COBRA Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

Question: Does the COBRA Act require employers to give employees the option of continuing insurance coverage for 2 years? True or false question: The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985 requires employers to give employees, on termination of employment, the option of continuing their medical, optical, or dental insurance coverage for a period of two years. True/false?

Answer: ~~False, it isn't for that long and it's only required to offer if there are more than 20 employees.~~

Question: Wouldn't our health care gem COBRA be known as COBA if it weren't for Reconciliation? In these times of Reconciliation it might be good to remember: The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) gives workers and their families who lose their health benefits the right to choose to continue group health benefits provided by their group health plan for limited periods of time under certain circumstances such as voluntary or involuntary job loss, reduction in the hours worked, transition between jobs, death, divorce, and other life events. Qualified individuals may be required to pay the entire premium for coverage up to 102 percent of the cost to the plan. COBRA generally requires that group health plans sponsored by employers with 20 or more employees in the prior year offer employees and their families the opportunity for a temporary extension of health coverage (called continuation coverage) in certain instances where coverage under the plan would otherwise end. COBRA outlines how employees and family members may elect continuation coverage. It also requires employers and plans to provide notice. Gee, sounds like we do use Reconciliation for good legislation in the Health Care and Health Insurance Reform arenas despite what the GOP of 21 Reconciliations wants you to think...... The Senate Bill has already passed, it is the House ammendments regarding budgetary concerns only which shall pass by Reconciliation.

Answer: Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act , gee, wouldn't have anything to due with the budget would it? Robert Byrd (D) an author of the original reconciliation rules has stated that its use in health care and cap and trade do not follow the intent of the regulation and should not be used. Along with Byrd, Reid, Clinton, Obama and other Democrats have been critical on the use of reconciliation. Every American regardless of their opinion on the health care legislation should be extremely worried about the possible use of reconciliation in this process. It does not follow the intent and could be seen as a possible threat to the checks on power in the government.

Question: Do liberals want to repeal the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act? If it means passing Obamacare? Do liberals even know what EMTALA is??? The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA - www.emtala.com) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of >>>citizenship<<<, >>>legal status<<< or >>>ability to pay<<<. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment. Imagine that! Medical treatment for FREE! No Insurance Premiums to pay!

Answer: Yes, but we are stubbornly supporting it, because it makes Obama's day and infuriates conservatives and right-leaning centrists...

Question: what are the benefits/features of? ♥rehabilitation act of 1973 ♥unemplayment insurance ♥worker's compensation ♥COBRA (consolidated omnibus budget reconciliation act) ♥Age Discrimination act of 1992 ♥American's with Disabilites act ♥OSHA (occuaptional safety and health act) ♥Vocational Rehab Services ♥Fair Labor Standards Act

Answer: That's the syllabus of a labor law class. It would take about a semester to summarize them all.

Question: Do ya cons simply choose to ignore their own history, or are they just completely ignorant of it? All of these instances of Republican use of "deem and pass" as well as reconciliation, and NOW they are big unconstitutional issues? In the House, the so-called "Slaughter rule" is better known as "deem and pass" or "the self executing rule." Instead of voting directly for the bill, members vote the bill to be "deemed as passed." Then they can tell their constituents they never voted for the bill. Under republican Speaker Newt Gingrich, 30% of all rules were passed as "self executing." Under republican Speaker Denny Hastert, about 28% of all rules were passed as "self executing." Now that republicans are out of power, suddenly it is unconstitutional to use self executing rules?? The very same people now rending their garments about "deem and pass" were using it heavily a few years ago. How soon they forget! See http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/… "When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules." -- 2006, Don Wolfensberger, former chief of staff for the House Rules Committee under Republicans, http://wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_… For more context, see http://mediamatters.org/research/2010031… Meanwhile, in the Senate, see this discussion of reconciliation by party, based on a report by the Congressional Research Service: http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/02/whi… Summary: * 11 reconciliation bills were signed by Republican presidents (Reagan: 7; Bush (41): 2; Bush (43): 2) * 5 reconciliation bills were signed by Democratic presidents (Carter: 1; Clinton: 4) * 3 reconciliation bills were vetoed by Democratic presidents (Clinton: 3). * 0 reconciliation bills vetoed by Republican presidents While we're on the subject, one frequently hears neocons claim that reconciliation was never designed for health care issues. Too bad, but it's been used that way frequently. For 30 years, major changes to health care laws have passed via the budget reconciliation process. Here are a few examples: 1982 — TEFRA: The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act first opened Medicare to HMOs 1986 — COBRA: The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act allowed people who were laid off to keep their health coverage, and stopped hospitals from dumping ER patients unable to pay for their care 1987 — OBRA '87: Added nursing home protection rules to Medicare and Medicaid, created no-fault vaccine injury compensation program 1989 — OBRA '89: Overhauled doctor payment system for Medicare, created new federal agency on research and quality of care 1990 — OBRA '90: Added cancer screenings to Medicare, required providers to notify patients about advance directives and living wills, expanded Medicaid to all kids living below poverty level, required drug companies to provide discounts to Medicaid 1993 — OBRA '93: created federal vaccine funding for all children 1996 — Welfare Reform: Separated Medicaid from welfare 1997 — BBA: The Balanced Budget Act created the state-federal childrens' health program called CHIP 2005 — DRA: The Deficit Reduction Act reduced Medicaid spending, allowed parents of disabled children to buy into Medicaid

Answer: That's because they listen to pundits who get paid to make them angry about the dems every move. I find it funny when YA cons think they know more about the constitution than lawyers.

Question: Why did Republican Senator John Kyl from Arizonia say....? "Budget reconciliation, Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) told reporters Tuesday, "was never designed for a large, comprehensive piece of legislation such as health care, as you all know. It's a budget exercise, and that's why some refer to it as the 'nuclear option.'"" and why did Republican Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah say ""The use of expedited reconciliation process to push through more dramatic changes to a health care bill of such size, scope and magnitude is unprecedented," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) wrote in a letter to President Obama on Monday, urging him to renounce the possibility of trying to pass a bill using the procedure."? Did they forget about these times: "1982 — TEFRA: The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act first opened Medicare to HMOs 1986 — COBRA: The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act allowed people who were laid off to keep their health coverage, and stopped hospitals from dumping ER patients unable to pay for their care 1987 — OBRA '87: Added nursing home protection rules to Medicare and Medicaid, created no-fault vaccine injury compensation program 1989 — OBRA '89: Overhauled doctor payment system for Medicare, created new federal agency on research and quality of care 1990 — OBRA '90: Added cancer screenings to Medicare, required providers to notify patients about advance directives and living wills, expanded Medicaid to all kids living below poverty level, required drug companies to provide discounts to Medicaid 1993 — OBRA '93: created federal vaccine funding for all children 1996 — Welfare Reform: Separated Medicaid from welfare 1997 — BBA: The Balanced Budget Act created the state-federal childrens' health program called CHIP 2005 — DRA: The Deficit Reduction Act reduced Medicaid spending, allowed parents of disabled children to buy into Medicaid" If I remember correctly the republicans controlled the senate each of those years. http://www.americablog.com/2010/02/republican-spin-on-reconciliation-is.html

Answer: Good point! You might also be interested in this little study of the use of reconciliation by party: http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/02/whi… Summary: * 11 reconciliation bills were signed by Republican presidents (Reagan: 7; Bush (41): 2; Bush (43): 2) * 5 reconciliation bills were signed by Democratic presidents (Carter: 1; Clinton: 4) * 3 reconciliation bills were vetoed by Democratic presidents (Clinton: 3). * 0 reconciliation bills vetoed by Republican presidents Reagan was really the one who got the reconcilation bandwagon rolling. Apparently it's fine for republicans to use reconciliation, but it's a crime for democrats to use it!

Question: Can someone please answer some Business Law & Ethics questions below part 3? 15. What is an advantage to using alternative dispute resolution rather than litigation? A. It involves negotiation directly between the parties. B. It does not require the parties to sign any binding decrees. C. It involves formal court hearings and rulings. D. It does not require personal involvement of the parties. 16. When is arbitration an appropriate form of dispute resolution? A. When parties want a neutral third party facilitator. B. When parties want to maintain control over the resolution process C. When parties want to keep resolution details confidential D. When parties want a fast and final resolution 17. What is an activity of an appellate court? A. Hearing testimony from witnesses B. Receiving evidence in a case C. Reviewing the record in the case D. Determing the facts of the dispute. 18. Two adjoining property owners have a dispute over the boundary line between their properties. They wish to settle the dispute so each comes away with something, and they want to enter into a voluntary agreement. What method of the dispute resolution should the parties employ? A. Mediation B. Consultation C. Arbitration D. Litigation 19. To which situation would the National Labor Relation Act of 1935 apply? A. Indentification of the company's labor mediation committee members B. Establishment of a human resources department C. Refusal to bargain collectively with a union D. Closure of a business and laying off employees 20. What is the principal provision of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA)? A. Offering health insurance for part-time employees B. Offering health insurance for employees seeking jobs C. Offering health insurance for disabled employees D. Offering health insurance for former employees 21. Who is covered by the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Acts of 1938? A. A self-employed business consultant B. A 16-year-old working for a fast food restaurant C. A child working on the family farm D. A salaried employee working 50 hours per week

Answer: 15. A 16. D 17. C 18. A 19. C 20. D 21. B

Question: Any cons take adavntage of health care under COBRA? A health care benefit created by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, one of many reconciliation bills passed during the Reagan administration?

Answer: I bet they also took advantage of Bush's tax cuts which were also passed by reconciliation. Welfare reform that they love so much was passed by reconciliation.

Question: How many people with life threatening conditions are turned away from Hospital ER's? How is it that liberals have absolutely NO CLUE about the law? The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA - www.emtala.com) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of >>>citizenship<<<, >>>legal status<<< or >>>ability to pay<<<. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment. Lawgirl gets like this everytime the herpes pop up.

Answer: None - as far as I know since it would violate the law - and ethical / moral standards that health care workers take and oath to uphold. Health care workers are kind of like soldiers in the military - they take an oath and swear to care for anyone regardless of who they are, or ability to pay. The problem is - is that emergency room care is many times more expensive than just a regular doctors visit - that people would be able to take advantage of if they had some form of health insurance. Either way - taxpayers foot the bill - just with emergency room care - it's like 6 times the ammount if the uninsured were insured.