Major news out of the White House was covered widely last night through Wednesday morning: the delay of the Affordable Care Act\u2019s employer mandate saw three minutes of coverage across all network broadcasts, and is on the front-page of several national papers.<\/p>\n
The political implications of the delay, and the suggestion that it was intended to help Congressional Democrats grappling with criticism of the ACA ahead of next year\u2019s elections, are covered by inside-the-beltway publications. But the midterms angle is not the focus of much of this morning\u2019s print coverage, nor was it mentioned during the network newscasts. These outlets report mainly on the criticism that led to the delay, and what it means for the Affordable Care Act at such a critical time in its implementation. Notably, it was not HHS, but the Treasury Department, that announced the delay. As such, no major HHS officials are quoted regarding the news.<\/p>\n
NBC Nightly News<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/2, Story 2, 1:20, Williams) reported that Tuesday night, the Obama Administration announced it was postponing a major Affordable Care Act provision, \u201cdelaying penalties for large employers who don\u2019t provide health insurance coverage to their workers for a full year.\u201d NBC\u2019s Peter Alexander added, \u201cThe White House insists this will be its opportunity to help simplify the process.\u201d<\/p>\n The\u00a0CBS Evening News<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/2, Story 2, 1:10, O’Donnell) reported on the \u201clate word from the White House,\u201d that \u201ca central component of President Obama\u2019s healthcare overhaul will be delayed for a year.\u201d Wyatt Andrews noted that the move comes \u201cafter months of complaints and backlash.\u201d He added that with the extra time, the Administration is \u201cpromising to reduce\u201d the burdens of the employer mandate on smaller companies, and to ensure that they do not follow through on threats of layoffs or reduced hours. According to Andrews, \u201cWorkers will still be allowed to buy their own health insurance on a state exchange. … The only thing that changes here is that their employers won\u2019t be penalized next year if they do.\u201d<\/p>\n And in a brief segment, ABC World News (7\/2, story 7, 0:30, Sawyer) called the delay \u201csurprising,\u201d noting that the Obama Administration \u201csays it wants to simplify the requirements to make it less confusing.\u201d<\/p>\n On its front page, the\u00a0New York Times<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, A1, Calmes, Subscription Publication) reports that in announcing the delay of the employer mandate, the Obama Administration was both \u201cresponding to business complaints and postponing the effective date beyond next year\u2019s midterm elections.\u201d The article adds that while \u201cthe change does not affect other central provisions of the law,\u201d it may complicate efforts of \u201cofficials running the exchanges to know who is entitled to subsidies if they are not able to confirm whether employers are offering insurance to their employees.\u201d<\/p>\n On its front page, the\u00a0Washington Post<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/2, A1, Goldfarb, Somashekhar) calls the news \u201ca fresh setback for President Obama\u2019s landmark health-care overhaul as it enters a critical phase.\u201d And while the White House \u201cportrayed the delay as a common-sense step that would reduce financial and regulatory burdens on small businesses,\u201d Republicans, \u201cwho are planning to target \u2018Obamacare\u2019 in the 2014 midterm campaigns, said the delay is an acknowledgment that the health-care overhaul is flawed.\u201d<\/p>\n Also on its front page, the\u00a0Wall Street Journal<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, A1, Radnofsky, Subscription Publication) notes that the mandate, which was to levy penalties on all companies with 50 or more full-time workers not providing them with insurance, had faced a torrent of criticism from restaurant and retail industries, who had threatened to cut workers or hours to avoid the penalties. As such, the mandate had received significant negative media attention for threatening the wages or employment of low-wage workers in an already weak economy.<\/p>\n To that point, on its front page,\u00a0USA Today<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, A1, Kennedy) reports that \u201cbusiness groups had argued for months that the law created an administrative burden for businesses as they tried to update technology and plan to offer health coverage to their employees without knowing how much the coverage would cost.\u201d<\/p>\n On its front page, the\u00a0Los Angeles Times<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/2, A1, Levey) reports that the announcement was made \u201clate Tuesday\u201d in a post to the Treasury Department\u2019s website. Assistant Secretary for tax policy Mark J. Mazur wrote, \u201cWe have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively. We recognize that the vast majority of businesses that will need to do this reporting already provide health insurance to their workers, and we want to make sure it is easy for others to do so.\u201d<\/p>\n Another representative of the White House spoke out Tuesday, as\u00a0CNN<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Liptak) reports \u201cObama\u2019s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett \u2013 who acts as the White House\u2019s liaison to big business \u2013 wrote the new delay was indicative of the administration\u2019s determination to implement the health care law effectively and fairly, and that it wouldn\u2019t affect other aspects of Obamacare.\u201d She wrote, \u201cWhile major portions of the law have yet to be implemented, it\u2019s already a little more affordable for businesses to offer quality health coverage to their employees. As we implement this law, we have and will continue to make changes as needed. In our ongoing discussions with businesses we have heard that you need the time to get this right.\u201d<\/p>\n Larry Kudlow began Tuesday\u2019s CNBC Kudlow Report (7\/3) with news of the delay. CNBC\u2019s Bertha Coombs said that businesses were \u201capplauding the decisions,\u201d calling it a \u201cwise move.\u201d At one point, Kudlow said, \u201cI wonder whether they shouldn\u2019t delay the entire program.\u201d<\/p>\n Other sources reporting on the announcement include\u00a0Reuters<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Morgan),\u00a0McClatchy<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Pugh), the\u00a0Huffington Post<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/2, Young), the\u00a0ABC News<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Good) \u201cThe Note\u201d blog, the\u00a0NPR<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Chapell) \u201cThe Two-Way\u201d blog,\u00a0The Hill<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Sink) \u201cHealthwatch\u201d blog, the\u00a0FOX News<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3) website, the\u00a0Atlantic<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Graham), the\u00a0Atlantic Wire<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Olheiser),\u00a0Politico<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Cheney),\u00a0Modern Healthcare<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Daly, Block, Subscription Publication),\u00a0Kaiser Health News<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Carey),\u00a0New York Daily News<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Warren), the\u00a0Tulsa (OK) World<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Greene), the\u00a0Tennessean<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Wilemon),\u00a0Alabama Live<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Gore), the\u00a0Washington Business Journal<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Fischer, Subscription Publication) \u201cWBJ BizBeat\u201d blog, the\u00a0Portland (OR) Business Journal<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Hayes, Subscription Publication) \u201cHealthcare Inc. Northwest\u201d blog, the\u00a0Birmingham (AL) Business Journal<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Ranaivo, Subscription Publication) \u201cBizTalk Birmingham\u201d blog,\u00a0BBC News<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3), and the\u00a0Daily Mail (UK)<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Martosko).<\/p>\n Political Angle Of Delay Considered. Emphasizing the political angle,\u00a0The Hill<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Viebeck, Baker, Parnes) titles its report on the delay, \u201cObamaCare Employer Mandate Delayed Until After 2014 Midterms.\u201d According to The Hill, Republicans \u201cseized on the news, arguing that the delays suggested the law was a \u2018train wreck,\u2019\u201d a term used in April by Sen. Max Baucus, a Democrat and \u201cone of the primary architects\u201d of the ACA, in his warning about potential problems with the implementation of the law. The Hill reports that in contrast to Congressional Republicans, \u201cthe offices of Democratic leaders fell notably silent Tuesday evening\u201d as reporters sought comment about the delay.<\/p>\n According to\u00a0Politico<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Norman, Haberkorn), the delay is \u201cat least partial proof of what Republicans have been predicting for months: that the health law is way too complex to be ready to go live in 2014.\u201d The\u00a0Washington Times<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Howell) says Republicans \u201care sure to do a victory lap over the delay in an integral part of Mr. Obama\u2019s signature domestic achievement.\u201d<\/p>\n CQ Roll Call<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Dennis, Subscription Publication) reports that \u201cthe decision is embarrassing for the administration,\u201d and, to Republicans, it is \u201csimply more evidence that the law should be repealed.\u201d Sen. Orrin Hatch said, \u201cThat the Obama Administration is putting off this job-killing requirement on employers, but not individuals and families, shows how deeply flawed the President\u2019s signature domestic policy achievement is.\u201d<\/p>\n On the other hand, the\u00a0AP<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Alonso-Zaldivar) is reporting that the delay may help Democrats \u201cby blunting a line of attack Republicans were planning to use.\u201d<\/p>\n Similarly, Zeke Miller, in a post for\u00a0Time<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/2, Miller), reported that former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin contended that the delay is \u201cdeviously brilliant\u201d because Congressional Democrats \u201cno longer face the immediate specter of running against the fallout from a heavy regulatory imposition on employers.\u201d<\/p>\n Other politically focused reports come from sources including\u00a0CQ<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Reichard, Attias, Subscription Publication),\u00a0Kaiser Health News<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Hancock, Appleby), and the\u00a0National Journal<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Sanger-Katz, Subscription Publication).<\/p>\n Stakeholders React To Employer Mandate Delay. Reporting some of the initial reaction to the announcement,\u00a0Bloomberg News<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Dorning, Wayne) reports that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the delay is more evidence that \u201cObamacare costs too much and it isn\u2019t working the way the administration promised.\u201d And Randy Johnson, a senior VP at the US Chamber of Commerce, wrote, \u201cThe administration has finally recognized the obvious \u2013 employers need more time and clarification of the rules of the road before implementing the employer mandate.\u201d<\/p>\n Several other outlets report on reactions, including\u00a0USA Today<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/2, Kennedy), which reports that \u201cbusinesses reacted with relief.\u201d\u00a0Politico<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Cunningham) also notes that businesses \u201capplauded\u201d the delay, \u201cbut warned that the yearlong delay doesn\u2019t fix some of the law\u2019s other messy issues.\u201d Meanwhile, another piece in\u00a0Politico<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Millman) reports that the GOP \u201cgloat[ed],\u201d while\u00a0The Hill<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Sink) \u201cHealthwatch\u201d blog demonstrates this by publishing tweets and statements out of several key Republicans, including Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA).<\/p>\n Commentators Offer Analysis Of Employer Mandate Delay. Beyond just reporting the facts of the announcement, several outlets offer analysis of the delay. As Sarah Kliff puts it on the front page of the\u00a0Washington Post<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, A1, Kliff), the Obama Administration \u201cjust swapped one political headache for another.\u201d First, by delaying the mandate, \u201cthe Obama administration heads off the unseemly spectacle of companies vowing to cut jobs or workers\u2019 hours to avoid the costly mandate.\u201d However, the action \u201cis not a free pass,\u201d as it \u201ccontributes to critics\u2019 claims that the White House does not have the ability to launch its biggest legislative accomplishment on schedule.\u201d<\/p>\n Politico<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3, Haberkorn, Millman, Norman) considers the \u201cbombshell announcement,\u201d and answers \u201csix questions about what it all means.\u201d One question asks, \u201cDoes this derail Obamacare?\u201d The article responds, \u201cIt doesn\u2019t derail it. But it hurts, at least in how the public sees it and how the critics can talk about it.\u201d<\/p>\n Evan Soltas writes on the\u00a0Bloomberg News<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3) \u2018\u201cThe Ticker\u201d blog about the \u201cside effects\u201d of the delay, noting that by keeping the individual mandate in place, many employees will be \u201cforced into individual exchanges,\u201d adding \u201cadditional volume\u201d to a system already predicted to be over-burdened.<\/p>\n Also on the\u00a0Bloomberg News<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3) \u201cThe Ticker\u201d blog, Christopher Flavelle writes that the delay \u201craises two immediate questions.\u201d First, \u201ccan the White House protect other components of the law from renewed attack?\u201d And second, \u201cwhat does this say about the broader problems facing implementation?\u201d He concludes that while the law itself may not be \u201cin danger,\u201d this \u201clatest concession raises the question of what will be the next thing to go \u2013 and how many more battles the administration can afford to lose before the law is in real trouble.\u201d<\/p>\n CQ<\/a>\u00a0(7\/3, Reichard, Subscription Publication) reports that this change came about not by the \u201chighly charged political rhetoric\u201d that so often marks debate on the ACA, but a different approach, one \u201cintensely engaged with the Obama administration on implementation, and pragmatic.\u201d The piece profiles Neil Trautwein of the National Retail Federation, who \u201cearned credibility with the administration\u201d by focusing not on the demise of the law but rather on how employers could \u201ccome to terms with it as best they could.\u201d<\/p>\n Jennifer Rubin, in her\u00a0Washington Post<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3) \u201cRight Turn\u201d blog lists seven reasons this delay is a \u201chuge setback\u201d to the Affordable Care Act. First among these is that \u201cit proves the president\u2019s assurances that everything was 100 percent on track to be false.\u201d Another is that \u201cit will open the floodgates to arguments that the rest of the law should be delayed as well.\u201d<\/p>\n Ezra Klein, in his\u00a0Washington Post<\/a>\u00a0 (7\/3) \u201cWonkblog\u201d says that rather than just delay the employer mandate, it should be eliminated, or \u201cat least utterly overhaul[ed].\u201d On top of criticizing the mandate, Klein criticizes the way the Administration went about delaying it, with \u201ca regulatory end-run around Congress.\u201d<\/p>\n