WH delays implementation of equal coverage provsion thus enabling corporations to

[cali]

provide better coverage to top executives than to the most employees.

(Reuters) - The Obama administration is delaying enforcement of a provision of the new healthcare law that prohibits employers from providing better health benefits to top executives than to other employees, the New York Times reported on Saturday.


Tax officials said they would not enforce the provision this year because they had yet to issue regulations for employers to follow, according to the Times.

<snip>

The law, adopted in 2010, says employer-sponsored health plans must not discriminate "in favor of highly compensated individuals" with respect to either eligibility or benefits.

The ban on discriminatory health benefits was to take effect in 2010. Administration officials said then that they needed more time to develop rules and that the rules would be issued well before this month, when other major provisions of the law took effect.


<snip>

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/18/us-usa-healthcare-executives-idUSBREA0H0JZ20140118

disgusting pro-corporate pandering from an admin that does a lot of this. Of course, the apologist will make their typical weak excuses- like this is just temporary but they had YEARS to issue regs on this.

[Fumesucker]

1. They got the rules laid down for the poor folks, folks what ain't got no voice

Rich folks be different and it's hard to write rules for them because they have an actual voice in government.

Money talks you know.

[cali]

2. it's just inexcusable. and illustrates something very ugly.

[Fumesucker]

3. Mockery works better than anger

It wasn't doing me any good physically or mentally to get worked up about this stuff, anger is a self destructive habit.

Mockery is the best tool, nothing whines louder than a fat wallet mocked.

[geek tragedy]

43. So, you agree with Issa that the IRS targeting

of political groups was run by the White House?

Because you're showing the exact same confusion/willful ignorance of the relationship between the WH and the IRS.

[OKNancy]

4. mark me down as an apologist then because

I'd like to form an opinion when the actual rules are established. As with so many other things in this new law, it's very complicated and will take time to iron things out. For me, if for one year an executive gets better coverage, I won't quibble since my family has insurance for the first time in ten years.

[cali]

5. It just wrong. They've had years to ensure that exactly this kind of inequity NOT be extant.

[geek tragedy]

44. They=IRS. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Two honest questions

1) If the law says X must occur how can the President just wave away the law?

2) Even assuming he can just wave away the law, what is the stated rationale?

[cali]

7. I only have guesses. I'm guessing the argument isn't that he's waiving the law

but delaying regulations. And the reason they give for doing this is that they haven't yet promulgated the regs.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Hypothetical scenario --

An employee has a condition requiring medical care. The employees' current policy won't cover that care but an executive at the company does have that coverage. Due to lack of treatment the employee suffers harm. Citing the fact the law was disregarded the employee sues for relief.

Who gets sued?

A) the insurance provider
B) the employer
C) the government

I'm asking mostly in a rhetorical sense but I'm sure you can see this as not being outside the bounds of possibility and the government -- by the President's hand -- is assuming a tremendous liability.

[Romulox]

9. None of the above can be sued for the harm you posit.

The government has broad immunity from most lawsuits. Neither the insurer nor the employer are in charge of promulgating ACA rules.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. The government gets sued constantly for failing to abide by its own laws/rules.

[Romulox]

14. The government has what is known as "Sovereign Immunity".

Federal sovereign immunity[edit]

In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. See Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued.[1]. The United States Supreme Court in Price v. United States observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing it."[2]

The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party. The Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act are not as broad waivers of sovereign immunity as they might appear, as there are a number of statutory exceptions and judicially fashioned limiting doctrines applicable to both. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers federal question jurisdiction on district courts, but this statute has been held not to be a blanket waiver of sovereign immunity on the part of the federal government.

Congress has also waived sovereign immunity for patent infringement claims under 28 USC § 1498(a), but that statute balances this waiver with provisions that limit the remedies available to the patent holder. The government may not be enjoined from infringing a patent, and persons performing work for the government are immune both from liability and from injunction. Any recourse must be had only against the government in the United States Court of Federal Claims. In Advanced Software Design v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the Federal Circuit expanded the interpretation of this protection to extend to private companies doing work not as contractors, but in which the government participates even indirectly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. Google, "filed suit against the federal government" and then list each individual story separately.

I'll wait.

[Romulox]

17. "the fed. government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity"

I can't educate you on this subject, and this isn't an area for personal opinion.

Read the wikipedia entry if you are curious.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. So if some bureaucrat decides to destroy your livelihood

and they do so without any citation of law, you're OK with that.

[Romulox]

31. Knowing something isn't the same thing as being "OK with that". It's not advocacy, it's just fact.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. I didn't say you would advocate. I'm asking if you'd resign yourself without challenge.

[joshcryer]

37. Basic administration law.

Most laws in the US are administrative, so HHS gets to decide what it will make as "law."

Not sure of the rationale but it's probably some BS companies will fire people or it will hurt the economy or they aren't set up to implement it crap.

[Savannahmann]

40. It's called selective enforcement

The Government chooses not to enforce the law, allowing people to violate it at will with no repercussions. Many of those policies we have cheered have been nothing more than selective enforcement, agreements not to prosecute or penalize people for breaking the law. Some we have screamed in frustration about wondering how they could do that.

Examples, the stays on deportations. The law in black and white says that the Government will deport those undocumented workers. The Government says they're not going to do that, and so it's not done. This was the policy a few months ago for teenaged children which the Rethugs called anchor babies if you recall.

Another example is the EPA deciding not to require as much ethanol use. The law in black and white said that there must be X amount of ethanol mixed into the gasoline. The EPA waved the higher standard, by agreeing not to penalize the oil companies for not meeting it.

Banks that were obviously complicit in the meltdown. They were never prosecuted. This is not because they did nothing wrong, but because the Government decided to give them a pass.

All of those were nothing more than selectively deciding not to enforce the law. Is it technically illegal? You bet it is, but who can force the Government to do the right thing? Nobody has that kind of power. If you tried to file a lawsuit to get a judge to order the Government to enforce the law, the judge would rule that you don't have standing to do so, and that the enforcement of the law is at the whim of the Justice Department. This by the way is why poor people are more likely to be penalized for tax errors while the rich get passes for far more egregious violations.

So by delaying enforcement, all the Government is doing is saying that we know you are breaking the law, but we won't mind unless you continue breaking it later when we say it's finally in effect, then we'll penalize you.

[geek tragedy]

42. Thank you for revealing yourself.

You're whining that Obama isn't deporting the DREAMers--Americans who were brought here as children. With a sneering reference to 'anchor babies.'

Go sit between Issa and Steve King--your ACA concern trolling is no mistake, apparently.

Examples, the stays on deportations. The law in black and white says that the Government will deport those undocumented workers. The Government says they're not going to do that, and so it's not done. This was the policy a few months ago for teenaged children which the Rethugs called anchor babies if you recall.

[Savannahmann]

46. Thank you very much.

I was seriously wondering which damned fool would make that conclusion. in which you say reveals myself. I clearly state that the rethugs called them this, but no, you are going to put words in my mouth. You are going to decode that what doesn't exist to paint my words as something they are not.

I wasn't aware that by highlighting certain examples of selective enforcement that I was endorsing the claims of others. If you are reading that out of it, I have to assume that your medication needs some adjustment. Why don't you make an appointment and let them know you're seeing CT everywhere you look.

The three examples, banks not being prosecuted. Obviously a RW code word right? I mean, it must be if you have labeled me as such. So what does that decode to with your secret RW decoder ring? Everyone knows that RW Types want those banks prosecuted.

The EPA decision on the ethanol was discussed here, many people for and against it discussed it. My point was that I felt uncomfortable turning food into gasoline because I thought that food might be a good thing for hungry people all over the world to eat. You know, those darned pesky RW types who love to see poor people eat.

My ACA concerns have all, every single one of them been about how the ACA is portrayed in the media. Not once, not one damned single time have I said that it should be repealed. Not once have I suggested it. I have always commented on the problems of public perception and get this, things we as Democrats can do to improve that perception. Now, those things have included medical school grants so we can get more doctors to help out with the doctor shortage. Real RW nonsense there, because everyone knows that the RW is all in favor of giving money to kids so they can go to school.

I am sick and tired of every damned authoritarian douche demanding my credentials every time I write something. I am sick and fucking tired of you self appointed hipper than thou types demanding my bio and I guess receipts of my donations to politicians, the ACLU, charities like Big Cat Rescue, to prove that I am liberal enough for your litmus test.

We cheered the decision to not deport those families of undocumented workers here. Because I mention that as an example, you assume I don't like it. Well you couldn't be more fucking wrong if you were Chris Christie's spokesman. I admit I am surprised that the Christie thing is still going on, because I assumed that the RW Media Protective society and the fact that the GW Bridge is one minor link in the corner of the map hundreds or even thousands of miles from the rest of the nation. I would even go so far as to say pleasantly surprised, but you would claim it's an act.

So if you think I'm RW, put me on ignore. Otherwise, try a discussion on the issues and quit hijacking the damned thread for your pathetic and erroneous announcements of "I found a RW troll.

[Romulox]

10. It was the *individual* mandate$$ that corporate insurers so desired. And that's what they got.

[ProSense]

11. More

"disgusting pro-corporate pandering from an admin that does a lot of this. Of course, the apologist will make their typical weak excuses- like this is just temporary but they had YEARS to issue regs on this. "

...anti-Obama drivel based on an MSM report you don't even understand.

Was it really necessary to post this and call out people as "apologists"?

Your posts are always laced with nasty divisive attacks.

[cali]

15. and your posts are an embarassment and not even tenuously related to reality or

intellectual honesty.

[ProSense]

18. Want to

to see an "embarrassment":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024358001#post18

Make that two:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024356791

[cali]

20. Your posts deny reality, and really are nothing but cheerleading

that's all they've ever been.

Obama's legacy? corporate pal.

[ProSense]

21. I really think

"Your posts deny reality, and really are nothing but cheerleading that's all they've ever been.

Obama's legacy? corporate pal."

...that you trying hard to establish your superiority by constantly calling others "apologists" and claiming that supporting the President is "cheerleading." I mean, you're so anti-Obama that, here, in 2013, with three years left in his Presidency, you're spending every energy to discredit him and define his "legacy."

Here's a little "reality" for you to "deny," the record of your "corporate pal":

Why It Matters That Home Care Workers Just Got New Labor Rights
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023684107

There is no question that Dodd-Frank was a strong bill—the strongest in three generations.
http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf

Obama weighing executive action on minimum wage?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024354098

President Obama repeats call to end subsidies for Big Oil
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002436787

Lisa Jackson to Leave EPA: Earthjustice Statement

Statement from Earthjustice Vice President of Litigation Patti Goldman:

“America owes Lisa Jackson a debt of gratitude for her work to protect the public's health from polluters and their allies in Congress. For her efforts to clean up pollution and better protect the environment and public health, she faced a steady barrage from members of Congress and the industrial polluters who back them. Her detractors are the same people who told us taking lead out of gasoline in the 1970's would break the economy and that taking acid out of acid rain in the 1990's would ruin the country. In both cases, the environment and economy were strengthened and this is the approach Lisa Jackson took. There is a lot of unfinished business started by Jackson that the next EPA director will need to attend to. Whoever it is, they'll need the support of the President and they'll need to be ready for a non-stop barrage of attacks from the chemical, industrial and fossil fuel industries and their allies in Congress.

“After 17 years of Earthjustice litigation it was Lisa Jackson who finally regulated mercury and other toxic pollutants coming from power plants. After a decade of litigation from Earthjustice and others, it was Lisa Jackson who supported and implemented regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gases. After more than a decade of Earthjustice litigation it was Lisa Jackson who finally implemented the first regulation of mercury from cement kilns all over the country.”

http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2012/lisa-jackson-to-leave-epa-earthjustice-statement

The first lawsuit against Obama’s new coal limits just got filed
http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-first-lawsuit-against-obamas-new-coal-limits-just-got-filed/

WTO Upholds Obama’s Tire Industry Relief Decision

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body yesterday upheld President Obama’s decision based on U.S. trade law to provide relief for American tire industry workers against surging imports from China of passenger and light truck tires.

In September 2009, Obama became the first president to enforce U.S. trade law when he imposed tariffs to protect domestic workers against a surge in tire imports from China. The original complaint came from the United Steelworkers (USW), and Obama’s decision led to a rebound in the tire industry.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2011/09/06/wto-upholds-obamas-tire-industry-relief-decision/

MEDICARE’S FINANCIAL CONDITION

Medicare’s financial condition is measured in several ways, including the solvency of the Part A Trust Fund, the annual growth in spending, and growth in spending on a per capita basis. Average annual growth in total Medicare spending is projected to be 6.6% between 2010 and 2019, but 3.5% on a per capita basis (assuming no reduction in physician fees).

The Part A Trust Fund is projected to be depleted in 2024— eight years longer than in the absence of the health reform law—at which point Medicare would not have sufficient funds to pay full benefits, even though revenue flows into the Trust Fund each year. Part A Trust Fund solvency is affected by growth in the economy, which directly affects revenue from payroll tax contributions, and by demographic trends: an increasing number of beneficiaries, especially between 2010 and 2030 when the baby boom generation reaches Medicare eligibility age, and a declining ratio of workers per beneficiary making payroll contributions (Figure 4).

http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-06.pdf

The ACA increased the Medicaid rebate percentage.
http://www.medicaid.gov/AffordableCareAct/Timeline/Timeline.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024309532#post2

Net Investment Income Tax

A new Net Investment Income Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 3.8 percent Net Investment Income Tax applies to individuals, estates and trusts that have certain investment income above certain threshold amounts. The IRS and the Treasury Department have issued proposed regulations on the Net Investment Income Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Net Investment Income Tax, see our questions and answers.

Additional Medicare Tax

A new Additional Medicare Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 0.9 percent Additional Medicare Tax applies to an individual’s wages, Railroad Retirement Tax Act compensation, and self-employment income that exceeds a threshold amount based on the individual’s filing status. The threshold amounts are $250,000 for married taxpayers who file jointly, $125,000 for married taxpayers who file separately, and $200,000 for all other taxpayers. An employer is responsible for withholding the Additional Medicare Tax from wages or compensation it pays to an employee in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year. The IRS and the Department of the Treasury have issued proposed regulations on the Additional Medicare Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Additional Medicare Tax, see our questions and answers.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions

BTW, you still haven't answered this question: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024356791#post31

[cali]

22. I don't need to expend much energy, sadly. His record speaks for itself

Inequality has grown over his tenure as President.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/obama-legacy-income-inequality

He's pushing the TPP after lying about reforming NAFTA.

He gives lip service to economic justice but he doesn't practice it- at all.

[ProSense]

23. Well,

"I don't need to expend much energy, sadly. His record speaks for itself

Inequality has grown over his tenure as President."

...at least you admit that's your goal. And thanks for the link to more anti-Obama drivel. Blaming the President for income inequality is like blaming the president for poverty. It's beyond absurd. Also, from the piece

For despite all the talk of the Federal Reserve’s “quantitative easing” driving soaring stock markets and a post-crisis economic boom, 99 percenters have seen their real incomes going down and their living standards depressed. Ordinary, hard-working people are not getting a slice of the pie, they're barely getting a sliver. (Cue Obama’s apparent pick for the next Federal Reserve chair, the crony capitalist, bank-loving Larry Summers.)

LOL!

Again, a little reailty for you to deny: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024356236#post21

[JoePhilly]

24. I thought his legacy was going to be endless war in Syria?

[cali]

25. his foreign policy legacy is hardly anything to celebrate.

[JoePhilly]

26. Right, ending two wars, making real progress with Iran ... just awful.

[ProSense]

28. Hey,

"his foreign policy legacy is hardly anything to celebrate."

...more "reality" for you to "deny":

First commercial passenger flight from Key West to Havana in over five decades made
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024256373

Syria chemical weapons: First consignment leaves Latakia
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25642463

Iran begins implementing nuclear deal, officials say
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-iran-nuclear-rollback-deal-20140120,0,7254913.story#axzz2qx2cn926

[Egalitarian Thug]

38. "...anti-Obama drivel based on an MSM report you don't even understand."

"Was it really necessary to post this and call out people as "apologists"?"

But you're the one whose " posts are always laced with nasty divisive attacks."

[geek tragedy]

45. Cali agrees with Darrel Issa that Obama runs the IRS and

is personally to blame for everything the IRS does or fails to do.

[woo me with science]

13. There's a new one every day.

Every single day.

[cali]

27. those who adore the President without any meacure of critical thought

are so entrenched in denial that they defend and excuse stuff like this.

[ProSense]

29. "provsion" "meacure"

It's hard being anti-Obama.

[gtar100]

30. Gee, I wonder which way it will go... employees to get better coverage or the executives get worse?

Oh I know... this is the USA. We'll delay that little tidbit in the law. Fairness is just too *hard* to implement.

Interesting exposure on this practice of giving sweeter deals to those who need it the least (because they can afford the extra co-payments and endless lab bills out of nowhere that paycheck to paycheck workers typically have to deal with). Next thing you know they'll do is offer a way for the richer folk to bypass the normal security lines at airports... naw, they wouldn't do that.

[ProSense]

32. Here's how it

"Gee, I wonder which way it will go... employees to get better coverage or the executives get worse?"

...will likely go. When the rules are finally written, and the provision goes into effect, employers and the media will scream (just as they did about the cancellation letters) that it's unfair, that the fee is excessive.

<...>

“Under the Affordable Care Act, for the first time, all group health plans will be prohibited from offering coverage only to their highest-paid employees,” said Erin Donar, a Treasury spokeswoman. “The Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury are working on rules that will implement this requirement.”

<...>

Under the 2010 law, an employer that has a fully insured health plan that discriminates in favor of high-paid executives could face a steep penalty: an excise tax of $100 a day for each individual affected negatively.

Thus, if a company had 100 employees and its health plan were found to discriminate in favor of 15 executives, the employer could be subject to a tax penalty of $8,500 for each day of noncompliance, for the 85 employees discriminated against. If the discrimination continued for 10 days, the penalty could be as much as $85,000.

If a company with 60 employees failed to meet the new standards with respect to half its employees for a year, it could face a penalty of $1 million.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/us/rules-for-equal-coverage-by-employers-remain-elusive-under-health-law.html

[gtar100]

36. Regulations with actual teeth! That is so different from what we've been seeing in so many other

government programs. It's fascinating to see how with the trend having been so much towards deregulation - or not enforcing them (by way of shorting budgets mostly) - yet here is health care and the ACA putting good, old fashioned regulations in place in a way we haven't seen in a long time. I hope people get the picture of just how effective it is at creating a fairer system for everyone. I couldn't imagine a conservative admitting that the government actually can do good things, but then we typically have to drag them into the future anyway as they kick and scream and whine the whole way.

Thank you for the clarification.

[frwrfpos]

33. lets see

Cap on costs delayed,employer mandate delayed,equal coverage delayed,etc. Looks like everything but the individual mandate(i.e. forced capitalism)has been delayed.. bullshit.

[JNinWB]

35. The SC ruling on the Constitutionality of the ACA was late June 2012.

Why would the parties involved---government, insurance companies, large corporations---make the multi-million dollar investments necessary to write these regulations when many believed that the Court would find all, or parts, of the ACA Law unconstitutional?

The procedure-writing clock had been running for 16 months when the exchanges opened in October. Maybe Obama told the truth---more time was needed to phase in some of the new provisions.

[RandiFan1290]

39. Bush tax cuts for the rich

Introduced in the House on May 15 2001

Signed into law on June 7 2001

[geek tragedy]

41. This post reminds me of Republicans bashing

Obama for not implementing his own damn law. If he really loved corporate masters so much, this provision would have been omitted.

Also, remember when we called the Republicans lying hacks for calling the IRS part of the WH political operation, because the IRS is staffed by non-political employees? Derp.