i don't see why since the individual mandate doesn't present similar problems.It would seem that if employers are being relieved of their obligations for a year that the requirements for individuals to purchase coverage (the "individual mandate") would also be pushed back.
We'll know more about that if we see how the exchanges are implemented.i don't see why since the individual mandate doesn't present similar problems.
Even a bad law could have been competently implemented.First it was bad law and now, it's they aren't implementing it fast enough?
First it was bad law and now, it's they aren't implementing it fast enough?
There is no "bad" or "good" law. There is "one" law that applies to everyone.
This has to be the most meaningless statement I've ever read. Of course there are good and bad laws (mostly bad). And they never apply to everyone. Almost every law passed excludes members of Congress. Including ACA.
members of Congress have to purchase health plans from the public exchanges for their states. How does that exclude them?This has to be the most meaningless statement I've ever read. Of course there are good and bad laws (mostly bad). And they never apply to everyone. Almost every law passed excludes members of Congress. Including ACA.
It would seem that if employers are being relieved of their obligations for a year that the requirements for individuals to purchase coverage (the "individual mandate") would also be pushed back.
Congress approved a law with many provisions and with implementation dates for those provisions. I'm not quite clear on why the executive branch gets to modify either these provisions or their effective dates. I guess someone would have to sue to get this addressed--and who is going to do that?
Quite a subjective statement. Have you ever heard of the concept of the universality of the law ? Laws have been created and refined by societies to protect us from each other. Start there : Universal jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
members of Congress have to purchase health plans from the public exchanges for their states. How does that exclude them?
It also puts the deadline conveniently after the 2014 election.
Concept is one thing, application is a completely different issue. If you haven't seen examples in this every day you aren't paying attention. Just look at the difference in arrests or sentencing based on race. Or any application of law toward the rich as opposed to the poor. Or police vs. non-police. Or hundreds of other examples. And politicians quite often exempt themselves from the laws that the rest of us have to live with. How often have non-politicians been able to get their names removed from the No-Fly list?
.
Members of congress and their staffs are indeed affected by the law, as Donheff pointed out, and this has turned into a real headache for them. The healthcare benefit they receive today is subsidized, and they cannot get a similar subsidy at the exchange. They can get a pay increase to offset that, but because it is not fuly deductible, their after tax income would fall.
Members of congress and their staffs are indeed affected by the law, as Donheff pointed out, and this has turned into a real headache for them. The healthcare benefit they receive today is subsidized, and they cannot get a similar subsidy at the exchange. They can get a pay increase to offset that, but because it is not fuly deductible, their after tax income would fall.
I knew Congress is required to get insurance through the exchanges but I assumed they would get covered for the average portioned covered under the existing program, about 70%. If they have to pay 100% out of pocket (especially staffers) I think that is a travesty. Most decent employers pay the lion's share of health premiums and the Federal Government should model good employer behavior. Sticking the whole nut on them would amount to a multi-thousand dollar pay cut. Are you certain they don't get most of the cost covered?Getting back on topic (and hoping we can stay there) it seems Htown Harry had a point. Not much has changed, employers that would have been fined get another year. The exchanges, which have been the real point of focus for us here, are not affected by the delay.
Members of congress and their staffs are indeed affected by the law, as Donheff pointed out, and this has turned into a real headache for them. The healthcare benefit they receive today is subsidized, and they cannot get a similar subsidy at the exchange. They can get a pay increase to offset that, but because it is not fuly deductible, their after tax income would fall.
As a fellow traveler in that same boat, I know the feeling. But I do feel badly for those that will see their costs increase, even if it is only to remove the effect of inequitable subsidy and distorted policy.Awwww... So they're in the same boat as those of us who have to buy our own insurance, with no employer support or other subsidy? Oh, the horror of it all.
I feel so very, very sad for them.
Currently there is no regulatory mechanism to provide a policy through the exchange that is subsidized, with limited or exclusive access, multi-priced, or anything other than single priced and open to all takers. I have read lots of speculation regarding closed, secret back room negotiations and such, but I don't believe most, and suspect it is mostly tin-foil beanie material. This is not the only group that will have to pay more as our health care system corrects, and it might give them greater insight into how to fix this. To answer your question, at this moment, there is no exception or alternative that I am aware of.Are you certain they don't get most of the cost covered?
That doesn't look very onerous. One person should be able to implement it in a few days. Certainly, nowhere near as complicated to construct and adhere to as HIPAA regulations, electronic records, and managing the ACA at point of service.
In this age of IT, these seem simpler reporting issues than other existing employment reg's (e.g. Soc Sec withhold, Medicare tax, retirement plans, etc.). IMHO- This was NOT valid reason the large employer HI mandate was delayed.
...it seems Htown Harry had a point...
.....The regs that specify these formulas aren't final, so the bulk of the IT work for employers to calculate and track such figures likely hasn't started yet. ...
BINGO! It's the Feds delaying the final reg's that caused this. (I'll not speculate on whether reasons were political or merely bureaucratic incompetence over past 3+yrs.)
The White House has held many meetings with business groups — sometimes about the health law, sometimes more general. Business lobbyists returned to the health law rules in both settings, time and again. They spent time with high-level officials, including Nancy-Ann DeParle, Gene Sperling, Alan Krueger, Melody Barnes and Valerie Jarrett, some of whom have since left the White House.
“I can’t tell you how many times we met with them,” said Neil Trautwein, vice president of the National Retail Federation, recounting his frequent conversations with White House and Treasury officials. “I’ve got to give them credit for reaching out to us and working to understand our concerns, and I think eventually, not because of any special thing we did, they came to the view that this was not going to be ready for prime time,” Trautwein added.
Several trade groups had fly-ins so Washington officials could hear from business owners across the country. The National Restaurant Association, the National Retail Federation, the National Council of Chain Restaurants and chambers of commerce were among those that took part, said Stephen Caldeira, president of the International Franchise Association.
Small Business Administrator Karen Mills was particularly receptive, Caldeira said. “The relationship with Karen Mills, from our perspective, was one of the very bright lights of the Obama administration.”
A senior administration official gave a parallel account: The White House heard the concerns about how businesses would have to report their insurance coverage, how data would be collected and verified and how each cost factor would be calculated.