All Sections
Welcome guest, you have 2 views left. | Register | Sign In

Obamacare says what? Not even Congress knows

Politico reported last week that leaders in Congress were busy working on a secret deal to exempt themselves and their aides from Obamacare. Then again, maybe they were not, other outlets reported. Regardless of whether this was a fix or an end-run (it appears to be an attempt to fix problematic language), it is a sign of numerous bad things to come.

Three years after Obamacare became law, Congress cannot agree on what it actually says. Most of the lawmakers arguing about it were in office three years ago. This is a law they were supposed to have read. Yet they cannot decide on the meaning of a single provision governing the law's applicability to Congress. How are employers supposed to understand the entire thing?

As Congress struggles to understand and comply with what it passed, so do employers. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported last week that colleges and universities are reducing the hours worked by adjunct faculty because of Obamacare. Adjuncts typically are not paid by the hour, but by the course. Obamacare mandates health insurance coverage for full-time employees of all "large" employers. Adjuncts now have to track their hours, like lawyers do, and their employers are pushing them to cut back to ensure that they are counted as part-time.

These kinds of bureaucratic headaches are being replicated all over America, from mom-and-pop businesses to Congress. And more of them are coming. It is one heck of a way to find out what is in the law.


To improve the chance of seeing your comment posted here or published in the New Hampshire Union Leader:

  • Identify yourself. Accounts using fake or incomplete names are suspended regardless of the quality of posts.
  • Say something new, stay on topic, keep it short.
  • Links to outside URLs are discouraged, if used they should be on topic.
  • Avoid comments in bad taste, write well, avoid using all capital letters
  • Don't cite facts about individuals or businesses without providing a means to verify the claim
  • If you see an objectionable comment please click the "Report Abuse" button and be sure to tell us why.

Note: Comments are the opinion of the respective poster and not of the publisher.

Be the first to comment.

Post a comment

You must sign in before you can post comments. If you are experiencing issues with your account please e-mail

More Editorials

Parks problem: 'Emergency' funding for leaf peepers

   4   Editorials PUBLISHED - 8:39 pm 8/27  

Gun violence up? No, it's been falling for decades

   14   Editorials PUBLISHED - 8:39 pm 8/27  

A bad indicator: City gets a spending warning

   39   Editorials PUBLISHED - 9:27 pm 8/26  

On guns: Bernie is better

   49   Editorials PUBLISHED - 9:27 pm 8/26  

Manchester rising: National recognition helps

   4   Editorials PUBLISHED - 9:22 pm 8/25  

Not so E-ZPass: DOT needs to step it up

   6   Editorials PUBLISHED - 9:22 pm 8/25  

Good lesson learned: See something, say something

   4   Editorials PUBLISHED - 7:58 pm 8/24  

What you should know: The 'open government' fraud

   10   Editorials PUBLISHED - 2:49 pm 8/23  

Olympian trains? Study is a lesson for NH rail

   21   Editorials PUBLISHED - 2:49 pm 8/23  

Business steps up: Stressing the need for power

   14   Editorials PUBLISHED - 9:35 pm 8/22  

NH Angle - Editorials