The Issue: The IRS’ ruling that children needn’t be covered by a parent’s employer under ObamaCare.
***
Betsy McCaughey reports that children will not be covered under ObamaCare, and that the financial burden on middle-class families with children will, therefore, be great (“Wheels Coming Off,” PostOpinion, Feb. 11).
She cites a decision that “wisely, the IRS announced on Jan. 30 that employers won’t have to pay for dependents.”
McCaughey is no doubt right that the decision was wise, but it was also politically expedient.
Many middle-class families with children are politically conservative and are considered to be one of the Republican Party’s core constituencies.
The Obama administration is very unlikely to give any priority to the welfare of this group.
Irwin Romaner
Suffern
This is a great column, but McCaughey wrote of ObamaCare’s implementation problems as though they were not planned.
They may not have been, but many people believe for good reason — not the least of which is President Obama’s cynicism and skillful use of misdirection — that Obama wants and expects there to be a lot of people denied coverage.
Obama will then have an argument that, despite his good intentions, the insurance companies, employers and Republicans have thwarted the program, that there can be no going back to the unjust system we had before and that single-payer is our only remaining option.Tom Sheehan
Carpentersville, Ill.
McCaughey is less relevant than Sarah Palin at this point.
Take a look at Jon Stewart eviscerating her over death panels on “The Daily Show” over a year ago.
She’s a tool of the health-insurance industry.William Rugg
Westfield, NJ
I’m curious about where in the law regarding “affordable” coverage it states that an employee can’t be told to contribute more than 9.5 percent of his salary.
The rules and regulations regarding the Affordable Care Act have been less than transparent, and something like this is important for employers to be aware of.Lori Helton
Miami Beach, Fla.