In Search of Crony Capitalism

July 7, 2014, 6:58 am

≫ Next: Judge to mull senator's suit over health exchanges

≪ Previous: Americans Mourn Loss of Economic Independence

$

0

0

Government programs reshape the economy. Taxes are a cost, and people and firms reflexively adjust to reduce the price shock. Tax retail purchases, but exempt those purchased online, and the mix of sales will shift to the Internet. Tax work and work will suffer as women and men choose to pursue their non-market opportunities. Tax one type of business more than other, and firms will change their legal form. Perhaps most dramatically, tax luxury yachts and people stop buying yachts and shift their purchases elsewhere. Yacht builders suffer, yacht workers get laid off, while those in jewelry, and expensive cars benefit.

Tariffs work the same way, which is why the global trading community has been working ceaselessly to reduce tariff barriers and limit the degree to which they shape the patterns of global trade.

Regulations are another kind of tax. Regulate carbon emissions from power plants, and producers shift away from coal and use natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar and hydropower where they can. Mandate health insurance for full-time workers and employers will substitute part-timers where feasible.

The reality that government programs inevitably shift purchases, production, employment, and investment from sector-to-sector or firm-to-firm is not limited to the tax side of the ledger.

Purchase defense materials and manufacturers will focus on military products (and the reverse). Subsidize housing and people will buy homes, shifting away from landlords and new apartment building. Subsidize health insurance (and food stamps and unemployment and heating oil.....) and some people will take those benefits and not work to meet the same needs.

The economic lesson is clear: government programs inevitably create sectors, firms, and individuals who are bettered by a policy and corresponding sectors, firms, and individuals who are not. Winners and losers are part and parcel of policymaking.

This brings me to the debate over reauthorizing the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), which has been labeled "corporate welfare," and the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im). Some critics refer to these programs as examples of "crony capitalism." What is it about these programs that merits such charges?

Do TRIA and Ex-Im affect the shape of economic activity? Of course. TRIA was intended to ensure that terrorism risk insurance was available at reasonable rates, thereby supporting existing commercial real estate businesses and new construction. Ex-Im serves to level the international playing field for U.S. exporters, thereby shifting the mix of commerce toward global sales and away from domestic purchases. Ex-Im offers four financial products -- direct loans, loan guarantees, working capital guarantees and export credit insurance -- in pursuit of its mission of boosting U.S. jobs through the financing of exports.

In the process there will be visible "winners" -- usually defined by those that are directly in contact with the program. However, just as the ultimate beneficiaries of repealing the luxury yacht tax were not the rich but rather the shipbuilders and boatyards, the ultimate beneficiaries for Ex-Im will be the workers, managers, and investors that finance export activity.

The fact that a program sends a payment to a corporation, or receives a tax payment or fee from a big business, simply cannot be prima facie evidence of crony capitalism.

Neither is public campaigning or lobbying. In a democracy both the winners and losers in a policy debate have every right to inform, educate, debate, and argue for the outcome they see as best - even if "best" is selfishly narrow. The vocal opponents of TRIA and Ex-Im are vivid examples of this right.

What about inappropriately cozy private relationships? There have been reports recently of Ex-Im employees accepting kickbacks and gifts. If true, that does constitute graft, malfeasance, and unlawful acts. It does not mean that the function of Ex-Im constitutes welfare or crony capitalism. For years, there have been concerns regarding tens of billions of dollars of inappropriate Medicare payments, some of which appear to stem from outright fraud. Does that make Medicare corporate welfare? There is a big difference between the design of a program and the integrity of its administration.

The key issue is whether the government purchase, transfer, tax, mandate or regulation needs to be in place at all. If private commerce can undertake the same activity in the same form, then the government program serves to use the power of the state to cement an economic relationship that might otherwise be subject to markets and competition. Reforms in 2010 required Ex-Im to ensure that its loans and guarantees assume commercial or political risk private financial institutions are unwilling or unable to bear. Nevertheless, concern about government overstepping its boundaries remain.

In the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001 terrorism risk insurance disappeared from insurance markets and led to the creation of TRIA. During the financial crisis, numerous exporters found private credit unavailable and turned to Ex-Im for financing. Opponents of these programs sometimes argue these post-crisis episodes are misleading and that the programs are unneeded support. Proponents of reauthorization point to this (and other) evidence of the need for a continued government presence to pursue the policy goals.

How can the debate be settled? Politics and votes, of course. A pragmatic approach can apply to both TRIA and Ex-Im: reauthorize the programs with reforms to eliminate undesirable policy and to reduce the absolute scale of the programs. If as the programs are progressively scaled back the private sector experiences no trouble purchasing insurance or financing exports, then the data supports the notion that events have overcome the need for these activities. Alternatively, market stresses may emerge that both support the continuation of the programs and reveal important information about their necessary scale.

The debate over TRIA and Ex-Im has produced much sound and fury, and fewer hard facts and reasoned arguments. It certainly has not produced a compelling case for crony capitalism or corporate welfare. Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.

---

Judge to mull senator's suit over health exchanges

July 7, 2014, 7:02 am

≫ Next: Couple Forced To Separate After 33 Years Of Marriage To Keep Health Insurance

≪ Previous: In Search of Crony Capitalism

$

0

0

A federal judge will hear arguments this week on whether to toss a U.S. senator's lawsuit challenging rules that force congressional members and their staffs to obtain government-subsidized health insurance through small business exchanges. Reported by Seattle Times 6 hours ago.

Couple Forced To Separate After 33 Years Of Marriage To Keep Health Insurance

July 7, 2014, 7:31 am

≫ Next: Part-time America: Makers who are also Takers

≪ Previous: Judge to mull senator's suit over health exchanges

$

0

0

Couple Forced To Separate After 33 Years Of Marriage To Keep Health Insurance
Couple Forced To Separate After 33 Years Of Marriage To Keep Health Insurance
Headlines
Health
Nation
Has Been Optimized

A Tennessee couple, married for 33 years, has been forced to separate in order to keep their health insurance. 

Larry and Linda Drain recently told The Tennessean they were forced apart because they were left in a coverage gap created by the Affordable Care Act and a U.S. Supreme Court decision. 

The couple’s household income was too low for them to qualify for a government subsidy to buy health insurance and Tennessee has not expanded its Medicaid program to people who don’t qualify for the subsidy. 

The Affordable Care Act, which is sometimes referred to as Obamacare, originally expanded Medicaid coverage to couples who found themselves in the Drains’ predicament, but the Supreme Court struck down that part of the law, leaving Medicaid expansion up to individual states. 

Nine Southern states refused to expand Medicaid following the decision, leaving over 4 million Southerners in the coverage gap, according to Colorado News Day. The Drains are among 162,000 couples in Tennessee who find themselves in the gap. 

But 62-year-old Larry Drain says he also blames himself.

“In September of last year, I made what looking back on it in retrospect was the worst decision I ever made in my entire life," he said. "I decided to take early retirement from Social Security.”

His wife, Linda, suffers from severe epilepsy and can’t be without health insurance. 

Even though Larry Drain was making less from his monthly Social Security benefit than he was while he was working, his decision changed the eligibility requirements for his wife to continue receiving Supplemental Security Income. 

If she continued to live with her husband she would have lost that benefit and would have no longer qualified for the state’s Medicaid program, TennCare.

"After one or two months of crying and lots of prayers and lots of yelling and screaming, on Dec. 26 — after 33 years of marriage — we separated," Larry Drain said.

Linda Drain now lives with her mother while Larry Drain lives alone in the small apartment the couple once shared. 

He said he writes a letter to Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam every day, asking him to expand Medicaid in the state. Drain posts the letters on his personal blog. 

"In some ways, it is like a virtual sit-in," he said. "I couldn't go sit in his office, but in some way I need to say, 'I am here. I am going to be here. I'm going to talk about things you don't want talked about.’"

Sources: The Tennessean, Colorado News Day

1
Video Piece: 
Regular Piece Reported by Opposing Views 5 hours ago.

Part-time America: Makers who are also Takers

July 7, 2014, 9:05 am

≫ Next: Republican Hatred Overshadows America's Founding Values

≪ Previous: Couple Forced To Separate After 33 Years Of Marriage To Keep Health Insurance

$

0

0

I thought I'd grown numb to the media's relentless efforts to manufacture good news for Barack Obama, but the June unemployment report really takes the cake.  It was almost universally reported as phenomenal good news, with caveats brusquely related 10 paragraphs into print stories, if at all.  Almost 300,000 jobs created!  Recovery Summer is here at last, five years after Obama promised it!  Pop the champagne corks, America is back in business!

In reality, this was a horrific unemployment report, and there is nothing ambiguous about why.  The headlines should have read "Full-time employment crash: Half a million careers disappear in June." Quite simply, and to use round numbers, we got to the headline "300k jobs created" because the economy created 800,000 *part-time jobs, *while losing 500,000 full-time positions.    

That's not a recovery, it's terrifying - a Great Leap Forward in the Obamanomics transformation of the American economy into a shrunken, underemployed workforce.  Normally, the best thing that could be said about a surge in part-time job creation is that it might be a harbinger of more robust full-time job creation in months to come, but that's a difficult case to make when the same reporting period saw 500,000 full-time jobs disappear.  How long would it take Obama's economy just to fill in that half-million career hole, even if it returned to the best pace of full-time job creation seen during this Presidency?  The rest of 2014, I'd wager... and there's no reason to think full-time job creation is going to surge back to even those modest levels, any time soon.

Every time I write about how the transformation to Part-Time America is a deliberate, although of course secret, Obama policy goal, someone asks me why his ideology would demand reduced full-time employment.  It's very simple: because part-time workers are the socialist ideal.  They're Takers who are also Makers. 

The old paradigm of socialist revolution envisioned a day when pure Takers - the people who collect redistributed wealth, without contributing much beyond the hidden taxes everyone pays - outnumber Makers.  At that point, socialism would go on autopilot.  There would never be a working electoral majority in favor of cutting government spending or reducing taxes.  The shots would forever be called by people with no skin in the game.

That doesn't really work in practice, and the Left deserves credit for figuring out why.  When the dividing like between Takers and Makers is crystal-clear, the Makers grow resentful and cautious before autopilot levels of socialist imbalance are reached.  Furthermore, the Makers can successfully recruit Takers to their cause, by pointing out that the socialist utopia is unsustainable.  A lot of people truly, sincerely want to contribute; even an American society ravaged by decades of faculty-lounge left-wing indoctrination still boasts a population that, for the most part, does not want to make a hammock of the social safety net.  When the weight of supporting that net drags the entire economy down, a pure Makers vs. Takers division begins to tilt inexorably in the Makers' favor.

But if the aspiring socialist overlord can create a vast new class of people - Takers who are also Makers - the lines are blurred enough to keep that political imbalance from appearing.  The great goal of the Left is the defeat and subjugation of the Middle Class, which they hate, although political necessity requires them to posture as its champions.  The true Middle Class is defined by its independence.  Get them hooked on government subsidies, and they lose that independence.  Make enough of them truly dependent on those subsidies for the necessities of life, and their political threat is permanently neutralized.

Socialized medicine is a big step in that direction, and ObamaCare was a bold leap toward true socialized medicine.  Already, even in the weird socialist/capitalist fusion created by ObamaCare, we see people with very solid Middle Class incomes receiving hefty subsidy payments for their health insurance.  They are being conditioned to depend on the bounty of the State for what they perceive as a necessity of life.

Part-Time America is an even bigger step toward socialist stasis.  A part-time worker is working hard, contributing to society, earning his own keep, and not inclined to think of himself as a welfare-state dependent... but he also cannot make enough money to live the Middle Class lifestyle, and he doesn't enjoy the benefits or stability of full-time career work.  He's not on a path to increase his career profile or grow more invested in the company that employs him, either emotionally or literally, through investment benefit plans.  He is forever alienated from his employers, and such alienation is the meat and drink of socialist revolution, as Karl Marx explained at length.

You'll notice that Democrat rhetoric about the welfare state and minimum wage includes loud and frequent statements that people who earn minimum wage cannot live well.  People who make the minimum wage over a long period of time tend to be part-time employees, a status that also reduces the benefit of receiving small raises above the minimum wage level - an extra fifty cents an hour doesn't matter as much when you're only working 25 hours a week.  Part-Time America needs the State and its redistribution programs to taste the Middle Class lifestyle, but also tends to think left-wing appeals to the Sainted Middle Class are pitched at them, too. 

The end of prosperity lies with a growing class of people who have good, solid economic reasons to believe that prosperity is something the government must seize and redistribute. Reported by Breitbart 4 hours ago.

Republican Hatred Overshadows America's Founding Values

July 7, 2014, 9:45 am

≫ Next: Together Health Network Board Members and Interim CEO Named

≪ Previous: Part-time America: Makers who are also Takers

$

0

0

Many politicians in Washington do not agree with one another but, the Republican Party seems to go beyond disagreement and promote hatred. They hate Obama, science and climate change, immigrants, Muslims, ethnic minorities, labor unions, food programs, taxes, women's rights, abortion, contraceptives, gun control, compromise, and governing. They harbor birthers and white supremacists; gun toting activists and revolutionary hotheads.

Obamacare may be the single most hated word by Republicans. Why? The Party claims it will destroy the country, cost jobs, isn't constitutional, and will raise taxes. I believe they hate "Obamacare" simply because Obama created it. None of their accusations have proven to be true, yet they continue their false rhetoric nonetheless. I think they hate that all Americans, even the less fortunate, are able to obtain affordable health insurance, not just the privileged, through the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans base many of their proclamations on religion. However, religious arguments can be divisive. Throughout the centuries, countries and leaders have used religion as a basis for killing, enslaving and ostracizing others, rather than emphasizing the "love their neighbor" aspect. More often than not, Republicans use their own personal religious beliefs to incite hate for women, minorities, LGBT communities, etc.

Hatred is a learned trait. Learned at home, in school, on television, and by the people we associate with in society. As bullying and prejudice increase, one has to wonder: Does the constant bullying and voiced hatred by Republicans make kids think it's okay to bully? Okay to hate, just because someone is different?

People wonder what's wrong with our elected officials, but when Renee Ellmers (R-NC) speaks, she sums it up: "I was a controversial figure on my reservation when I was a kid. I was mouthy and opinionated and arrogant. Nothing has changed." Republicans, who have sworn to uphold our constitution, brag that they are difficult rather than being team players; they believe intimidation and hate trump compromise and appreciation for others' point of view.

Unfortunately, Renee Ellmers is correct. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) possesses not only hatred but ignorance as well...a dangerous combination. Two of his recent small-minded statements include: "The Hate Crimes Bill will lead to Nazism, Legalization of Necrophilia, Pedophilia, and Bestiality" and "This Administration has so many Muslim Brotherhood members that have influence that they just are making wrong decisions for America." According to Casey Michel of the Houston Press, "He [Gohmert] doesn't need proof, or sourcing, or the ability to back up a claim with anything other than the vitriol in his voice and the consternation in his gut." (1)

Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), like many Republicans, also doesn't respect anyone that is different from their stereotypic view of "good people": white, Christian, and heterosexual. "The thing that I think that is getting a little tiresome is, the gay community thinks that they've so bullied the American people and they so intimidated politicians that politicians fear them, and so they think that they get to dictate the agenda everywhere," said Bachmann at the 2014 CPAC conference. (2)

Paul Ryan's (R-WI) incredibly disingenuous and negative criticism of America's anti-poverty programs and his recent speech at CPAC support the painfully obvious fact that Ryan's intense antagonism and blatant contempt for poor Americans is unrelenting. How can he choose to hate poor people? With all this country has provided him, I wonder: Have the poor people in this country done something specifically to him or his family that he shows such disdain?

Chris McDaniel (R-MS), who recently lost his bid to be the Republican Senate nominee, referred to Hispanic women as "mamacitas," and proclaimed that he would never again pay taxes if African Americans were paid reparations for slavery. He mused over whether "homosexual churches" exist and whether former attorney general Janet Reno "was a woman." In a short span of time, his disgust of minorities, homosexuals, and women was splashed across all news outlets.

Some news outlets and politicians share this hatred. Many conservative Fox News hosts emit hatred nightly. Sean Hannity not only provides a forum for intolerant bigoted guests to spew hate speeches, but connects with them in their contempt. He actually joined in when a guest on his show portrayed "all Muslims as barbaric terrorists that need to be hunted down and killed." (3)

Laura Ingraham, another radio host on Fox, has stated she hates the government, Planned Parenthood, immigrants, and the poor. One of her recent fabrications to rile up her base was when she claimed that the government has "resisted audits" on Planned Parenthood. Does she realize the government has records of all of the audits they conduct, at Planned Parenthood, on a regular basis?

Ann Coulter's hatred engulfs kids, soccer, and moms. In a recent column, she wrote: "Any growing interest in soccer can only be a sign of the nation's moral decay... Individual achievement is not a big factor in soccer. In a real sport, players fumble passes, throw bricks and drop fly balls -- all in front of a crowd. Liberal moms like soccer because it's a sport in which athletic talent finds so little expression that girls can play with boys. No serious sport is co-ed, even at the kindergarten level." (4)

Limbaugh has had a long history of mocking, attacking and disparaging women on his nationally-syndicated radio show. His preferred targets are liberal-minded and progressive women he calls "feminazis," but he also calls some of them "sluts," like Sandra Fluke.

As the king of hatred, Limbaugh has made inflammatory remarks that include "If you feed them, if you feed the children, three square meals a day during the school year, how can you expect them to feed themselves in the summer? Wanton little waifs and serfs dependent on the State. Pure and simple." (5)

As I watched the patriotic, inspirational and emotional Fourth of July celebration and fireworks, I wondered how Republicans can hate Obama more than they love America.

(1) The Five Most Idiotic Things Louie Gohmert, Who Sees Radical Muslims Anywhere He Looks, Believes, Casey Michel, July1, 2013, http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2013/05/gohmert_muslim_brotherhood_ter.php
(2) Dumb Michele Bachmann Quotes, About.com, Daniel Kurtzman, http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/republicans/a/michele-bachmann-quotes.htm
(3) Fox News' Sean Hannity Lets The Hate Speech Flow And Pushes All In On Islamophobia, PoliticusUSA, June 21, 2014, http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/21/fox-news-sean-hannity-lets-hate-speech-flow-pushes-islamophobia.html
(4) America's National Passtime: Hating Soccer, Ann Coulter, June 25, 2014, http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-06-25.html
(5) Rush Limbaugh on Women - Rush Limbaugh Quotes About Women: Limbaugh's Negative Comments Target Women, Female Politicians, 'Feminazis', Linda Lowen, Ask.com, http://womensissues.about.com/od/mediaimagesandinfluences/a/Rush-Limbaugh-On-Women-Rush-Limbaugh-Quotes-About-Women.htm Reported by Huffington Post 3 hours ago.

Together Health Network Board Members and Interim CEO Named

July 7, 2014, 9:05 am

≫ Next: Obama awaits another court ruling that could deal blow to health law

≪ Previous: Republican Hatred Overshadows America's Founding Values

$

0

0

Together Health Network, the clinically integrated network formed in May as a collaboration between Ascension Health Michigan and CHE Trinity Health Michigan and physician partners across the state, has named its first Board of Managers and an interim CEO.

Detroit, MI (PRWEB) July 07, 2014

Together Health Network, the clinically integrated network formed in May as a collaboration between Ascension Health Michigan and CHE Trinity Health Michigan and physician partners across the state, has named its first Board of Managers and an interim CEO.

Rick O'Connell, president of Trinity Health Division and executive vice president of CHE Trinity Health, has been appointed Chairman of the Board of Managers. O’Connell, along with Patricia Maryland, Dr.PH, president of Health Care Operations and Chief Operating Officer of Ascension Health served as co-chairs of the steering committee that conceived and planned the new organization.

Scott Eathorne, MD, one of the key physicians who led planning of the new network, will serve as interim CEO of Together Health Network. He will take a leave of absence from his role as President of Partners in Care, a physician hospital organization representing the partnership between The Physician Alliance and its 2100 physicians, and the St. John Providence Health System.

Together Health decided to fill the CEO position on an interim basis immediately, since the newly-formed organization is already being contacted by payers and potential partners. A full-time leader is needed to ensure the business plans move forward.

"Dr. Eathorne’s acceptance of the interim CEO position ensures that we are starting Together Health Network with the right leader who will guide us in the right direction,” said O’Connell. “Scott was on our steering committee since the inception of this collaboration, and brought not only the physician perspective to the table, but essential expertise in population health management."

Dr. Eathorne’s experience as the founding President and CEO of Partners in Care will be a considerable asset in quickly growing Together Health Network infrastructure, capabilities and business partners. “This is an exciting time to be defining the ‘new normal’ in delivering health care, to be in a position to help people manage a lifetime of health and well-being,” says Dr. Eathorne. “Our provider network is committed to delivering high value health care, to promoting wellness within our communities, and to managing the health of Michiganders on a broad scale.”

Dr. Eathorne is a family and athletic medicine physician who has served as the President and CEO of St John Providence Partners in Care since its inception in 2011. He was instrumental in the development of The Physician Alliance, consisting of 2100 multispecialty physicians, which partnered with St John Providence Health System to form Partners in Care. Prior to that, he served as the Medical Director for the Providence Medical Group. He has been actively involved in healthcare transformation, as a clinician and physician leader, focusing on the Patient Centered Medical Home model, successful integration of enabling technologies and development of care management services in an effort to improve population health.

One of the key tenets in creation of Together Health Network was the decision to have a physician-majority board, physician CEO and physician led committees. The 15-member board will include nine physicians, four health system executives and two community members. The inaugural Board of Managers will consist of:· Dottie Deremo, RN, Principal Partner, The Deremo Group and Executive Emeritus, Hospice of Michigan
· Dr. Eathorne, who serves on the board in his capacity as interim CEO
· James Fox, MD, emergency medicine, Vice President, Emergency Medicine Specialists, PC and on staff at St. John Providence Health System
· Michael Gusho, CFO, Saint Joseph Mercy Health System
· Gwen MacKenzie, Senior Vice President, Ascension Health and Michigan Market Leader
· Imad Mansoor, MD, internal medicine, Chief Medical Officer of Oakland Physician Network Services, Inc. and on staff at Saint Joseph Mercy Oakland Hospital
· Patrick McGuire, CFO, Ascension Michigan and Executive Vice President, St. John Providence Health System
· Rick O’Connell, president of Trinity Health Division and executive vice president of CHE Trinity Health and Chairman of the Together Health Network Board
· Dennis Ramus, MD, family medicine, Bay Area Family Physicians, PC and on staff at St. John Providence Health System
· Sridhar Rao, MD, family medicine, Genesys Integrated Group Practice and on staff at Genesys Regional Medical Center
· David Steinberger, MD, internal medicine, Infinity Primary Care and Associate Program Director for the Internal Medicine Residency at St. Mary Mercy Livonia
· Paul Valenstein, MD, clinical pathologist, IHA and President of the Saint Joseph Mercy Health Partners Clinically Integrated Network
· David Van Winkle, MD, family medicine, Medical Director, Lakeshore Health Network and West Michigan Regional Clinically Integrated Network and on staff at Mercy Health
· Stacey Watson, MD, internal medicine, Vice President Clinical Practice and Integration at Borgess Health
· Howard Zuckerman, Ph.D, Professor (retired), Department of Health Services, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington

Additional information about each Board member can be found on Together Health Network’s website: http://www.togetherhealthnetwork.org/leadership.html

Together Heath Network has a state-wide geographic presence including 27 hospitals and thousands of ambulatory centers and physician offices. The network will improve access, cost and quality of care for communities throughout Michigan by working with payers to develop a wide range of health plan products, including those purchased on the Health Insurance Marketplace and private exchanges. It is estimated that 75% of Michiganders will be within 20 minutes of a Together Health Network provider.

Formation of the network was spurred by changes in health care delivery to a new approach that focuses not solely on episodic care but rather a coordinated continuum of value-based services that keep populations healthy.

Both Ascension and CHE Trinity Health are considered leaders in the state in performing at benchmark levels in terms of quality, while at the same time delivering care at cost levels well below the state average. This collaboration allows the two entities and physician partners to combine their track records of high performance in terms of cost and quality into one, state-wide product unlike any other.

About Together Health Network
Together Health Network fills a consumer need across Michigan for trusted and complete healthcare that is person-focused, physician led, and powered by the Michigan-based health systems of Ascension Health and CHE Trinity Health. Launched in May 2014 to support population health management, the clinically integrated network will provide advanced care coordination services and launch new, competitive health plan products. It is estimated that 75% of Michigan residents are within 20 minutes of one of the network's 27 hospitals and thousands of ambulatory centers and physician offices. For more information, visit http://www.togetherhealthnetwork.org/.

About CHE Trinity Health - Michigan
CHE Trinity Health - Michigan is a leading health care provider and one of the state's largest employers, with almost 29,000 colleagues serving 31 counties and providing the full continuum of care for Michigan's residents through 13 hospitals, which include the six hospitals of Saint Joseph Mercy Health System in Ann Arbor, Chelsea, Oakland, Livingston, Livonia and Port Huron, and seven-hospital Mercy Health operating in Grand Rapids, Muskegon, Grayling and Cadillac. The systems also operate numerous ambulatory sites, nine nursing homes, 27 CHE Trinity Senior Living Communities, 10 home health care agencies and six hospices. Nationally, CHE Trinity Health is the second-largest Catholic health care system in the country. Based in Livonia, Mich., CHE Trinity Health operates in 20 states, employs nearly 87,000 people, has annual operating revenues of about $13.3 billion and assets of about $19.3 billion. Additionally, the new organization returns almost $1 billion to its communities annually in the form of charity care and other community benefit programs.

About Ascension Health Michigan
The Michigan Health Ministries of Ascension Health include Borgess Health in Kalamazoo, Genesys Health System in Grand Blanc, St. John Providence Health System in Metro Detroit, St. Joseph Health System in Tawas and St. Mary’s of Michigan in Saginaw. Together, the health systems employ more than 30,000 associates and are a major economic driver in the state, with $1.5 billion in payroll each year. In fiscal year 2013, the Michigan Health Ministries provided more than $240 million in community benefit and care of the poor. Nationally, Ascension Health is leading the transformation of healthcare by providing the highest quality care to all, with special attention to those who are poor and vulnerable. Ascension Health, which provided $1.5 billion in care of persons living in poverty and other community benefit programs last year, is the nation’s largest Catholic and largest nonprofit health system. Its Mission-focused Health Ministries employ more than 155,000 associates serving in more than 1,900 sites of care in 23 states and the District of Columbia. Reported by PRWeb 4 hours ago.

Obama awaits another court ruling that could deal blow to health law

July 7, 2014, 9:42 am

≫ Next: Supreme Court Upholds Wheaton College's Religious Objection To Contraception

≪ Previous: Together Health Network Board Members and Interim CEO Named

$

0

0

President Obama's healthcare law could be dealt a severe blow this week if a U.S. appeals court rules that some low- and middle-income residents no longer qualify to receive promised government subsidies to pay for their health insurance. Reported by L.A. Times 3 hours ago.

Supreme Court Upholds Wheaton College's Religious Objection To Contraception

July 7, 2014, 10:13 am

≫ Next: Mark Hamelburg of Epstein Becker Green to Serve as Senior Vice President of Federal Programs for America's Health Insurance Plans

≪ Previous: Obama awaits another court ruling that could deal blow to health law

$

0

0

WASHINGTON (RNS) The Supreme Court offered a further sign that it favors letting employers with religious objections avoid the Obama administration’s so-called contraception mandate.

Over the vehement objection of its three female justices, the court late Thursday (July 3) blocked the administration from forcing evangelical Wheaton College to sanction insurance coverage for emergency birth control, even though it would not have had to offer the coverage itself.

In doing so, the court made clear that it’s not done with the religious liberty issue following the court’s June 30 ruling that closely-held, for-profit corporations with objections to certain contraception methods do not have to offer this type of coverage to their employees.

Noting that appeals courts across the country are divided on how religious nonprofits such as charities, hospitals and colleges should be handled under the regulation, the court said “such division is a traditional ground for certiorari” — a decision by the justices to resolve the issue.

In the meantime, the court said women employees of Wheaton College outside Chicago should be able to get emergency contraception services from private insurers — without requiring the college to sign a form it claims would make it complicit in the transaction.

Ironically, it was that arrangement — in which objecting religious nonprofits would sign over their responsibility to offer contraception coverage to insurers or third-party administrators — that the court cited Monday as a potential solution for profit-making companies such as the craft store chain Hobby Lobby.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, dissented from Thursday’s order. She said the accommodation already granted to nonprofits “is the least restrictive means of furthering the government’s compelling interests in public health and women’s well-being.”

“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so to­day,” Sotomayor said. Declaring insufficient the very accommodation it held out Monday as a possible solution for Hobby Lobby “evinces disregard for even the newest of this court’s precedents and undermines confidence in this institution,” she said.

Under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, the Health and Human Services Department issued a regulation requiring employers to offer women’s preventive health insurance coverage, including 20 forms of contraception.

The administration exempted churches and other religious institutions from the requirement. After religious nonprofits objected, it devised its accommodation: They could fill out a form registering their objections, which would trigger provision of the coverage by insurers.

Two types of lawsuits grew out of the contraception mandate. Dozens of nonprofits challenged that arrangement, and dozens of for-profit corporations — mostly closely-held, family-owned companies — sought exemptions as well.

“We continue to believe that a college community that affirms the sanctity of human life from conception to the grave should not be coerced by the government into facilitating the provision of abortion-inducing drugs,” said Wheaton president Philip Ryken.

Following Monday’s 5-4 ruling, those for-profit companies can expect favorable treatment in the lower courts, a process the Supreme Court already began by denying some government petitions and directing courts to reconsider private challenges.

Thursday’s order points toward similarly favorable treatment for other nonprofits whose status is the same as Wheaton’s. Beyond denying contraceptive coverage without co-payments to hundreds of the college’s employees and students, Sotomayor said, the order “will presumably entitle hundreds or thousands of other objectors to the same remedy.”

(Richard Wolf writes for USA Today) Reported by Huffington Post 2 hours ago.

---

Mark Hamelburg of Epstein Becker Green to Serve as Senior Vice President of Federal Programs for America's Health Insurance Plans

July 7, 2014, 10:16 am

≫ Next: New 'medical billing advocates' claim to save you thousands on hospital stays

≪ Previous: Supreme Court Upholds Wheaton College's Religious Objection To Contraception

$

0

0

WASHINGTON, July 7, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- The national law firm of Epstein Becker Green (EBG) today announced that Mark Hamelburg, Member of the Health Care and Life Sciences practice, in the Washington, D.C., office has accepted the position of Senior Vice President of Federal Programs... Reported by PR Newswire 2 hours ago.

New 'medical billing advocates' claim to save you thousands on hospital stays

July 7, 2014, 10:41 am

≫ Next: HealthCare.gov site stumps 'highly educated' millennials. Here's why

≪ Previous: Mark Hamelburg of Epstein Becker Green to Serve as Senior Vice President of Federal Programs for America's Health Insurance Plans

$

0

0

At 36 years old, Tiffany LeFlouria gave birth to her very first child - a little baby girl. But there were problems and when it was all over, even with her health insurance, Tiffany got a bill for $64,118. Reported by WTHR 2 hours ago.

HealthCare.gov site stumps 'highly educated' millennials. Here's why

July 7, 2014, 5:41 pm

≫ Next: The Good News About Obamacare in the June Jobs Report

≪ Previous: New 'medical billing advocates' claim to save you thousands on hospital stays

$

0

0

Millennials who struggled to sign up for health insurance on HealthCare.gov have some simple advice for the Obama administration: Make the website more like Yelp or TurboTax. Reported by L.A. Times 19 hours ago.

The Good News About Obamacare in the June Jobs Report

July 7, 2014, 6:46 pm

≫ Next: Judge hears arguments in health care lawsuit

≪ Previous: HealthCare.gov site stumps 'highly educated' millennials. Here's why

$

0

0

Many people touted the 288,000 new jobs the Labor Department reported for June, along with the drop in the unemployment rate to 6.1 percent, as good news. And they were right. For now it appears the economy is creating jobs at a decent pace. We still have a long way to go to get back to full employment, but at least we are now finally moving forward at a faster pace.

However there is another important part of the jobs picture that was largely overlooked. There was a big jump in the number of people who report voluntarily working part-time. This figure is now 830,000 (4.4 percent) above its year ago level.

Before explaining the connection to the Obamacare, it is worth making an important distinction. Many people who work part-time jobs actually want full-time jobs. They take part-time work because this is all they can get. An increase in involuntary part-time work is evidence of weakness in the labor market and it means that many people will be having a very hard time making ends meet.

There was an increase in involuntary part-time in June, but the general direction has been down. Involuntary part-time employment is still far higher than before the recession, but it is down by 640,000 (7.9 percent) from its year ago level.

We know the difference between voluntary and involuntary part-time employment because people tell us. The survey used by the Labor Department asks people if they worked less than 35 hours in the reference week. If the answer is "yes," they are classified as working part-time. The survey then asks whether they worked less than 35 hours in that week because they wanted to work less than full time or because they had no choice. They are only classified as voluntary part-time workers if they tell the survey taker they chose to work less than 35 hours a week.

The issue of voluntary part-time relates to Obamacare because one of the main purposes was to allow people to get insurance outside of employment. For many people, especially those with serious health conditions or family members with serious health conditions, before Obamacare the only way to get insurance was through a job that provided health insurance.

However Obamacare has allowed more than 12 million people to either get insurance through Medicaid or the exchanges. These are people who may previously have felt the need to get a full-time job that provided insurance in order to cover themselves and their families. With Obamacare there is no longer a link between employment and insurance.

These workers will now have an option to work part-time if they would like to spend time with young children, an ill or disabled family member, or would simply like more time to do other things. This is a freedom that workers in every other wealthy country have long enjoyed; now workers in the United States no longer need a full-time job to get health insurance. And the data indicate that many workers are taking advantage of this option.

There is some evidence that Obamacare is having other positive impacts on the labor market. One of the striking developments in the recovery has been the incredibly disproportionate share of jobs that went to older workers. This was likely due in part to the fact that older workers would have an especially hard time paying for insurance in the individual market and therefore were to desperate to get and keep jobs that provided insurance. Obamacare now gives older workers the option to buy more affordable insurance on the exchanges. This may lead many to retire early.

While employment growth for workers over age 55 averaged 4.8 percent annually from 2011-2013, it was down to 2.5 percent in the last year. The gainers from slower employment growth among older workers appear to be young workers who saw employment growth of 2.3 percent in the last year, up from an average of 1.3 percent in the prior two years.

There was also a rise in the share of unemployment attributable to people voluntarily quitting their job. This would be another dividend of Obamacare, as workers would feel more comfortable leaving a job they didn't like if they didn't need it to get health care insurance.

It is still too early to reach any firm conclusions about Obamacare's influence on the labor market, but the evidence to date is positive. For whatever reason, Obama has been reluctant to tout these gains. That is unfortunate; the issue is not just boasting about the success of the law, but making workers aware of the new freedom the law provides.

None of this is to say the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is perfect. Far too much of our health care dollar is wasted on insurers, drug companies, and overpaid doctors. But the ACA is an enormous step forward in providing genuine health care insurance to hundreds of millions of people and the public should recognize and take advantage of this fact. Reported by Huffington Post 18 hours ago.

Judge hears arguments in health care lawsuit

July 7, 2014, 7:36 pm

≫ Next: Another week, another potential hurdle for Obamacare

≪ Previous: The Good News About Obamacare in the June Jobs Report

$

0

0

A Wisconsin senator on Monday argued that his lawsuit challenging rules that call for congressional members and their employees to seek government-subsidized health insurance through small-business exchanges should be allowed to move forward. Reported by ajc.com 17 hours ago.

Another week, another potential hurdle for Obamacare

July 7, 2014, 8:58 pm

≫ Next: Some Still Lack Coverage Under Health Law

≪ Previous: Judge hears arguments in health care lawsuit

$

0

0

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's health care law could be dealt a severe blow this week if a U.S. appeals court rules that some low- and middle-income residents no longer qualify to receive promised government subsidies to pay for their health insurance. Reported by TwinCities.com 16 hours ago.

Some Still Lack Coverage Under Health Law

July 7, 2014, 8:33 pm

≫ Next: American Health Value Partners with Idaho Independent Bank to Provide Premier Idaho Medical Savings Account Program

≪ Previous: Another week, another potential hurdle for Obamacare

$

0

0

Months after the sign-up deadline, thousands of Americans who enrolled in health insurance through the Affordable Care Act still don't have coverage due to technical problems or backlogs in the enrollment systems. Reported by Wall Street Journal 16 hours ago.

---

American Health Value Partners with Idaho Independent Bank to Provide Premier Idaho Medical Savings Account Program

July 8, 2014, 12:08 am

≫ Next: World Cup and World Class Reception for BioEden the Specialist Tooth Stem Cell Bank (Source:BioEden)

≪ Previous: Some Still Lack Coverage Under Health Law

$

0

0

By combining the unique strengths and experience of these two companies, Idahoans will have access to a premier tax-favored medical savings account they can actually use and understand.

Boise, ID (PRWEB) July 08, 2014

American Health Value, one of the nation’s foremost independent HSA administrators and a national authority on consumer-driven health care, today announced a partnership with Idaho Independent Bank to provide Idahoans the premier medical savings account program in the State. Capitalizing on each other’s strengths, American Health Value is bringing their 18+ years of national benefit administration experience and pairing it with Idaho Independent Bank’s statewide presence and hometown banking feel to provide unparalleled access and education to the Idaho MSA program.

The Idaho Medical Savings Account is a program enacted by the State Legislature that provides Idahoans a vehicle to significantly reduce their State taxable income, while saving money on both their current and future healthcare expenses.

Annual contribution limits are based on tax filing status. Single tax filers may contribute up to $10,000 and joint tax filers may contribute up to $20,000. The money contributed to an Idaho MSA reduces State taxable income dollar for dollar, and allows account holders to pay for both current and future healthcare expenses with tax-free money. The unspent money rolls over from year to year earning tax-free interest and can be pulled out after age 59.5 for retirement income with no penalty, similar to an IRA.

The funds in an Idaho MSA may be used tax-free at any time to pay for eligible medical expenses. The list of eligible expenses is quite extensive, and ranges from bandages and contacts to doctor bills, dental visits and hospital costs. However, what really provides Idahoans a significant benefit and sets the Idaho MSA apart is the ability to use the money tax-free to pay for health insurance, Medicare, and Long-Term Care premiums!

Any Idaho resident is eligible to open an Idaho MSA. There are no insurance or employment requirements, age restrictions, or disqualifications for VA Benefits or Tricare recipients. As long as they file a tax return and have insurance premiums or healthcare expenses, there's a significant benefit to opening an MSA and paying for those expenses with tax-free dollars.

To learn more about this program, please visit http://www.IdahoMSA.com.

About American Health Value:

American Health Value was founded in 1996, and is one of the nation’s foremost independent HSA administrators. They are a national authority on both health savings accounts and consumer-driven health care, with accountholders located in 49 states.

About Idaho Independent Bank:

Idaho Independent Bank was established in 1993 as an Idaho state-chartered, commercial bank and currently operates three branches in Boise, as well as branches in Meridian, Coeur d’Alene, Nampa, Mountain Home, Hayden, Caldwell, Star, and Sun Valley/Ketchum, Idaho. Idaho Independent Bank has approximately 190 employees throughout the State of Idaho.

Statements contained herein concerning future performance, developments or events, expectations for earnings, growth and market forecasts, and similar statements that are not historical facts are intended to be “forward-looking statements” as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and as such, are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that might cause actual results to differ materially from expectations or our stated objectives. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, include, but are not limited to, continued declines or worsening in regional and general economic conditions; changes in interest rates, deposit flows, demand for loans, real estate values, competition, or loan delinquency rates; changes in accounting principles, practices, policies, or guidelines; changes in legislation or regulations; changes in the regulatory environment; changes in monetary policy of the Federal Reserve Bank; changes in fiscal policy of the Federal government and the State of Idaho; changes in other economic, competitive, governmental, regulatory and technological factors affecting operations, pricing, products, and services; material unforeseen changes in the liquidity, results of operations, or financial condition of the Bank's customers. Accordingly, these factors should be considered in evaluating forward-looking statements, and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements. The Bank undertakes no responsibility to update or revise any forward-looking statements. Reported by PRWeb 13 hours ago.

World Cup and World Class Reception for BioEden the Specialist Tooth Stem Cell Bank (Source:BioEden)

July 8, 2014, 12:08 am

≫ Next: Missouri governor vetoes health navigator limits

≪ Previous: American Health Value Partners with Idaho Independent Bank to Provide Premier Idaho Medical Savings Account Program

$

0

0

BioEden were among the VIP guests invited by the prestigious AMII Group (Association of Medical Insurance Intermediaries) to their annual medical insurance event, at the St Pierre Country Club. Health Insurance Intermediaries and IFA firms have embraced the importance of stem cell banking recognising the significant role it will play in the future of healthcare.

(PRWEB UK) 8 July 2014

The AMII bring together the best professionals in health insurance across the country. Among those on the VIP guest list were BioEden, who are recognised as the leaders in the field of tooth stem cell banking.. Health and Protection experts value the service provided by BioEden, who have recognised the undisputed importance of personalised stem cell banking and the impact it could have on their clients lives.

"It's success largely depends on the availability of a stem cell match, which is why banking ones own cells eliminates this problem," said Mr. Walker, CEO of Medical Insurance Services and former Chairman of AMII. Reported by PRWeb 13 hours ago.

Missouri governor vetoes health navigator limits

July 8, 2014, 12:04 am

≫ Next: Thousands still reportedly face coverage delays months after ObamaCare enrollment deadline

≪ Previous: World Cup and World Class Reception for BioEden the Specialist Tooth Stem Cell Bank (Source:BioEden)

$

0

0

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed legislation Monday that would have limited who could work in the state as a health insurance guide and blamed a national conservative group for injecting an error into the model legislation. Reported by Journal Gazette 13 hours ago.

Thousands still reportedly face coverage delays months after ObamaCare enrollment deadline

July 8, 2014, 2:01 am

≫ Next: Conservatives Are Hoping These 10 Words Will Finally Destroy Obamacare

≪ Previous: Missouri governor vetoes health navigator limits

$

0

0

Months after the deadline to enroll in a health insurance plan through ObamaCare has come and gone, thousands of Americans have found themselves without coverage due to backlogs or glitches in various enrollment systems, according to a published report.  Reported by FOXNews.com 11 hours ago.

Conservatives Are Hoping These 10 Words Will Finally Destroy Obamacare

July 8, 2014, 3:49 am

≫ Next: Married couple must separate to keep health insurance

≪ Previous: Thousands still reportedly face coverage delays months after ObamaCare enrollment deadline

$

0

0

-*"...through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311."*-

Last week the Supreme Court weakened Obamacare's contraception mandate, but that was only a very minor setback for the laws.

However alive and well in the courts is a fresh and potentially far more damaging lawsuit — one that rivals 2012's challenge to the law's individual mandate in terms of its potential effect on Obamacare.

The case is aimed at federal insurance subsidies, a key mechanism of the President Barack Obama's signature law that have helped millions of lower-income Americans sign up for private insurance plans through the federal exchange. The challenge aims to block subsidies in states where insurance exchanges are handled by the federal government.

And any day now — perhaps as soon as Tuesday — the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is expected to hand down a ruling in Halbig v. Burwell, setting in motion a chain of events that could again lead to the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs in the case argue the way the law was written does not allow for subsidies to be provided by the federal government, pointing to a statute that says subsidies should be issued to plans purchased *"through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311" *of the Affordable Care Act. Section 1311 establishes the state-run exchanges. But plaintiffs say the law does not permit subsidies in federal exchanges, according to Section 1321 of the law.

Even as the challenge isn't viewed as a completely serious one yet, given the lack of success of the subsidies argument in federal court thus fur, one turn could make the stakes extraordinarily high.

Handing out subsidies to lower-income people is one of the most basic functions of the law, and helps provide otherwise unaffordable health insurance. If federal subsidies are ruled illegal, it could torpedo the law — not to mention wreak havoc on the subsidies already dished out.

"If the courts took the argument seriously, it could seriously damage the implementation of the Affordable Care Act," Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University and a supporter of the law, told Business Insider. 

"It has the potential to destroy the individual insurance market in two-thirds of the states."

*THE EMAIL*

The challenge all began with a simple email that set the wheels in motion. Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, had been asked to present a paper at the University of Kansas. While doing research for the paper, he came across the language in the statute that he says authorizes tax credits through the state exchanges — but not through the federal exchanges. 

No one thought much of those 10 words at the time — but it was also when the broad assumption was that each state would choose to run its own exchange. Instead, most states (36) opted against running their own exchanges, leaving it to the federal government.

Months later, Adler fired off an email to Michael Cannon, the libertarian Cato Institute's director of health policy studies, in which Adler argued the language presented serious potential implications for the law with the right challenge. 

The pair wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal in November 2011, seven months before the Supreme Court would save the heart of the law by ruling its mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance was a tax. For his part, Cannon was confident about the challenge. 

"This is literally the simplest case I've ever had in 30 years of practicing law," Carvin said at a Cato Institute panel one year ago. "No one but a lawyer could seriously stand up here and tell you that north means south, black means white and state means federal."

The eventual challenge argued the Obama administration — specifically, the Internal Revenue Service — is breaking the law by allowing subsidies to be issued in all 50 states. The IRS finalized a rule in 2012 that allowed subsidies to flow in every state.

"I think we have a very strong case," Adler told Business Insider on Monday. "I think the statute is very clear. I think you have a situation where if it were any other statute in any other political context, I don't think our claims would be that controversial."

Supporters of the law say their claims are ridiculous — and thus far, the challengers have had a tough time convincing the courts of their argument. Most significantly, a federal judge from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia threw out the challenge in January. 

Judge Paul Friedman seemed befuddled by the suit, which he called "unpersuasive" and wrote did not "make intuitive sense."

"The Court finds that the plain text of the statute, the statutory structure, and the statutory purpose make clear that Congress intended to make premium tax credits available on both state-run and federally-facilitated Exchanges," Friedman wrote in his opinion.

*A GLIMMER OF HOPE*

But during oral arguments in March, two of the three judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel signaled they were at least somewhat sympathetic to the challengers' argument. 

Judge Harry T. Edwards, a Jimmy Carter appointee, scoffed at the lawsuit, while George H.W. Bush appointee Judge A. Raymond Randolph came down firmly on the side of the challengers.

Depending on who you ask, swing vote Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee, leaned toward the government's or the challengers' position. Jost said he "asked tough questions of both sides." And both sides agree they have no idea how he will vote.

In the event the appeals court sides with the challengers, the Obama administration likely will request an "en banc" ruling, which would leave it up to an overall vote of the court. Here, the prospects for an administration victory are better — the appeals court is stacked with seven Democratic and four Republican appointees, four of which were appointed by Obama himself.

"Given the overall composition of the circuit right now, I think they would stand a very good chance of winning that. I think they almost certainly would," Jost said.

Either way, the challenge has a chance to either pick up major steam or virtually die in the coming days. In addition to the D.C. appeals court's decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia is expected to rule soon on a similar challenge. The court seemed skeptical of the challengers during oral arguments. 

If the two cases both go the way of the government, it could be the death knell for the subsidies argument.

"Once the D.C. Circuit and the 4th Circuit get this sorted out, I think the other circuits will fall in line. I don't see this ever getting to the Supreme Court," Jost said.

But supporters of the challenge are quick to call to mind the initial perception of the challenge to the individual mandate as a fool's errand. It ended up becoming arguably the most closely watched Supreme Court decision of the last few years, and it took conservative Chief Justice John Roberts to unexpectedly save the law. 

Adler viewed the individual mandate challenge — NFIB v. Sebelius — as a "Hail Mary." This case, he argued, is more like the lawsuit against the contraception mandate, in that it challenges the implementation of a specific statute of the law. It's an easier legal argument to make, he said. 

Whether or not the challengers are successful this time, Adler expects much more similar litigation in Obamacare's future.

"Litigation over the implementation of the statute is something we're going to be seeing for a long time," he said, "given the nature of the statute, given some of the controversial aspects of the statute, and given some of the decisions agencies have to make in implementing the statute. 

"Certainly on top of that, the administration has in numerous circumstances taken liberties with the text of the statute so as to try and make it work better than it's written. This is an example of that."

Join the conversation about this story » Reported by Business Insider 9 hours ago.