Posted on 11/29/2014 10:30:59 AM PST by SeekAndFind
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Leading U.S. CEOs, angered by the Obama administration's challenge to certain "workplace wellness" programs, are threatening to side with anti-Obamacare forces unless the government backs off, according to people familiar with the matter.
Major U.S. corporations have broadly supported President Barack Obama's healthcare reform despite concerns over several of its elements, largely because it included provisions encouraging the wellness programs.
The programs aim to control healthcare costs by reducing smoking, obesity, hypertension and other risk factors that can lead to expensive illnesses. A bipartisan provision in the 2010 healthcare reform law allows employers to reward workers who participate and penalize those who don't.
But recent lawsuits filed by the administration's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), challenging the programs at Honeywell International and two smaller companies, have thrown the future of that part of Obamacare into doubt.
The lawsuits infuriated some large employers so much that they are considering aligning themselves with Obama's opponents, according to people familiar with the executives' thinking.
"The fact that the EEOC sued is shocking to our members," said Maria Ghazal, vice-president and counsel at the Business Roundtable, a group of chief executives of more than 200 large U.S. corporations. "They don't understand why a plan in compliance with the ACA (Affordable Care Act) is the target of a lawsuit," she said. "This is a major issue to our members."
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Are these some of the same CEOs that supported its passage?
Lie down with dogs. Get up with fleas!
CEOs who engage in crony capitalism deserve what they get when FedGov finally turns on them. The last time business tried to get in bed with a socialist government in a major western country, it did not turn out well. I find this second bite at the cronyism apple frightening, particularly since today’s head socialist is (miraculously) a worse human being than the national socialist leader three generations back.
Conservatives who attack welfare should be attacking corporate welfare.
The rich don’t need it. Its an expensive giveaway to special interests.
And what’s Obamacare? An expensive giveaway to special interests.
The snake calmly replied... “but you knew I was a snake when you let me in.”
The snake calmly replied... “but you knew I was a snake when you let me in.”
Obamacare allows financial incentives for workers taking part in workplace wellness programs of up to 50 percent of their monthly premiums, deductibles, and other costs. That translates into hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars in extra annual costs for those who do not participate.
Typically, participation means filling out detailed health questionnaires, undergoing medical screenings, and in some cases attending weight-loss or smoking-cessation programs.
One of the arguments presented in the lawsuit against three employers is that requiring medical testing violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.
That 1990 law, according to employment-law attorney Joseph Lazzarotti of Jackson Lewis P.C. in Morristown, N.J., largely prohibits requiring medical tests as part of employment.
"You can't make medical inquiries unless it's consistent with job-necessity, or part of a voluntary wellness program," he said.
The lawsuits are based on the view that it is no longer voluntary if employees face up to $4,000 in penalties for non-participation, loss of insurance or even their jobs.
Employers, however, see the lawsuits as reneging on the administration's commitment to an important part of the healthcare reform.
No redemption for any of these CEO’s that went along with it- they should be FIRED by the shareholders
Obama turned on the union's "Cadillac plans". He has no allies, only temporary alliances of convenience.
“You can keep your wellness program if you like your wellness program.”
So what bosses want to really do is to save costs on the corporate bottom line.
The excuse they’re doing this to protect their employees’ health is as phony as a dollar bill.
What’s voluntary about a “wellness program” under Obamacare if you’re forced to participate in it to keep your job?
Just more of what people hate about it.
Exactly. They supported this monstrosity and this liberal president’s policies. They get what they had coming to them.
Another life lesson or history lesson here. These ceos were useful idiots who were used by the liberals to get obamacare passed.
“The fact that the EEOC sued is shocking to our members,” said Maria Ghazal, vice-president and counsel at the Business Roundtable, a group of chief executives of more than 200 large U.S. corporations. …Hmm. Sharia Obamacare? (Only guessing, given the origin of the name Ghazal . . .)
It's a TRADEMARK of Obozo's. He SCREWS everybody EQUALLY.
One of the arguments presented in the lawsuit against three employers is that requiring medical testing violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. That 1990 law, according to employment-law attorney Joseph Lazzarotti of Jackson Lewis P.C. in Morristown, N.J., largely prohibits requiring medical tests as part of employment. "You can't make medical inquiries unless it's consistent with job-necessity, or part of a voluntary wellness program," he said.
The lawsuits are based on the view that it is no longer voluntary if employees face up to $4,000 in penalties for non-participation, loss of insurance or even their jobs. Employers, however, see the lawsuits as reneging on the administration's commitment to an important part of the healthcare reform.
It used to be against the law for my employer to ask me certain personal questions, including questions about my health. I guess that's not the case any more.
Concur. They never learn!
Not if you want to keep your job.
Your enrollment and participation in a wellness program is as voluntary as your paying your taxes.
Don’t want to? Here’s your pink slip.
The revenge of George HW Bush!
It wasn’t under Obamacare. This has been going on for quite a while. IMHO if an employer is paying for medical insurance they are within their rights to require whatever they need to do to reduce premiums. Its their money its their rules. They do all sorts of things, many if them very intrusive and often silly, tedious, and demeaning, about “safety”, after all, as that reduces their liability premiums.
Whats the difference?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.