Obama 'Decided Not to Decide' Business Health Insurance Penalty

The Oct. 26 New York Times took on Sen. Barack Obama's elusive mandate for employers, picking up where Sen. John McCain left off in his debate questioning.

The Times's Kevin Sack visited Massachusetts, one of the country's experimental labs for universal health care, and talked with employers about the $295-per-employee penalty they pay for not contributing to their workers' health benefits. Sack reported:

But the penalty in Massachusetts is picayune compared with what some health experts believe Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, might impose as part of his plan to provide affordable coverage for the uninsured. Though Mr. Obama has not released details, economists believe he might require large and medium companies to contribute as much as 6 percent of their payrolls.

As an example, one business owner said he was considering not hiring more part-time workers.

The article warned: "With Mr. Obama’s plan, business leaders say, the devil will be in the unknown details." And why are those details unknown? Well, just because. 

“We made a decision even before the plan was rolled out not to decide,” said David M. Cutler, a Harvard economist who speaks for the campaign on health care. “It’s not that there’s a decision out there that we’re not telling. It’s literally that we’ve decided not to decide.”

Clearly, voters -- including business owners -- will not have that information before they make an election-day decision. 

Sack's article detailed businesses' concerns about wage and job growth in the face of new health benefits-related taxes, attempting to define everyone's "fair share," and government leaders like Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick going back to businesses and asking for more money.  

For more on Obama's plans for businesses under his health care plan: Your Health, Your Vote