We are in the midst of a political battle over the Obamacare numbers right now, so it seemed like a good time to examine what they all mean, in an attempt to interject some clarity into a very confusing debate. The numbers will change over time, as will (no doubt) the claims made from both sides of the debate; but without a little context the numbers by themselves don't actually say much. And as time goes by, one particular number will become the most important of all the data -- and this number just got better today (more on this at the end).

 

*Obama's big number*

The first thing worth pointing out is that the big number everyone's currently arguing about -- the 7.1 million signups on the Obamacare exchanges -- is a tough number to put together, but it would have been even tougher to aggregate if Obamacare had worked as originally designed. One of the big complaints from the anti-Obamacare camp is that the signup numbers aren't complete (in various ways), and haven't been sufficiently broken down into subgroups for full analysis. This contradicts one of their own talking points about Obamacare (that it was a "big government takeover" of the health insurance marketplace), since the very reason the numbers aren't complete is that data must be accumulated from all the insurance companies participating in the exchanges. The Obamacare website doesn't measure who has yet paid for their insurance, for instance, because it is up to the insurance companies themselves to collect the money, and not the government. But the real irony is that the 7.1 million figure would have been a lot harder to add up (and would have taken much more time to release) if we currently had 50 state exchanges, as was intended by the law's authors.

The original plan was for each and every state to run their own exchange. But not many actually did -- most of them punted this responsibility to the federal government. This is why the federal Obamacare website got so big, after all. Because of this, however, it became a lot easier to compile data, because if all 50 states had separate exchanges some of them would have done a good job of collecting data and some would have done (to be polite) a not-so-good job. As it stands, we are still waiting for final data from some of the states with their own exchanges.

This is the first reason the 7.1 million figure is not exactly carved in stone -- it will change, as better data arrives. The second reason it will soon change is that President Obama left some wiggle room in the deadline for signups, until the middle of this month. Check the box that indicates "I tried to sign up previously" and you can still go onto the website and sign up for an insurance plan (no verification necessary). So there will be an adjustment upwards at some point during this month for that 7.1 million figure. After even this extended signup period is over, there will still be a trickle of people using the exchanges all year (until the next open enrollment period), since people will still be able to sign up for new insurance after life-changing events (moving from state to state, getting a new job, etc.). By the time next year's open enrollment period begins, the number is almost guaranteed to be different than the 7.1 million everyone is pointing to right now.

There are plenty of existing questions about the makeup of the 7.1 million, and so far no real hard data to answer these questions (which is why we're in a window of time where there's a lot of confusion out there). There is only one thing to advise, at this point: patience. The breakdowns will appear soon, one expects, as the numbers are fully crunched. Once again, these numbers are streaming in from the state exchanges which do exist, the national Obamacare website, and the insurance companies themselves.

 

*Patiently breaking down Obama's number*

The questions over Obama's main number are valid, and deserve answers. Because it is not just the total number of signups so far which is important, but also the mix of who has signed up. If the mix isn't right, the insurance companies will hike their premiums next year so much that the marketplace could enter what is known as a "death spiral." This would happen if most of the new people with insurance are sick and need lots of expensive care. This would result in rising premiums, which would drive away healthy people next year, making the pool of people insured even more sick and expensive, and the whole thing could thus spiral out of control. This is why there is so much attention paid to the question of how many young and healthy people have signed up.

So far, the insurance companies haven't begun to panic, at least from anecdotal evidence. The target for young people was initially set at 40 percent of new signups. The first few months that the Obamacare website actually worked (December, January, February), this number was low -- more like 24 or 25 percent. But young people are indeed known for waiting until the last minute, and the insurers have indicated that the last-minute surge had a large portion of young people within it (exactly what was expected, in fact), and is now somewhere in the range of 1-in-3 (still not 40 percent, but a lot better than 25 percent, to put it another way). But again, we'll have to wait a few weeks to see what this percentage actually turns out to be -- and whether it'll be high enough to avoid that death spiral. So far, as I said, the insurers don't seem to be panicking, yet.

The next big question is how many of the 7.1 million were previously insured. There is no solid data on this yet, although some estimates do exist. Part of figuring this number will hinge on what "previously insured" and "newly insured" mean to different people. If you had a job that ended halfway through 2013 (just for example), and then had no insurance for a few months, but were able to sign up on the exchanges, then were you "previously insured" or are you now "newly insured"? Or does "newly insured" only mean people who have never had health insurance in their lives? As you can see, there is a moving-target quality to sorting this data. The whole purpose of Obamacare was to provide affordable insurance so that America could reduce the number of uninsured people, so it is important to figure out who among the 7.1 million were just shuffled from one plan to another versus those who were able to sign up for insurance that wasn't previously available (or affordable) to them. Again, the only thing to advise here is "patience," until we get a better breakdown of the data.

More patience is needed for the number who signed up who have actually paid their first bill and now have (instead of just "have signed up for") health insurance. So far, most estimates have been putting this number in the 80-85 percent range (or, 15-20 percent who haven't paid yet). But there's a lag time built in to collecting this data, since it takes time to mail in a check and get a policy in the mail in return for a lot of folks. So we'll be able to see in roughly a month a much better number for how many have actually paid up. Patience, people, patience.

 

*The number of cancellations*

There are two further arguments over numbers -- one from each side of the debate -- which deserve mentioning here as well. From the anti-Obamacare side, their biggest argument has been deflated somewhat by the release of the 7.1 million figure. Their argument (before the 7.1 figure was announced) was, in essence: more people would be harmed by Obamacare than helped. This argument hinged on the number of people who received cancellation notices in the mail from their insurance companies. I've seen various figures used by people making this argument, from about 4.5 million to 5.4 million, and even up to 6 million.

The pro-Obamacare folks argue that this number (whatever it actually is) is misleading, for a number of reasons: it is in no way an official count, merely an estimate; it does not separate out insurance plans that were not acceptable to Obamacare's standards from insurance plans that were (a number of insurance plans are cancelled every year by insurance companies, which has been going on long before Obamacare arrived); and most of these estimates were made before taking into account the fact that Obama allowed for extensions when the initial stories appeared in the media. These are minor quibbles, though. The antis have a point, at the core of this argument: some people will indeed be harmed by Obamacare. This is a tough thing for the pro-Obamacare folks to admit, but it is indeed true. There are always winners and losers in any sweeping changes to such a large marketplace, and ignoring the losers and pretending they just don't exist weakens your overall argument. But the Obamacare supporters have a valid point here, too: you can't just compare the two numbers directly, and say something like: "6 million lost their insurance, 7.1 million signed up, therefore only 1.1 million were actually new signups." Of course, right up until the 7.1 million announcement, the antis were arguing that "more people lost insurance than gained it," but this talking point simply doesn't work for them anymore (since even a third-grader could tell you 7.1 is bigger than 6).

But Obamacare supporters have a bigger point about the people who got cancellation notices: just because they got a notice in the mail does not mean they are not now insured. This is the breakdown that the antis conveniently forget about in making their point. Because the group which did get cancellation notices now has choices that they didn't have last year. Some of the people who got such notices just signed up with their old insurance company again on a different plan, for instance. Importantly, these people are not counted in the 7.1 million. If they didn't use the exchanges and communicated directly with their private insurers, they are not counted at all in the total number of signups through the exchanges, to put this another way. Some of the people who received cancellations may have been newly eligible for Medicaid, which would also mean they are not counted in the 7.1 million. And quite a few of them were indeed able to go to the Obamacare exchanges and sign up for different insurance plans. What this all means is that even if the highest (6 million) figure is used, nobody has any idea how many of those people who were previously insured (in some fashion or another) are now uninsured. The antis try to equate the 6 million with people who "lost their insurance," but that doesn't mean the same thing as "are now not insured."

Of course, this doesn't take into account two major things: what type of insurance these people had before, and how much they are paying for insurance. Obamacare supporters like to write off these folks as "having substandard insurance," and state that therefore they are now getting better health insurance (or "Qualified Health Plans") for cheaper, but with no actual numbers to back this claim up. Anti-Obamacare folks like to state that these people are now "paying insanely higher premiums," but again, without offering anything more than anecdotal evidence to back such statements up. The only sure thing right now is that there were indeed losers in the grand shuffle of Obamacare, but we don't yet know how many or what categories they fall into.

 

*In addition to the 7.1 million*

But the pro-Obamacare people have a point to make of their own, outside of the 7.1 million. Because the 7.1 million number doesn't take into account a lot of other people who have been helped by Obamacare. There are a number of groups who are seeing more benefits under Obamacare, some of whom are pretty all-encompassing. For instance, all women are now not charged more than men for health insurance. Nobody faces lifetime caps anymore. Pre-existing conditions cannot be taken into account when purchasing health insurance. All seniors are seeing the "donut hole" in their Medicare prescription drug benefit shrink year by year, until it will disappear entirely. Everyone who has health insurance can now get preventative care for free, as well.

There are several other groups now getting even more direct benefits from Obamacare who are not counted in the 7.1 million number. People who are newly eligible for Medicaid, for instance (roughly 4 million of them, to date). This group could have been even larger (perhaps even doubled), it is worth pointing out, if all the states had opted in to the Medicare expansion. States run by Republicans have resisted this, meaning that millions of people are now denied Medicaid when just across the border in a neighboring state they would be eligible. Young adults who are still covered on their parents' insurance (which wouldn't have been possible without Obamacare) number around 3 million. Add just those two groups to the exchange signup figure, and you get 14 million people with health insurance directly due to Obamacare -- double the 7.1 million figure (although, again, the 3 million and 4 million numbers aren't very firm at this time and could become more accurate in the near future).

 

*Today's good news -- a number really worth watching*

Which brings us to our final point. The nationwide healthcare marketplace -- something like 16 or 17 percent of the total American economy, remember -- is always going to present a moving target. Absent a real "takeover" of the insurance marketplace by the government (such as "single payer," for instance), it is always going to be tough to exactly quantify how everyone is affected across the whole country at any given time. This confusion is going to give rise to people on both sides of the argument tossing estimates and anecdotes around with abandon, of course (it is, after all, an election year), as the politicians exploit the vagueness in the public mind of what's really going on.

But there is one measurement that more and more people are going to start paying attention to, especially after today's announcement of new data. This is the percentage of the American public which has no health insurance. When you examine the basic motivations behind the Obamacare law, there were two main problems which it tried to solve. The first was that nobody should go bankrupt to pay for health care if they are paying for health insurance. The second was that the rate of uninsured Americans is too high, and must come down somehow. The latter is the number that was just released today.

The Gallup organization polls intensively (using a much bigger data sample than a normal nationwide poll, with over 43,000 interviews) on this question. They just announced some good news today: the percent of uninsured Americans has now drastically dropped, to its lowest point since 2008. Since the Obamacare exchanges got up and running, this percentage has steadily gone down, from 18.0 percent in the third quarter of 2013 to 15.6 percent in the first quarter of this year. Take a look at the chart to see the magnitude of this drop. The analysis gets even better when individual months are examined: 16.2 percent in January, 15.6 percent in February, and 15.0 percent in March. Even within the month of March, the first half showed 15.5 percent, which fell to 14.5 percent by the end of the month. The trendline is pretty easy to see, in other words, and very good news for Obamacare fans.

My guess is that this is the number that will be closely watched, over time. The bickering about the 7.1 million signed up (or the 6 million cancellation notices) is going to fade, as both the public and the politicians step back to look at the bigger picture. Granted, the number is from a polling organization rather than official data from the government or the insurance companies, but it has the benefit of being one simple number which, over time, will show the success or failure of Obamacare to insure more Americans. And with such a massive sample (with a miniscule margin of error of only plus-or-minus 1 percent), it is a number that can be trusted much more than the average public opinion poll (which normally have error margins in the 3-to-5 percent range).

Obamacare supporters are cheering the good news today, as well they should. Such a sharp drop is hard to argue with, to put this another way. But much more work needs to be done. Even 14.5 percent is still way too high. Massachusetts (birthplace of Romneycare), after all, insures all but 2 or 3 percent of its citizens. That's a goal that Obamacare may never actually reach. Even softening this goal to something reasonable like only 5 percent uninsured, though, is going to take a lot more effort in the second and third year of the ongoing Obamacare rollout. Whether the program is successful at achieving anything like this goal still remains to be seen (Massachusetts didn't hit such fantastic numbers in its first year, either, it's worth pointing out). A lot of Americans won't find out what their fine is for not having health insurance until this time next year (when they do their 2014 taxes), which will be after the second open enrollment period ends -- so it is going to take a full three years to judge ultimate failure or success.

Which leads us back to our main point, throughout this article. We're all going to need to be patient for a while to see how well Obamacare works. That is going to be tough to do in the midst of an election where one party has dedicated its entire campaign effort into proving Obamacare is irredeemably broken, to be sure. For now, please just remember that we simply don't have enough data right now to answer all the questions being raised. Some of this data will appear in the next few weeks. Some will take months. But the final numbers won't really be in for years. Which is going to require a lot more patience on everyone's part.

 

[*Full Disclosure:* Although it has no bearing whatsoever on what I write, I am actually currently in a polling group for Gallup, which means that my own personal data is one tiny shred of whatever aggregate numbers Gallup comes up with for health insurance. To put it another way, I am one of the 43,562 adults in their survey. As I said, this does not influence my writing in any way; but to be absolutely scrupulous, I feel duty-bound to point it out, should anyone care.]

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post

  Reported by Huffington Post 7 hours ago.

UPMC lawyers on Monday protested the filing of a third amended complaint against the hospital network and health insurer Highmark Inc. by a real estate development company and others, saying the lawsuit was too vague and it would be impossible to determine damages. In a lawsuit filed in 2010, South Hills real estate developer Royal Mile Co. Inc. and Coles Wexford Hotel Inc. accused Highmark and UPMC of colluding to prop up health insurance rates by keeping national carriers out of the Pittsburgh… Reported by bizjournals 6 hours ago.

New play, "Lady from Limerick," dealing with tragic medical error, debuts in New York, with discussions among patient safety experts, and those affected by medical errors.Just days after the end of open enrollment saw seven million Americans enroll for the Affordable Care Act, healthcare experts, care providers, and survivors of medical error will gather at the debut of a new play based on a healthcare tragedy.

PULSE of NY, a patient advocacy group, in conjunction with the Theater for the New City, is presenting the drama, Lady From Limerick and discussions, April 10-20 at the Theater for the New City.

Health care advocates, providers and survivors of medical error say this show, which is based on a true story, presents the human face of statistics regarding medical error.

Before the opening of the play, at 6 p.m., April 10, experts, advocates, survivors of medical error and their family members will discuss issues related to medical error in a press conference at the Theater for the New City. Other discussions will follow various later performances.

Dr. William Liss-Levinson will facilitate a post-performance discussion with the audience on April 10th. Liss-Levinson Ph.D., is Vice President, and Chief Strategy & Operations Officer for Castle Connolly Medical Ltd., a healthcare research and information company which publishes America's Top Doctors®, Top Doctors: New York Metro Area and other print and online guides to help consumers find the very best physicians.

"Dr. Liss-Levinson brings an important perspective to patient involvement for the best outcomes in care," said Ilene Corina, who founded PULSE of NY following the death of her child from what was considered routine surgery. "He brings an important and necessary perspective to the discussion."

At a time when health insurance is the talk of the nation, "Lady From Limerick," based on the story of Kathleen Cregan who traveled from Ireland to New York for plastic surgery, focuses on a patient's tragedy.

Cregan died as a result of the surgery performed by a doctor who, unbeknownst to her, had a long record of litigation. She was removed from life support on St. Patrick's Day, 2005.

"The play gives a patient a voice," Corina said. "It's a voice from the grave, but it still gives a voice. We have to remember that the patient needs to be at the center of the discussion. This brings us back to the importance of healthcare. It's about the patient."

The Institute for Healthcare Improvement estimates there are 440,000 incidents of medical harm each year.

Playwright Claude Solnik says, "I couldn't forget what happened and I realized that most people would focus on other news after they finished reading that article," he said. "I wrote a play inspired by the story to prevent her tragedy from being forgotten."

Corina's group will launch a campaign called "One is a Number" at the press conference. The campaign seeks to stamp out medical error as much as possible. ""Every patient counts," she says. "Every patient's important."

Lady From Limerick is being performed Thurs.- Sat. April 10-12 and 17-19 at 8 p.m., and Sun. April 13 and 20 at 3 p.m. at Theater for the New City, 155 First Ave. between 9th and 10th Sts.

Tickets are $15, $10 for students and seniors. Purchase at: http://www.theaterforthenewcity.net/limerick.htm, by simply going to the Theater for the New City website, or by calling Theater for the New City at (212) 254-1109.

Company Contact Information
PULSE OF NY
Ilene Corina
PO Box 353
Wantagh, NY
11793-0353
(516) 579-4711

News and Press Release Distribution From I-Newswire.com Reported by i-Newswire.com 5 hours ago.

WASHINGTON -- The share of Americans without health insurance has dropped to the lowest level since before President Barack Obama took office, according to a national survey that provides evidence the health care law is extending coverage to millions of the previously uninsured. Reported by TwinCities.com 4 hours ago.

For two decades, it has helped define Allyson Schwartz's political identity: She has billed herself as the "mother" of the state Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which provides health coverage to children of the working poor. Reported by philly.com 4 minutes ago.

Boston-based technology expert BrainSell is now able to offer HIPPA and ePCI compliant hosting to go along with their eVerify certification.

Topsfield, MA (PRWEB) April 08, 2014

BrainSell Technologies has added HIPPA and ePCI compliant hosting to their offerings to coincide with their competition of their E-Verify certification.

“BrainSell recognizes the need for HIPPA Compliant Sugar hosting and now offers it to our customers who require it,” said Kevin Cook, Vice President of Sales at BrainSell Technologies. “EVerify and HIPPA compliance mean that we can offer secure Sugar hosting to businesses that do business under GSA contracts.”

HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, protects the rights of individually identifiable health information. Having HIPPA compliant hosting is essential for any company that deals with sensitive information and ensures that the proper safeguards are in place.

In January, BranSell completed their E-Verify certification. E-Verify is an Internet-based program run by the United State’s government that determines the eligibility of employees to work in the United States.

For more information on this new venture, contact BrainSell at sales(at)brainsell(dot)net.

About BrainSell
BrainSell is a business solutions company that is dedicated to helping businesses grow, create a delighted customer base and achieve grand success. BrainSell provides comprehensive ERP, CRM, and marketing automation solutions and services, including training, implementation and software development. Founded in 1994 and headquartered in Topsfield, Massachusetts, BrainSell continues to grow in product knowledge and offerings. Visit http://www.brainsell.net to start improving sales and productivity today. Visit http://www.brainsell.netfor more information or email info(at)brainsell(dot)net.

Follow BrainSell on Facebook and on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/brainsell Reported by PRWeb 13 minutes ago.

WASHINGTON -- The Affordable Care Act is the first federal law to provide protection against sex discrimination in health care. LGBT advocates have been hoping that the Obama administration would interpret Section 1557, the law's civil rights provision, to protect gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals as well.

But last week, a Department of Health and Human Services official put a damper on some of those hopes, saying that while transgender individuals would be covered, gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals likely would not.

Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability by any health care provider that receives federal funds. Health insurance plans offered in the federal marketplace or run by the federal government are also subject to this provision.

HHS had earlier announced that discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex stereotypes would be prohibited under Section 1557, a significant victory. LGBT groups had also wanted it to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

But at the Salud LGBTT conference in Puerto Rico last week, Fernando Morales, an attorney with HHS' Office of Civil Rights, said the law's protections would apply to discrimination on the basis of gender identity but likely not to sexual orientation. His comments were reported by LGBT rights advocate Corey Prachniak, who has been blogging about the conference. From Prachniak's post:
However, Mr. Morales said today that OCR will not say that discriminating against someone because of their same-sex attraction is covered by the law. “Unfortunately, no, not at this time,” he said. “That is not covered under 1557.” I repeated Mr. Morales’s position back to him to make sure I had understood it correctly, and he affirmed that I was correct.

This seems to be breaking news, and heartbreaking news, for the LGBT community. If there is a silver lining, Mr. Morales said that gender identity-related discrimination will be included in the regulations. However, even there, how good of news this remains to be seen. Some in the department “want to go farther than others,” Mr. Morales said.
When asked for comment, Rachel Seeger, spokeswoman for HHS' Office of Civil Rights, replied, "The 1557 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has not yet been issued, and at this time HHS cannot comment on the content of this proposed rulemaking. However, the law was effective upon enactment and OCR has been accepting and investigating complaints under this authority."

Maya Rupert, policy director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said Morales' comments were not that shocking.

"This isn’t surprising and actually reflects our expectation of what the final 1557 regulations will say," Rupert said. "They will prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and nonconformity with sex stereotypes but will not explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation."

"Obviously, we continue to argue that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is sex discrimination because it is discrimination based on nonconformity with the assumed gender roles that dictate that men date women and women date men. Recently, a federal judge adopted this reasoning in a ruling. We remain hopeful that more courts and agencies will be persuaded by this argument," she added.

Documented cases of LGBT discrimination in the health care system include the refusal of health plans to cover the needs of transgender people and even refusal by some hospitals and health care centers to treat LGBT people.

Rupert said that even without the inclusion of sexual orientation, the protections in Obamacare are significant. Not only will they help transgender individuals, she said, but "regulations that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender nonconformity will also provide significant protections for gender-nonconforming lesbian, gay, and bisexual people." Reported by Huffington Post 11 hours ago.

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama made a big splash on Tuesday with two executive orders relating to equal pay for women. But for all his talk about using the power of his pen to get things done in Washington, he isn't showing any signs of taking action on an issue with significant support: banning workplace discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people.

The White House argument has been the same for months. Congress needs to take the lead on the issue, not the president, because legislation would go much further, officials say. If Congress passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, it would make it illegal nationwide to fire or harass someone at work for being LGBT. In contrast, if Obama were to sign an executive order, it would only apply to federal contractors.

But that rationale doesn't hold much weight considering Obama keeps taking action on matters he insists Congress needs to deal with on a broader level. In addition to Tuesday's executive orders on fair pay, an issue he's urging Congress to act on, Obama unilaterally raised the minimum wage for federal contractors in February, even as he continued pressing Congress to pass more comprehensive legislation. In June 2012, he used his executive authority to prevent Dream Act-eligible students from being deported, despite his ongoing push for immigration reform legislation.

The issue of workplace discrimination against LGBT people has stalled in Congress, and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said there's "no way" he'll bring up ENDA this year.

Some LGBT HuffPost readers wrote in describing the discrimination they have faced at work -- and wondering why Obama isn't taking action when he can.

Lisa Rowell, a transgender woman living in California, says she was harassed for months and ultimately pushed out of her job because of her gender identity:
In the spring of 2012 I was working for a large international technology company in San Jose CA as a Distinguished Engineer. I identified as a Trans Woman and though I had started developing breasts, I hid them using tight undergarments and attempted to present as male.

Unfortunately, I don't think my attempts at hiding who I was went very well, because I drew the attention of a director in the company who started to make unwelcome advances, touching me whenever he got the chance. As fate with have it, the excellent, very protective director I was working for left the company and I was moved underneath the man who was harassing me.

At first I feared going to HR because I didn't feel safe revealing my transgender status, so I attempted to transfer out of the group, but that was denied by the harasser. Later when he snuck up behind me and started rubbing my back (I suspect looking for a bra strap) in front of my team, I walked out and contacted HR.
Things got even worse when Rowell requested a transfer out from under her harasser. She said the HR manager became aggressive and told her the company was planning to lay her off, a "bizarre" moment considering she had just gotten a six-figure bonus and developed "very game-changing technology" for the company. Rowell was also told she couldn't work in the office anymore because she was transgender, and she would have to work at home for the time being. A few weeks later, the company cut off her access to the network and she couldn't work at all. She was forced to resign.

"They seemed unwilling to deal with the director, for whatever reason. I didn't know my rights. I didn't know the HR department would be so hostile," Rowell said. "It was instantly disgusting."

Rowell said executive action from Obama is far more important to her than Congress passing ENDA. California already has its own version of ENDA, she said, but people don't take it or LGBT workplace discrimination seriously. The real problem, she said, is people's attitudes on the issue.

"Not even Obama cares enough to stick his neck out there. That sends a message to the rest of the country that, 'This is not important,'" Rowell said. "I think an ENDA executive order from the president can help change attitudes over time."

Chris Trigger, a television meteorologist who is gay and who asked to be identified with a pseudonym, said he'll never forget the day when his managers anonymously told him to stop acting so gay during his weather reports. Trigger provided HuffPost with a copy of the letter that was left on his desk; HuffPost blacked out Trigger's real name and the studio's location, per his request:
The letter was a rant from a viewer about my mannerisms. They offended this viewer who encouraged station management to have a talk with me because people did not want to watch a gay person on local television.

A manager at my television station clearly took this viewer's advice. My name was scribbled in funky handwriting on my station's branded envelope to mask the deliverer's identity. That is why all the contact information was blacked out as well. The television manager opted to have a conversation with me about my gay mannerisms in the most cowardly way possible. Three managers had received the email, but no one admitted to printing, blacking out names, copying, or placing the letter on my desk.

Outwardly I was stoic, but I was crumbling inside. I was not comfortable with my sexuality as a twenty-three year old and this letter told me what some managers at my station really thought. The complaint is not about my knowledge or forecasting ability, but an attack at the core of my being.
Trigger went on to win several Emmys for his work, and he said he still winces when he thinks of the way he was treated at that station, which is located in the Deep South. He acknowledged that employers in the television business have a right to ask for cosmetic changes from their on-camera employees. But it's different to ask an employee to "alter who you are," he said, and he's puzzled as to why Obama won't do anything about it in the absence of congressional action.

"This type of discrimination is real," Trigger said. "The president has a chance to bypass the stalling and game playing with the stroke of a pen. Millions of Americans can immediately be protected from workplace discrimination."

If Obama did sign an executive order on ENDA, it would protect as many as 16 million federal contractors. Some LGBT federal employees say the move would have a major effect on other pressing issues too.

Sarah Vestal, a transgender woman in California who works for the Treasury Department, says she has been fighting to get reimbursed tens of thousands of dollars she paid out of pocket for health care costs surrounding her gender transition. Her battle isn't directly related to ENDA; it's more about the government's lack of enforcement of a 2012 ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that the federal ban on sex discrimination covers transgender discrimination.

Vestal said there's been no official guidance on how to implement the 2012 rules change, known as Macy v. Holder, so transgender federal employees are still being discriminated against when it comes to health insurance. It would help their cause tremendously if Obama signed an executive order on ENDA, she said, because it would show he's serious about stemming workplace discrimination within the government.

"It would strengthen the Macy v. Holder ruling," Vestal said. "It would help eliminate the structural discrimination ... Transgender people in the federal government are pulling their hair out."

*HuffPost Readers:* Have you been fired, harassed or discriminated against at work because of your sexual orientation or gender identity? If you're open to sharing your story, please email us at openreporting@huffingtonpost.com, or call us at 860-348-3376 and leave a voicemail describing your experience. Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.

Latino elders who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) face additional challenges as they age, compounded by barriers rooted in their racial and ethnic identities, as well as LGBT stigma and discrimination. Yet the attention and infrastructure to ameliorate these conditions is generally lacking. That's the overarching conclusion reached by the National Hispanic Council on Aging (NHCOA) in a first-ever national needs assessment examining the social, economic and political realities of a growing, though multiply marginalized, population.NCHOA’s report speaks to a timely moment. Demographics project a significant increase in Latino people and older people over the next few decades, trends rooted largely in immigration and the aging of the Baby Boom generation, respectively. For example, the U.S. Census estimates that the number of Latino people age 60 and older will sky-rocket from 4.3 million in 2010 to 22.6 million in 2050. And as societal attitudes and policy changes have made it easier for some segments of the LGBT population to "come out" and live openly, LGBT older people have become increasingly visible in both the aging and long-term care system, as well as society at large.Yet NHCOA's new report—released in partnership with the national LGBT aging advocacy non-profit, SAGE—contends that this wave has left behind a more marginalized population: LGBT Latino elders. Based on a year's worth of expert interviews, a literature review (that tellingly emphasizes the general dearth in research on LGBT Latino people) and focus groups in four major metropolitan cities with high concentrations of Latinos and LGBT people, NHCOA paints a portrait of Latino LGBT elders aging in communities that aren't accepting of their full identities. LGBT Latinos also report both fearing and encountering biased care providers without the skills or resources to support their unique needs.Drawing largely from published research, the report describes how many LGBT Latinos enter their later years already facing significant disparities related to physical and mental health, and to health care access and prevention. What are the major drivers of these inequities? According to the report, LGBT Latino elders face financial challenges rooted in lifetimes of discrimination in the workplace and in public benefit programs such as Medicaid and Social Security; lower educational statuses; housing instability; and reduced savings associated with a higher concentration in jobs with low-wage incomes and meager health insurance. It's not simply that LGBT Latino people are in poorer physical and economic health than their peers; it's that they have been systematically impoverished their entire lives by the same policies and institutions meant to protect them—and the effects become visceral in later life.Perhaps the report's most profound insights are found in the testimonies of LGBT Latino elders interviewed for the report. One respondent describes the overbearing power of religious leaders in destabilizing multicultural LGBT communities: "The ones who kick you out are those who run the church. But those who are rejected believe it’s God who is throwing them out.” Another respondent describes how rejection often comes most painfully from other LGBT people: "Even in our LGBT community when there is someone who says, 'Yes, I am bisexual,' people say, 'Ay no, you are crazy or confused.' I think that there is much discrimination within our community, but as long as you don’t say who you are, things are fine.” Or perhaps the broad societal disregard of older people is the most painful renunciation, as told by one respondent: "We are persons who, because of who we are, people are not interested in."The report's respondents also exhibit an acute analytical sense, rife with possibilities. One respondent adeptly summarizes the problem as "a lack of information and knowledge about where services are located. There is also a difficulty speaking about one’s own health, as well as a language barrier. This community is not used to speaking about its health, body or sexuality.” And another respondent offers a concise call-to-action to the aging field: "The challenge is to train in our native language the communities or the centers that, in one form or another, are going to provide those services.” The report's recommendations generally abide by this advice. It encourages policies that better fund and deliver supports to all older people (which Latino people and LGBT people disproportionately access), as well as targeted supports for LGBT Latino elders. And it firmly states that the aging field should invest in more multi-lingual, LGBT-friendly outreach, training and services for LGBT Latino older people.One of the report's more incisive recommendations is to deepen the research on marginalized older people to better craft interventions that will become even more pressing in the ensuing decades, as people of color become the U.S. majority and sexual and gender diversity becomes more salient in civic life. On one level, this could mean better understanding the diversity within "Latino" identities, which encompasses various nationalities, histories, cultures and languages. And it means better studying difference within LGBT people to pinpoint more marginalized sub-groups—transgender people and bisexual people, as two noteworthy examples.We can't fix what we don't fully understand, is what NHCOA's report ultimately seems to be stating. Yet this report takes us one step closer—and LGBT Latino older people deserve it. Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.

More than 9 million Americans have gotten health insurance for the first time thanks to Obamacare, according to a new report from the Rand Corporation.Most of the people who got new insurance didn’t buy it on the Obamacare exchanges but rather signed up with an employer, the survey found. Reported by msnbc.com 11 hours ago.

Cheryl Stumph and her family haven't had health insurance for years. Now that they do, they plan to take make up for lost time. Pent-up demand for care is overwhelming an Oregon health plan. Reported by NPR 10 hours ago.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. administration has not determined whether it has legal authority to delay Obamacare's individual mandate, which requires most Americans to enroll in health insurance or pay a tax penalty, a senior Treasury official said on Tuesday. Reported by Reuters 10 hours ago.

Gov. Mark Dayton on Tuesday defended the decision to launch the MNsure health insurance exchange on Oct. 1, and accused Republicans of "making a mockery of oversight" in pushing for last-minute testimony from former administration officials on the subject. Reported by TwinCities.com 10 hours ago.

I'm hearing a lot of complaints about wages, which surprises me because I thought we had all agreed that everything is fine with everything and we were all going to stop protesting, get a dog and stretch more.

It seems the poor and huddled Marxists are bellyaching about their aching bellies, demanding a "living wage" that lets them "meet basic needs," but everyone's basic needs are different. I need constant praise and attention, but if everyone else got constant praise and attention nobody would be jealous of me, which is another thing I need (also a vanity license plate ["COOLVRO"], a vanity cane and a vanity pontoon boat). A definition of "basic needs" will never be perfect, and like I tell my son, if you can't guarantee it will be perfect, you shouldn't try.

The wage issue is being used to pick on companies like Walmart purely out of jealousy of their success and fashionable wardrobe. But we should be getting on our hands and knees and kissing their canvas slip-ons. The innovations of large companies like Walmart have fueled our economic growth: state-of-the-art wage theft, groundbreaking union busting and a post-modern, minimalist approach to health insurance.

Instead of trying to shame job creators, let's save our moral condemnation for conduct that actually harms others, like gay marriage or having a foreskin. Companies can't be morally obligated to pay a certain wage because the fact is they don't have any morals. That's just how they were born and we have to love and accept them for who they are. They should be free to merge with whoever they want, exploit people of any race or creed and force their servers to sing "Happy Birthday" with convincing cheerfulness several times per shift (to the tune of "Help Me Rhonda" to avoid copyright infringement).

And that freedom goes both ways. If workers don't like a job that pays minimum wage, they're free to choose another job like Homelessist, Hunger Technician or Bindle Assembler.

If workers want to be paid more, they should work harder. New research shows that if the minimum wage increased with worker productivity for the past 35 years. Today it would be about $22 an hour. That's okay, but just imagine what minimum wage could be if workers deserved $50 an hour. It could trickle down to $10.50 or $10.75 an hour. The sky* is the limit! (*sky = minimum wage)

The economy is complicated network of causes and effects. Increasing the minimum wage would have unintended consequences, like going back in time. Prices might go up, jobs might be lost, Hitler might win the Daytona 500, a married man with a loving wife might switch bodies with a single man who is at the prime of his sexual life, resulting in 112 minutes you will never get back.

It's time to stop tinkering with wages and let them be the way God intended: unregulated, unfair and a bit lower for women. Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.

Unfaithfulness bothers voters more than graft. Those who oppose Obamacare because it's "not liberal enough" are not as liberal as you may have assumed. And if you're not already tired of political ads, here are 50,000 more. This is HuffPollster for Tuesday, April 8, 2014.

*VOTERS LESS TROUBLED BY POLITICIANS' AFFAIRS THAN ABUSE OF POWER* - Quinnipiac: "American voters dislike a politician who abuses official power more than an elected official caught in an extra-marital affair, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today. The independent Quinnipiac University presented voters with a theoretical congressman - James Miller - whose 'main concern in office is developing policies to help middle-class, working families.' Miller was described as 53, married, with two children….Some voters were told that Miller was 'unfaithful to his wife with another woman.'....A total of 39 percent say they definitely or probably would vote for him, while 49 percent say they definitely or probably would not vote for him.Another group of voters were told 'Miller created a new, well-paid position on his staff in order to hire an unqualified family member as a favor.'...Only 24 percent definitely or probably would vote for him, with 67 percent who definitely or probably would not." [Quinnipiac]

*FEW OPPOSE ACA BECAUSE IT'S 'TOO LIBERAL'* - HuffPollster: "Some supporters of the Affordable Care Act claim that polls showing majority opposition to the law are misleading because many of these disapproving Americans really prefer a more liberal alternative. Results of an experimental HuffPost/YouGov survey, however, show that just isn't so.….Just under one-third of the not-liberal-enough opponents (31 percent), for example, want the government to be 'more involved in providing health insurance.' Slightly more (36 percent) want the government to be less involved, with another third either unsure or preferring no change….*[R]oughly one-third to one-half of those who oppose the ACA because it is 'not liberal enough' said they would support more expansive government approaches. But at least half did not.* The findings are consistent with the way these conflicted Americans described themselves on the YouGov surveys: Just 28 percent called themselves liberal, 39 percent moderate and 18 percent conservative." [HuffPost]

*CAN'T GET ENOUGH POLITICAL ADS?* - Kantar CMAG put more than 50,000 captured political television ads into one giant interactive graphic. Elizabeth Wilner on what it shows: "*Beyond enabling binge-viewing of 50,000+ campaign ads, the Eye reflects a thing or two about how political advertising has evolved*—even just within the past two presidential races. Not one ad from the 2012 race exceeded the spot count of any of the 10 most-aired ads of 2008. (The most-aired ad of the 2012 race, an Obama ad attacking GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his “47%” remark, actually ranks 12th overall.) What’s this a reflection of? A smaller battleground in 2012 meant those presidential ads aired across fewer markets, which held down occurrences. But beyond that, the 2012 Obama campaign targeted many of their ads more narrowly, keeping as many as 20 unique commercials on the air at any one time. Many 2012 presidential ads also aired for shorter periods of time than ads in previous races because they were produced to either drive, or take advantage of the news cycle—a growing trend for political ads." [Cook Political, Kantar graphic]

*Twitter reactions*:

-National Journal's *Shane Goldmacher*: "You could lose your entire day with CMAG's awesome visualization of every political ad of the last decade." [@ShaneGoldmacher]

-Political scientist *Brendan Nyhan*: "No meta-data but amazing resource" [@BrendanNyhan]

-GWU political science PhD student *Will Cubbison*: "This takes the work on Presidential ads and multiplies it by amazing." [@wccubbison]

*ANOTHER SURVEY FINDS DROP IN UNINSURED RATE* - Katherine Grace Carman and Christine Eibner: "Using a survey fielded by the RAND American Life Panel, *we estimate a net gain of 9.3 million in the number of American adults with health insurance coverage* from September 2013 to mid-March 2014. The survey, drawn from a small but nationally representative sample, indicates that this significant uptick in insurance coverage has come not only from enrollment in the new marketplaces established under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but also from new enrollment in employer coverage and Medicaid….This particular survey work—which is ongoing—is known as the RAND Health Reform Opinion Study(RHROS). We match these data with data collected in September 2013 about insurance choices. The results presented here are based on 2,425 adults between the ages of 18 and 64 who responded in both March 2014 and September 2013." [RAND]

*'FOR WHOM WOULD YOU VOTE', WITHOUT PARTY LABELS* - New polling by PPP (D) for MoveOn released Tuesday finds voters in seven states favor expanding Medicaid and are less likely to vote for politicians who oppose doing so. Unusually, the surveys, which also included horse race questions, didn't identify which party the candidates belonged to. [MoveOn]

*Why leave party ID out?* PPP's director, Tom Jensen, explains in an email to HuffPost: "That was just how [MoveOn] had it in their draft poll and we left it that way because I don’t think it really matters one way or the other. That’s generally our approach with private client polls unless we think their draft language is going to bias things. The results we found are pretty consistent with what we and most others have found in these races over time. People know what party their Governor or Senator is."

MoveOn communication director Nick Berning, in a separate email: "The answer is that we didn’t want to introduce party ID because we didn’t want party labels to influence folks’ feelings on Medicaid."

*WILL KEY DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUENCIES STAY HOME IN 2014?* - A new Greenberg/Womens' Voices Women Vote (D) poll shows the "Rising American Electorate" (unmarried women, young voters, minorities) less likely to vote in 2014 than other Americans. Greg Sargent: "The poll — which was done by Stan Greenberg of Democracy Corps for Women’s Voices Women Vote — finds that voters nationwide in the Rising American Electorate (unmarried women, young voters, minorities) are significantly less likely to vote in 2014 than other voters (non-RAE voters) are. This is the core of the Dem dilemma: RAE voters are increasingly key to the victorious Dem coalition in national elections, thanks to the diversifying electorate. But they are among the least likely to turn out in midterms, unlike more GOP-aligned non-RAE voters, such as middle-aged and older white males and married women….*64 percent of RAE voters who voted in 2012 say they are “almost certain” to vote in 2014. Meanwhile, 79 percent of non-RAE voters from 2012 say they are almost certain to vote this year, a 15 point edge.*" [WashPost Plum Line, WVWV memo]

*Does turnout really doom the Democrats?* - Michael McDonald: "I love turnout stories. There is a spooky one being told around Democratic campfires that goes something like this: Democrats will lose big in 2014 when Democrats disappear from the electorate. All good scary stories have an element of truth. Yes, Democratic turnout is comparatively lower than Republicans in midterm elections compared to presidential elections. Yes, Democrats are disadvantaged by this. Yes, Republicans are trying to restrict voting in the names of vote fraud and election uniformity. However, there is a glaring fact, come the light of day: *Democrats won in 2006, and the 2006 electorate does not look all that much different than the 2010 electorate*….The 2006 Democratic victory thus shows that while lower Democratic turnout in a midterm election is a hurdle, it is one that can be overcome. Planned attempts by Democratic organizations to build a presidential-style field operation to mobilize those who typically drop out in a midterm election can be important to tilting the playing field. However, it is perhaps at least, if not more, important for Democrats to persuade swing voters to support their candidates." [HuffPost]

*HUFFPOLLSTER VIA EMAIL!* - You can receive this daily update every weekday via email! Just click here, enter your email address, and and click "sign up." That's all there is to it (and you can unsubscribe anytime).

*TUESDAY'S 'OUTLIERS'* - Links to the best of news at the intersection of polling, politics and political data:

-The share of mothers who do not work outside the home rose to 29 percent in 2012, up from 23 percent in 1999. [Pew Research]

-Californians still like President Obama. [Field]

-A Talk Business/Hendrix College poll finds Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) 3 points up against rival Tom Cotton. [Talk Business]

-A Voter Survey Service finds the Florida gubernatorial race nearly tied. [Sunshine State News]

-PPP (D) also fielded polls in Michigan and North Carolina. [PPP Michigan toplines, North Carolina toplines]

-Harper (R) finds Tea Party challenger Chris McDaniel gaining on Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), although the incumbent still leads. [Harper]

-High Point University finds both Barack Obama and Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) with negative approval ratings among voters. [HPU]

-No, Rand Paul isn't the Republican frontrunner, Andrew Prokop argues. [Vox]

-Gary Langer rounds up recent reports questioning whether "big data" is "the analytical holy grail it’s been made out to be." [ABC News] Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Several big corporations have reaped millions of dollars from "Obamacare" even as they support GOP candidates who vow to repeal the law. This condemn-while-benefiting strategy angers Democrats, who see some of their top congressional candidates struggling against waves of anti-Obamacare ads partly funded by these companies.

Among the corporations is a familiar Democratic nemesis, Koch Industries, the giant conglomerate headed by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. They and some conservative allies are spending millions of dollars to hammer Democratic senators in North Carolina, Alaska, Colorado, Iowa and elsewhere, chiefly for backing President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., renewed his criticisms of the Kochs this week. In a Senate chamber speech, Reid noted that Koch Industries benefited from a temporary provision of the health care law.

The Early Retiree Reinsurance Program, Reid said, "helped the company pay health insurance costs for its retirees who are not covered by Medicare." Reid asked sarcastically: "So it's OK for Koch Industries to save money through Obamacare" even as Koch-related groups seek the law's repeal.

When Congress enacted the health care law in 2010, it appropriated $5 billion for the temporary reinsurance program. The goal was to subsidize employers' costs for workers who retire before they become eligible for Medicare. Hundreds of employers applied — many were corporations, cities and public universities — and virtually all the money was soon distributed.

"If the Affordable Care Act is so awful," Reid asked, "why did Koch Industries use it to their advantage?"

Federal records show that Koch Industries received $1.4 million in early retiree subsidies. That's considerably less than the sums many other employers received. A Koch Industries spokesman said he had no comment on Reid's latest criticisms.

The Koch consortium may be the loudest "Obamacare" critic among the subsidized employers. But many others accepted the subsidies while heavily backing GOP House and Senate candidates, most of who call for repealing the 2010 health care law.

For instance, United Parcel Service received $37 million from the program's subsidies for early retirees. From 1989 through this year, political action committees affiliated with UPS donated $32 million to federal candidates and political parties. Of that, 64 percent went to Republicans, according to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Union Pacific Railroad's employee health system received $9.7 million in subsidies. Republicans received more than two-thirds of the nearly $20 million in political donations from the railroad's PACs in the 25-year period tracked by the center.

Altria Client Services Inc. received nearly $11 million in the early retiree subsidies. And Republicans received 71 percent of the nearly $24 million in Altria-related political donations from 1989 to 2014.

One of the biggest subsidy recipients was AT&T, at $213 million. More than half of the $56 million in AT&T-related political donations went to Republicans during the 25-year period.

Spokesmen for AT&T and Altria declined to comment about accepting "Obamacare" subsidies while funding candidates who want to repeal the law.

Other companies that steer most of their political donations to Republicans, and the early-retiree subsidies they received, include: Pfizer Inc., $23 million; GlaxoSmithKline, $14 million; Southern Company Services, $7 million; Lockheed Martin Corp., $4 million; CSX Corp., $2.2 million; KPMG LLP, $1.4 million; and Deloitte LLP, $1.2 million.

The data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics omits much of this year's heavy political spending, because many major players are not required to report donations. The Koch-funded group Americans for Prosperity is among those "super PACs" that can keep their finance details private, even as it dominates the airwaves in some states, like North Carolina, with competitive Senate races.

The Kochs and their allies show little sheepishness about denouncing a federal health law that benefited them. In fact, the Koch-related group FreedomPartners is spending more than $1 million on ads criticizing Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado and Rep. Bruce Braley of Iowa, Democrats running in tight Senate races.

Their alleged wrongdoing? Accepting campaign donations from health companies that benefit from "Obamacare."

___

Follow Charles Babington on Twitter: https://twitter.com/cbabington . Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.

President Obama seems to be under the mistaken impression that he’s a one-man Congress who can simply ignore the law to comport with his political interests.

JW filed a lawsuit on behalf of Kawa Orthodontics, owned by Florida orthodontist Dr. Larry Kawa, that directly challenges the president’s unlawful delay of the “employer mandate” that forces businesses of a certain size to provide a certain level of health insurance for employees. (JW has appealed a lower court decision dismissing the lawsuit on “standing” grounds.)

Separately, JW launched an investigation to determine upon what legal authority Obama justified his decision to delay the mandate in the first place. Simple question, yes? But unfortunately, the Obama Treasury Department has refused our requests for this information, and we were forced to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Treasury to get the records.

We filed the original FOIA request on October 28, 2013 and have received no response from the “most transparent administration in history.” So the Obama administration violates the Obamacare law, then violates the Freedom of Information law to cover it up. 

The law-breaking began on July 2, 2013, when the Obama administration disclosed in a blog post by Assistant Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy Mark Mazur that it would ignore the law and unilaterally delay the controversial “employer mandate,” which was to have gone into effect in January 2014, until 2015. On February 10, 2014, the administration again, unlawfully and unilaterally, delayed the employer mandate, this time until 2016.

And what was the reason for these extraordinary delays? Depends on who you ask.

The administration claimed it was delaying the mandate to give companies time to comply with the reporting procedures. However, a report on the delay in Bloomberg news at the time suggested that “the delay potentially shields Democratic candidates from a backlash generated by the additional regulations on employers.”

With a White House that openly attacks measures against election fraud, uses the IRS to bully conservative organizations, and asks its supporters to snitch on political adversaries while compiling an enemies list, I don’t think there is any doubt President Obama ignored the law for political considerations. And certainly our lawyers have found no legal basis for ignoring the plain words of the Obamacare law that the president purports to support!

Accordingly, the key question at the center of our investigation is what “controlling legal authority” (to borrow an Al Gore classic) did Obama use to ignore the law? We still do not have an answer. Worse, we don’t even know if the Treasury Department bothered to ask the question!

On January 16, 2014, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform staff conducted a transcribed interview with Mazur, in which he consistently denied “recollection” about whether the White House, the Department of the Treasury, or the Internal Revenue Service inquired into the legal authority of the “employer mandate” delays.

Let me get this straight: The president decided to ignore a law passed by Congress, and Mazur didn't remember anyone asking if it was all legal? I find that impossible to believe. (This is Constitution 101. Congress makes the laws. The Executive enforces them.)

In a March 22, 2014 commentary entitled “Was Delaying the Employer Mandate Legal? Did the IRS Even Check?” The Washington Post’s Jonathan Adler wrote:

Given the clear language of the PPACA, it was whether the administration had the legal authority to make this move. … Treasury has yet to identify an applicable precedent that would justify waiving a tax liability prospectively as the administration is purporting to do.

So The Washington Post asked the question, but the Treasury Department did not? We’re not buying it, which is why we are now in court. And we’re expecting a fight.

The stonewall on Obamacare from the very beginning has been Nixonian. While we still haven’t been given documents under FOIA that would tell us under what legal authority the president decided to shelve the mandate, we do know the impact it has had on businesses across the country. For example, due to the unlawful delay, Kawa Orthodontics lost “the value of its substantial efforts” in preparing for the mandate as originally scheduled.

According to a July 30, 2013 letter from the director of the Congressional Budget Office to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives, the delay of the “employer mandate” will result in an estimated loss of $10 billion in penalty payments by employers and approximately 1 million fewer people are expected to be enrolled in employment-based coverage in 2014 than the number previously projected. This will occur primarily because of the one-year delay in penalties on employers.

And speaking of enrollment figures: President Obama recently crowed about the number of people who have allegedly signed up for Obamacare – 7.1 million according to his number crunchers. But it’s hard to find anyone buying what he is selling. Remember the term "fuzzy math"?

We had to sue, again, to get basic information about Obamacare’s early enrollment numbers (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Case No. 1:13-cv-01855). We are still waiting for answers. Given his history of lies and stonewalling, without supporting documentation, I don’t believe much of anything President Obama has to say about Obamacare.

This distrust is widely shared. The 7.1 million number is “under a cloud of suspicion,” Breitbart News reported, noting there were large gaps in what we know about the figures. “Phony number,” said Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer. “These guys go six months without any idea what the numbers are, and all of a sudden it’s to a decimal point,” he said. And London's Daily Mail summed up the reason for all this distrust:

“Buried in the 7.1 million enrollments he announced in a heavily staged appearance is a more unsettling reality. 

Numbers from a RAND Corporation study that has been kept under wraps suggest that barely 858,000 previously uninsured Americans – nowhere near 7.1 million – have paid for new policies and joined the ranks of the insured by Monday night.



And then there are the folks who paid their premiums but did not get coverage. The CBS affiliate in Las Vegas reported that as the president was doing his victory lap, residents of Las Vegas were filing the first class action lawsuit against the state of Nevada, the Nevada state-run health exchange, and the company that built it, Xerox.

Just days after the deadline to enroll for insurance coverage through Nevada Health Link, the first class-action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of residents who say they signed up and paid their premiums – but were never given coverage.

Law firm Callister & Associates filed the lawsuit on behalf of Larry Basich, who signed up for state health insurance and paid premiums as far back as November but then was not covered following a January 3rd triple bypass procedure that saw his $400,000 in medical expenses passed between the wrong insurance companies, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.

President Obama can spin as much as he wants. But the American people know well that Obamacare has given us nothing but chaos from day one, from the disastrous HealthCare.gov rollout to the constant “re-imagining” of the law by the president to fuzzy math about enrollment figures. And it will continue, as will our pursuit of answers and justice. Reported by Breitbart 9 hours ago.

It's "follow the rules" time for folks who missed the deadline to sign up for a private health plan through Washington's Healthplanfinder but who still want insurance. If you couldn't finish -- or even start -- an application, you'll need to get a special dispensation from the Wa Reported by Seattle Times 10 hours ago.

The recent clamor over the city of Chicago's supposed "pension crisis" has drowned out many salient facts. Proponents of the drastic cuts sought by the city have threatened a range of doomsday scenarios if their proposal is not enacted, including untenable cuts to city services or the prospect that retirees could receive no pension at all. Rather than the thoughtful, informed discussion this matter deserves, this is the equivalent of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Here are the facts: The pension-cutting legislation backed by the Emanuel Administration would unfairly harm some 50,000 employees and retirees who participate in the city's Municipal Retirement Fund. These are the lowest-paid city workers, including library employees, food-service and janitorial workers in city schools, health care employees, clerical workers and others.

Their average pension today is just $33,000 a year. They aren't eligible for Social Security, so this modest amount is their primary and often only source of income in retirement. And with the city already moving to eliminate their retiree health insurance, many low-income retired city workers are struggling even now to make ends meet.

Under the administration's proposal, the value of the average retiree's $33,000 pension would erode over two decades of retirement to barely $22,000 -- and keep dropping from there. It's uncertain how an 85-year-old retiree could get by on so little, and it's unjust to demand that they do so.

It's also important to note that 60 percent of municipal fund participants are women. Their average pension is even lower --just $27,000 a year today. The administration's bill would reduce their buying power to just $18,000 in two decades -- again, with no Social Security.

These workers and retirees have always paid substantially toward their own retirement -- 8.5 percent of every paycheck. The pension debt is caused primarily by the city's failure to contribute an adequate share.

Slashing the retirement income of seniors who served our city doesn't just harm retirees; it also drains economic activity from neighborhoods where the public-sector workforce is the beating heart of the middle class. Every dollar put into a community in a pension check yields $1.72 in economic activity, mostly in local businesses.

The municipal fund and the other city pension funds for teachers, police, firefighters and laborers do face an underfunding crisis. AFSCME and the other unions in the We Are One Chicago coalition are committed to finding an equitable solution to that crisis. But any solution has to be fair to workers and retirees. And it must be constitutional and developed with the participation and support of all city unions.

There is no doubt that additional revenue must be raised to address the shortfall now and in the future. While we aren't opposed to considering property tax increases as part of any solution, other sources of revenue should also be explored. As the Sun-Times recently reported, the cost of corporate tax dollars diverted to TIF funds has outweighed the cost of pension benefits earned by city employees in recent years. Making certain that large, profitable corporations are paying their fair share is just one example of ways the city can raise revenue and address the pension funding problem without resorting to drastic cuts that hurt city neighborhoods and jeopardize retirement security for tens of thousands. Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.

There is yet another ObamaCare surprise waiting for consumers: from now until the next open enrollment at the end of this year, most people will simply not be able to buy any health insurance at all, even outside the exchanges. Reported by FOXNews.com 9 hours ago.