Could not an employee sue an employer who does not fully implement it's responsibilities under the law one way or another? Either sue them for insufficient coverage or for not dropping said coverage altogether? I'd have to imagine any employee in such a company would have standing as they are directly impacted by it's policies.
So the administration says it won't take it's own laws seriously, yet the inaction would still place companies in legal jeopardy for inaction.
This is seriously the most incompetent regime I have ever witnessed or read about in history books.
I think the "standing" issue is quite problematic. Consider that there are two basic categories of employees of "large" (that is, 50+ employees) employers: (1) those who are currently being offered insurance by their employer and (2) those who are currently not being offered insurance by their employer anyway. I don't see how those in the second category would ever establish "standing" to sue: at a minimum, they would have to make out a case that, but for this Administration announcement, their employer would have offered them insurance in 2014, in lieu of the employer choosing instead to pay the tax/penalty. That seems pretty "speculative" to me.
As for the first category of employee -- those who have insurance already -- how are they harmed by the Administration announcement unless (and until) their employer decides to stop offering them insurance beginning in 2014? And, even then, such employee would still have to make out a non-speculative case that, but for the Administration announcement, the employer would have continued to offer insurance. But as it was already thought probable that at least some employers would, beginning in 2014, stop offering insurance (because what they would have to offer, under the ACA, was pricier than what they'd been providing their employees already) and choose instead to pay the tax/penalty, it again seems like a tough case for any given employee to show that the Administration announcement itself was the "cause" of his losing his insurance.
Indeed, if anything, the Administration announcement, claiming that the tax/penalty won't be pursued for 2014, would make it somewhat less likely that an employer would drop coverage for its employees in 2014, would it not?
Justice Scalia, in his dissent in the recent Windsor case, aptly pointed out that not every abdication of constitutional responsibility by the President can be addressed by the courts. If the President is seen to have failed in his constitutional obligation to "take care" that the duly-enacted laws of Congress be faithfully executed, the remedy is a political one -- impeachment and removal -- not a judicial one.
And if Congress lacks the political will, and the political courage, to act in such fashion, then the remedy then is for the people to elect a new and different Congress. And if the people lack the political will and/or courage to do so, well, what are we complaining about?
I'm firmly in the "we get the government we deserve" camp.