Does that mean that of the 1200+ waivers, that Unions got > 600? no.
Before you say that union contracts are negotiated, and therefore cannot be altered, ask yourself if the minimum wage gets increased, do union wages get automatically increased? Isn't that a change in federal law, outside the control of the unions?
If delays are acceptably part of the law, why then the veto threat and 100% Democrat party nay vote on the House bill that codifies the delay?
The rules on a federal exchange (not state exchanges), which is what the Congress and their staffs would be participating in, state that there is no subsidy. Since the law specifically moved them from their existing plan (so much for keeping the plan you have) to the federal exchange, one could argue that no federal government payment is allowed. Yes, they are only getting back what they had previously, but that is not what the law said.
By what legal authority did Obama delay this implementation?
None.
But then again, what legal authority did he (or HHS Secretary) have for:
None are legal because the law itself doesn't give anyone the power to change it willy-nilly, as each changes the law without the necessary legislation to modify the existing law.
jerry
Step 2 is an immediate response, step 4 is handled in batch processing nightly. So far so good. Except that the Affordable Care Act makes it *illegal* to make a patient pay more than the annual limit. The authorizer and/or the pharmacy can be charged for forcing the patient to pay above the annual limit. This means that the authorizer must be aware of limit of each patient and be able to respond in real-time so that neither they nor the pharmacy will be sued. The insurance company doesn't have that information available real-time, nor do they make it available to the authorizer.
It is a computer issue, but as simple as everyone thinks. Putting individual insurance files on-line so that the out of pocket expenses can be tracked real-time isn't trivial. Now, maybe the Insurance companies were hoping the law wouldn't be implemented so they didn't do the hard work necessary to get set up, or maybe the rules were only written as to how to handle the annual limit must be handled.
Just remember, the last time companies put together a real-time on-line credit/debit system, the government decided that they charged too much to support the infrastructure, and started regulating it. That was the Durbin amendment to Dodd-Frank, which put a fixed limit on per swipe fees - regardless of what the infrastructure and support costs actually are.
jerry
Alan Dean Foster (who novelized the Animated Star Trek series), has a set of novels revolving around Philip Lynx (Flinx) and his minidrag - Pip. His lesser known series is more fantasy based - Spellsinger...
One thing I have learned is that while they have the right of first refusal, if they choose not to pursue the idea, I can ask to have it reassigned back to me and pursue on my own. That might be your only option, assuming what you're pursuing doesn't compete with your current employer.
The FCC chose to re-implement rules that were already struck down by federal courts. By re-implementing something that the courts have viewed as outside the power of the FCC, it could be argued that this is a power grab. The proposed law, promised to be vetoed, is Congress' attempt to define the role that the FCC has - and codify what was already ruled upon by the courts.
Why should the FCC have the power?
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
