Obamacare rules on equal coverage delayed: NY Times

Comments (10)
WhyMeLord wrote:

Let’s give those poor and selfless executives another year to hide their money someplace; has this administration gone completely mad?
Nothing, and I mean nothing is better if it’s put off until tomorrow.
Face the music now and get it over with, there’s another election coming up, and why give them more wiggle room and talking points?
The Democrats sure have the correct mascot for their pathetic mascot.

Jan 18, 2014 7:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Big2Tex wrote:

Executives do not hide their money…..they invest it or spend it. Executive and higher income folks are the greatest boon to he economy, more than government, more than stimulus, and certainly more than food stamps and unemployment. God Bless those who have earned their way to prosperity and foster growth in the economy. Why shouldn’t they get more benefits than the folks who earn less? Free markets scare anyone?

Jan 18, 2014 9:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Timbuk3 wrote:

Executives do not hide their money? Wow, then i guess you never learned about Swiss banks or the Cayman islands huh?

I can understand te complexities of this provision. It would be easy to say “everyone gets the same policies but sometimes corporate offices are in other states with different regs and provider networks so it’s probably not so simple. Kudos the administration to take it’s time to get this right and avoid avoidable lawsuits and uncertainty.

Jan 18, 2014 10:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AZreb wrote:

Big businesses got a year’s pass – individuals, no pass. Now top executives of big businesses get a pass – individuals, no pass.

Anyone see a pattern here?

Jan 19, 2014 8:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
PopUp wrote:

The government is saying that CEO’s should get “better” health insurance than their employees? Believe me, when you make 400 times the pay of your workers, you can already afford better health insurance and care. You don’t need the government to reinforce it. Stupid law.

Jan 19, 2014 8:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
hallsway wrote:

Another exemption; another delay. Why? Because Obamacare is a stunning example of central planning deficiencies. This is right out of the Soviet era.

Jan 19, 2014 9:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
marv1959 wrote:

The problem is that the language of the law is not as straightforward as making sure that executives or more highly compensated employees don’t get better plans than the lower paid employees.

By setting maximums for the percentage of AGI a compliant plan can cost an employee the government mandates cost shifting from those who make less to those who make more. The employer does this by offering tiers and negotiating better value in the lower tiers of coverage in exchange for extravagant premiums in the higher tiers.

Most employers made/make uniform contributions to cafeteria plans. This cost shifting will continue until the margin of benefit from purchasing through the group is exhausted for those who purchase more than basic coverage then those who can will migrate to the individual market.

ACA is just a way to undermine the pay for performance culture of the american workplace. The unions are in a death chortle and now their bought and paid for political machine will pick up the baton and finish off what remains of american industry.

Jan 19, 2014 11:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

@Timbuk3- Do you ever get tired of the taste of that kool-aid you drink? This is another example of the Obama administration picking and choosing which parts of law they want to enforce. That is what happens in dictatorships. We better wake up to the over reaching of this president before it is too late. Does not matter whether he is a democrat or republican, over reaching is over reaching.

Jan 19, 2014 8:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bighammerman wrote:

The ACA, Obamacare and Obama should all be flushed down the toilet.

Jan 20, 2014 10:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
wildcat48 wrote:

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. Hmmmmm…sounds a little like the government getting special privileges.

Jan 20, 2014 5:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.