Here's one good website to keep us updated on the HHS mandate:www.becketfund.org
and if you look on the right-hand side of the page listed above, you will find updated news in the Becket Fund in the News section. In this section, from July 5, 2013 is a report that is important for us to know about (you will need to sit through a brief bank commercial): live.wsj.com
Can you explain this new mandate to me. I tried to read it but I am too livid
to wade through the terms in my state of confusion.
Are they saying that some businesses are opposing the same parts of the mandate
that the church opposes?
And are they saying that the $100 per day fine does not get extended by
Here is a shortened version of the article. I hope this helps.
The employer mandate would be delayed in some respects until 2015 creates a ripeness issue for the legal challenges to the HHS preventive services mandate. These questions are based on a lack of a thorough understanding of Treasurys announcement and the many statutory provisions involved.
All Treasury announced was that it would suspend certain reporting requirements in IRC 6055 and 6056, and the shared responsibility payments in IRC 4980H that are calculated based on the IRC 6055 & 6056 filings. These shared responsibility payments in IRC 4980H are primarily intended to apply to businesses that drop all employee health insurance altogether, which would require their employees to go onto the public exchanges.
By contrast, all of the businesses challenging the preventive services mandate already offer health insurance that complies in all respects with the ACA, except for the HHS preventive services mandate. Thus, the delay in the reporting requirements and shared responsibility payments in IRC 4980H will not affect their lawsuits. They still face the HHS preventive services mandate (which is in 42 USC 300gg-13, and which the Treasury announcement does not mention) and if they do not comply with it, they still face the massive $100/day/employee excise taxes imposed by IRC 4980D, which is not mentioned by the Treasury announcement and which is governed by a completely different set of reporting requirements (in Treas. Reg. 54.6011-2).
Thus, this situation is very different from the ripeness problems faced in the religious non-profit lawsuits. There, the administration delayed enforcement of the HHS mandate *and* proposed changes to the HHS regulations issued under 42 USC 300gg-13 as it would apply to religious non-profits (this is what was finalized on Friday). So, during the safe harbor, arguably the courts had no firm idea what the ultimate rule would even look like, and many reasoned from this that the lawsuits were not ripe.
Here, by contrast: (1) as to for-profits, the HHS preventive services mandate is final, and the administration has proposed no changes to it (in fact, on Friday, the administration reiterated what its always said, which is that for-profit businesses are going to get no accommodation whatsoever); and (2) as to for-profits, the key penalty (the $100/employee/day fine) has not been delayed. Thus, there is no ripeness problem, and the business lawsuits will proceed.
If Obummer does not succeed in implementing it, the left believes Hillary will be elected oin 2016 and she will ram in through.
So it does not bother them if Obama care fails.If it does they willjust say back to the drawing board and will spring single payer on us. If it does not fail,, that's okay too because they can still push ahead with single payer as a way of improving Obama/Pelosi care.
Obummer hopes he will be the messiah of single payer. But if he does not succeed,he will still be considered its father for having blessed us with the monstrosity we have.