Recently a reader (thanks Roger!) submitted a question regarding Obamacare and the possibility of a class action lawsuit. We threw the question out to our Legal News Group on LinkedIn (where a number of lawyers and legal industry types hang out) and we’ve shared their answers below…
Roger’s Question: Do you think there is a potential class action resulting from the President’s decision to allow insurance companies to continue to offer health insurance coverage that does not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act? Individuals whose plans were cancelled as a result of the ACA can now continue to hold such plans for another two years if their insurance company makes the plan available. However, the plans do not meet the coverage requirements of the ACA. If an individual is treated for some condition that is not covered by their non-ACA-compliant plan but would have been covered by an ACA-compliant plan, the individual should have a cause of action against their insurance company for the out-of-pocket cost for that treatment. What defense does the insurance company have? That the President allowed the non-compliant plan? The President has no authority to do so. While the cost borne by one individual under a non-compliant plan might not justify a lawsuit against the insurance company, many individuals will have the same loss. Does that not suggest a class action?
Stephen: That’s interesting. However, didn’t the Dept. of Health and Human Services actually write the regulations that determined what is and what is not a compliant plan? And since that Dept. is under the Executive Branch and the President is the Chief Executive, can in not be argued reasonably that he does in fact have the authority to decide when to implement the regulations?
Gordon: Although I like parts of the ACA, there is an internal contraction of social production of medical care and the private reaping of profits. It would have made more sense to extend medicare to all ages. There (Medicare) is a social production of medical care and any profit is returned to the public. This has been the basis of the universal health care systems in other industrialized nations. Whether there is a class action suit potential is actually an indication of the internal contradiction.
Helen: Yea, possibly for political reasons. Why would anyone sue for that? What to say that the non-compliant insurance has an unfair advantage possibly but wouldn’t that claim bolster the intent of the reform rather than hurt?
Kristin: If you’re on a non-compliant plan, could you switch out to a compliant plan with more coverage? I thought the main idea behind two-year extension was to avoid a time crunch leaving people uninsured, not to perpetuate non-compliant plans (Helen, I think this is reform intent, right?). Stephen, I agree with the idea that the President can implement the regs when he wants. Gordon, I’ve seen the US healthcare system used as an example of what not to do more than once (pre-ACA). Private healthcare seems so entrenched, do you think an alternate approach would succeed?
Kari: I agree with Gordon T. Davis, my ten cents worth: There should have been the single payer/Medicare option, as initially submitted. Simply there is no reason to kill the healthcare industry “cash cow” without a good fight (Obamacare has been repealed some 50 times, maybe only Congress work creating activity) i.e. patients are not going to travel to China for low cost treatment like many jobs have gone. Just an observation this year, I visited at my doctor in the same office, no changes from previous visits, hospitals are still where they always have been, no challenges even if there was a preexisting condition, just pay the bill …. Obamacare has not killed my healthcare rather it has provided peace in mind without concern do I have it or not. Rush Limbaugh promised to move out of country, if Obamacare will come a law ….. darn still here, can not trust on anything what he says.
Helen: It was the original intent. The problem was the latent news release that the grandfather clause had been tampered with during the passage of the legislation in Congress (note that the clause intended to allow folks to keep their preexisting plan, plans that preexisted prior to the Reform with only minor adjustments, if necessary). That delay or revelation later than sooner, plus the feet dragging to implement the Act together produced the mess. In the aftermath, it turns out most people who learned their current plan (prior to Reform) would be non-compliant were switched automatically by their insurance companies to plans that are compliant albeit possibly more expensive (but better coverage). The delays as implemented by Executive decision isn’t anything new and people have to realize that in any major reform reminiscent of others like Social Security and Medicare, the road of implementation was bumpy! It is true now that few would want those programs to vanish, let alone changed!
Kari: Expect changes/improvements Ref.: Why Employers Will Stop Offering Health Insurance
Got an opinion? Let us know what you think. Comment below, or comment on the original thread for this question at our Legal News Group on LinkedIn.
You knew it was coming. Close to 6.5 million passwords get leaked and you know no one’s gonna sit quietly and think “all’s well that end’s well”. Uh-uh.
And so it is for LinkedIn. (Hey—perfect place for gratuitous LawyersandSettlements.com LinkedIn plug: follow us!)
Remember that security breach they announced on June 6th? The one where over six million passwords were “leaked” to a hash cracking website? The one where LinkedIn started deactivating accounts and sending out security advisory emails to its members? That one.
Well, there’s been a class action lawsuit filed against LinkedIn. Needless to say, it’s an internet privacy lawsuit.
According to the filing with the U.S. District Court – Northern California, LinkedIn failed to “properly safeguard its users’ digitally stored personally identifiable information, including e-mail addresses, passwords, and login credentials”. The lawsuit was filed by Katie Szpyrka, a Chicago-based senior associate at a real estate firm, who’s been a LinkedIn member since 2010 and who’s forked over the extra cash to become a “premium” LinkedIn member.
Since the LinkedIn password leak, there haven’t been any reports of any LinkedIn accounts being accessed without authorization, so no outright injury so to speak. But still, there was a security breach and, therefore, the lawsuit also seeks an injunction against LinkedIn, to ensure the social networking site does a better job of protecting members’ privacy.
Given the economy, and the latest jobless numbers, I’m betting the LinkedIn security breach won’t really affect their membership numbers—none of my contacts have been leaving in droves; in fact, they’re networking away. But we’ll see what happens as the LinkedIn class action lawsuit moves along…
You’ve made it to the interview stage—congratulations! Now fork over your Facebook login and password.
Would you do it?
If you really wanted the job, chances are you would. But is it right? Or is it an invasion of privacy? Many would say it’s cause for a Facebook privacy lawsuit.
Being asked for your Facebook password is becoming more commonplace as part of the job interview process. Apparently, for the recruiters, it’s the modern day version of a background check, work history and reference check all wrapped up in one. Unfortunately, even innocent posts—or those times you’ve been tagged in friends’ photos—are up for interpretation by the hiring manager or HR person. Beer in hand? Maybe you party too much. And let’s not even talk about those more ‘viewer discretion advised’ posts—or worse.
For job applicants, however, it’s sort of like finding bed bugs in your hotel bed—completely uninvited and unwanted, but you need the darn bed to get some sleep. What to do? Chances are, you ask for another room or find another hotel–but in this job market, other jobs aren’t as easy to come by as a new hotel room.
If ever there were a doubt that employment recruiters and HR professionals are trolling online for dirt on prospective hires, just listen to this:
A recent survey done by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) found that 56 percent of HR pros admit to using social media sites for recruiting; 95 percent say they use LinkedIn; and 58 percent use Facebook.
And while most web-savvier folks correlate LinkedIn with “job search mecca”, many job seekers don’t even know LinkedIn exists. But they know Facebook does. And recruiters know this. So, particularly when targeting non-executive positions, Facebook becomes a go-to source for a wealth of information—supplemental information that otherwise may not bubble up in the interview or reference check process.
But, if a Facebook account is private, well, that little ol’ login and password are needed. And who better to ask for it than the person who created it? And, what better time to ask them for it than when they’re sitting anxiously across the desk from you during their job interview?
In any other setting, most people would withhold such information; after all, isn’t Facebook for connecting with ‘friends’? And for most, it’ll be a cold day in h#ll before they include their HR manager in their circle of FB friends. (Notwithstanding that recent article about Facebook narcissism based on the number of friends you have.)
So handing over a Facebook password would appear to be something you’d only do under duress; you’d only be compelled (coerced?) to provide such information if you felt you HAD to do so—as would be the case if you thought a possible job were on the line.
A recent Associated Press article quotes George Washington University law professor, Orin Kerr, as likening the situation to “requiring someone’s house keys” for the interview. Kerr goes on to call it an “egregious privacy violation”.
And it is. After all, when you consider that an interviewer is not supposed to ask questions about age, marital status, children or health concerns, how is it that the same interviewer should potentially have access to all such information by asking for your Facebook password? Something isn’t right there.
Undoubtedly, we’ll be seeing more Facebook privacy lawsuits sprouting up. But in the meantime, here’s a tip: if you’re job hunting, get a LinkedIn profile. Anything and everything a prospective employer should want or need to know about you can be housed there. Even the professional ‘company you keep’—and linking in with an HR rep is surely less creepy on LinkedIn than on Facebook. Any other information about you can be found via the less intrusive methods: background check, reference checks, drug testing…the usual suspects.
A lot of our readers have been asking for this, so we’ve gone ahead and added a Settlements-only feed to our main news RSS feeds.
If you’re looking for current news and info on lawsuits, class actions, settlements, emerging issues and more, we’ve put it all at your fingertips. Check here for what you’re looking for…
Free Weekly Legal News and Info Newsletter
LawyersandSettlements.com Main News Feed
LawyersandSettlements.com Hot Issues News Feed
LawyersandSettlements.com Settlements News Feed
LawyersandSettlements.com Emerging Issues News Feed
Daily Legal News Updates on Twitter @OnlineLegalNews
Daily Legal News Updates on Facebook
Our Tips & Travels on Foursquare
LawyersandSettlements.com Company News & Updates on LinkedIn
Oh, and of course, if you’ve got a complaint for a lawyer to review, simply fill out a claim form here.