Would anyone have standing to challenge the President’s delay of the employer mandate?

February 10th, 2014

This is a somewhat perverse question, but bear with me. One would think that those implicated by the delay would benefit from it. Though I could imagine circumstances where companies who had invested time and money into planning for and implementing the mandate could be materially harmed by this. Also, what if an employee, who would otherwise be offered health insurance by his or her employer, is now exempt from it. Wouldn’t that be a source of injury?

I ask almost rhetorically, because there are some serious separation of power violations occurring with the rollout of the law, and a court should weigh in.

The final rule is here, and the a helpful “fact sheet” is here. No infographic yet, but I’m sure they’re working on it.

In other news, employers are frantically figuring out how to drop their workforce under 100.

Welcome to the 30-hour economy, which apparently is a good thing. A treasury official thinks so!

The shift is meant to “ease the transition to a 30-hour week,” a senior Treasury official said.