacare is rolled out, it’ll cost $1.38 trillion (with a “t”). I’m sure even that’s low-balling it.