As of the writing of this blog, still no peep from the Supreme Court on whether they'll bypass the normal appellate process and the case challenging the constitutionality of PPACA's individual mandate. Meanwhile, Idaho is taking a hard stance against heath care reform, with the Republican governor issuing an executive order prohibiting the state from implementing the federal law.

It wasn't a surprise when Obama signed the bill killing PPACA's 1099 provision last week. What left some people scratching their heads was how Congress intended to make up the $22 billion the 1099 provision was projected to generate over the next 10 years. E is for ERISA does an admirable job breaking down how H.R. 4 will make up the shortfall by significantly expanding the repayment obligations of modest earners overly subsidized with "premium assistance credits." As the blog notes, "A family of four earning up to 400% of the federal poverty level ($89,400) potentially could owe $2,500 instead of $400 with their taxes in order to repay the government for the subsidy it received based on a prior year's, lower income level."

Are employees that ignorant about the costs of their medical insurance? Let's say you were presented with an employment offer by two different companies, each offering commensurate salaries. How would you make a decision? For most employees, the benefits package would be the top consideration. In fact, for the majority of employees, a company's medical and retirement plans are more important than the stability of the company, the amount of paid leave being offered, the location of the employer, even the perceived amount of personal fulfillment and growth opportunities at each company. Yet, according to a report released by LIMRA this week, less than 10 percent of employees can provide a "reasonable estimate" of the cost of their medical insurance.