B-Man Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Obama Looks to Illegally Change Obamacare . . . Again by Charles C.W. Cooke Yesterday evening, Politico’s Blake Hounshell asked this question on Twitter: Blake Hounshell ✔ @blakehounshell Follow Help me understand something. When Republicans say they can't do immigration reform because they don't trust Obama, what's that about? 9:31 PM - 6 Feb 2014 The short answer — this week — is this, from the Washington Post: The Obama administration is considering an extension of the president’s decision to let people keep their individual insurance policies even if they are not compliant with the health care overhaul, industry and government officials said Thursday. Avalere Health CEO Dan Mendelson said Thursday that the administration may let policyholders keep that coverage for as long as an additional three years, stressing that no decision has been made. Policymakers are waiting to see what rate hikes health insurers plan for the insurance exchanges that are key to the overhaul’s coverage expansions. “The administration is entertaining a range of options to ensure that this individual market has stability to it, and that would be one thing that they could do,” he said. To put it bluntly, this is illegal. “Prosecutorial discretion” is one thing; completely ignoring a part of what the Left is awfully fond of describing as “the law of the land” is quite another. And make no mistake: that is what the Obama administration is considering doing once again – usurping the power of Congress and rewriting the rules on its own. {snip} Thus far, with Obamacare, Politico records, the administration has, postponed the employer coverage requirements for a year, delayed the online enrollment for the federal health insurance exchanges for small businesses, and told health insurers they can extend people’s coverage for an extra year — a last-minute attempt to un-cancel millions of canceled policies. It also delayed the Spanish-language website, even though Hispanics are a large proportion of the uninsured population. It even postponed next year’s enrollment period, pushing it conveniently past the November elections. In part because of how it was written (the litany of ”the secretary shall” mechanisms don’t help), and in part because the president appears to believe he enjoys the prerogative to change the nation’s laws on a whim,Obamacare has become more of an enabling act than a statute — a general writ of permission for the executive to tinker with the country’s health insurance system and to attempt to inoculate himself and his party from dealing with the consequences of their governing decisions. Conservatives are concerned enough about this as it is. Why would they extend the problem to immigration?
JuanGuzman Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 I think the postponement of some Obamacare features is in the interest of Americans and the economy. Unfortunately Congress is so dysfunctional and the gerrymandering has made centerist compromises all but impossible. If the president went to congress and asked "can we extend the deadline for the individual market policies to become compliant so people don't lose their health insurance?" That reasonable question would be answered by congress: "Heck no, in fact just for even asking this question we are going to orchestrate a default on the national debt and take food stamps away from poor people". Hence Obama using his own discretion on what parts of the law should be enforced.
JuanGuzman Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 You are seriously one of the most annoying trolls in existence. I've seen some of the best, too. Why do you even bother speaking when what you say is so invalid that even the lowest of intelligence can rebuke what you say or use to support your ramblings? It really gets old, buddy. There is not much humor in it and you should just get a hobby. Spring is coming, how about a garden? Rebuke means to give stern disapproval but it doesn't mean the argument was proved false. So I agree with you that this thread does contain many people with "the lowest intelligence" trying to rebuke me. Unless of course you were looking for the word "Refute". but then if that's the word you were looking for you would of used it.
boyst Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Rebuke means to give stern disapproval but it doesn't mean the argument was proved false. So I agree with you that this thread does contain many people with "the lowest intelligence" trying to rebuke me. Unless of course you were looking for the word "Refute". but then if that's the word you were looking for you would of used it. Yeah, meant that. **** happens.
3rdnlng Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 I think the postponement of some Obamacare features is in the interest of Americans and the economy. Unfortunately Congress is so dysfunctional and the gerrymandering has made centerist compromises all but impossible. If the president went to congress and asked "can we extend the deadline for the individual market policies to become compliant so people don't lose their health insurance?" That reasonable question would be answered by congress: "Heck no, in fact just for even asking this question we are going to orchestrate a default on the national debt and take food stamps away from poor people". Hence Obama using his own discretion on what parts of the law should be enforced. Well Juan, now you've gone and done it. I'm going to refute you and rebuke your ascertation. You've not only stepped in it but you've made it possible for me to say "game, set, match". If you had actually followed things you might have chosen not to make the statement above. http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/07/17/wh-well-veto-a-bill-delaying-the-employer-mandate-which-weve-already-done-on-our-own/ "President Obama would veto a House bill aimed at legally delaying the employer mandate for a year, the White House announced on Tuesday,even though his administration has already issued a regulation embracing the delay. On July 2, the Department of Treasury announced it would delay until 2015 a provision of Obamacare that requires larger employers to provide acceptable health insurance or pay a penalty. But it wasn’t clear that the administration had the legal authority to do so, as the text of Obamacare states that the mandate, “shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.” Thus, Republicans have introduced a bill in the House to codify into law the delay that Obama already supports. They have also proposed legislation that would extend the same delay to individuals required to purchase government-approved health insurance or pay a tax."
B-Man Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 “Doc Shock” Reaches The Masses. by Megan McCardle Obamacare isn't a train wreck, it's a cancerby Tammy Bruce FTA: This last week was a real wake-up call for those still living in the "Obamacare is great!" fantasy world, fueled by Richard Simmons videos, tweets by pro athletes, and now television ads (paid for with your tax dollars, of course) featuring singing animals imploring humans to "enroll today." One has to guess that President Obama's little marketing gurus, once they put the bong down, think strange men exercising in short shorts and singing doggies will entertain you into complete Obamacare submission. {snip} One guy ruined the plan after he purchased health insurance on the California exchange and then had the gall to call doctors to set up an appointment. His temerity drove him to call every doctor listed as in-network, and none of them were. In the normal world, this would be called "fraud." In Obama's America, it's called a "snag," and on a national scale, the Obama regime labels it "Shut up, Fox News!" After all, isn't the goal getting everyone insured? Who cares if you can't actually see a doctor or get health care, because everyone will get a terrific piece of paper that says "health insurance policy." Equality, at last — everyone's got the same thing; namely, nothing at all. Read more: http://www.washingto.../#ixzz2sfO3B7Hz Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
IDBillzFan Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 I think the postponement of some Obamacare features is in the interest of Americans and the economy. Unfortunately Congress is so dysfunctional and the gerrymandering has made centerist compromises all but impossible. If the president went to congress and asked "can we extend the deadline for the individual market policies to become compliant so people don't lose their health insurance?" That reasonable question would be answered by congress: "Heck no, in fact just for even asking this question we are going to orchestrate a default on the national debt and take food stamps away from poor people". Hence Obama using his own discretion on what parts of the law should be enforced. This law belongs to the progs. They wrote, crammed, bribed and sacrificed a lot to get it passed. The one time the conservatives tried to delay the mandates, Obama chose instead to shut down the government. Time for the left to own it and quitcherbitchin. Good thing progressives love abortion because the only thing missing from this law is the coat hanger.
JuanGuzman Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Well Juan, now you've gone and done it. I'm going to refute you and rebuke your ascertation. You've not only stepped in it but you've made it possible for me to say "game, set, match". If you had actually followed things you might have chosen not to make the statement above. http://hotair.com/gr...one-on-our-own/ "President Obama would veto a House bill aimed at legally delaying the employer mandate for a year, the White House announced on Tuesday,even though his administration has already issued a regulation embracing the delay. On July 2, the Department of Treasury announced it would delay until 2015 a provision of Obamacare that requires larger employers to provide acceptable health insurance or pay a penalty. But it wasn’t clear that the administration had the legal authority to do so, as the text of Obamacare states that the mandate, “shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.” Thus, Republicans have introduced a bill in the House to codify into law the delay that Obama already supports. They have also proposed legislation that would extend the same delay to individuals required to purchase government-approved health insurance or pay a tax." BaHAHAHAAHAH do you really you think Obama would be able to achieve the reforms in congress that he has implemented through executive discretion? haha if true you are just as out to lunch as congress. Anyway the the key point your missing is the companion piece to that bill meant that people who don't buy insurance wouldn't be taxed. The whole point of this bill is the insurance market only functions when there are adequate risk pools, that means healthy and sick need to sign up a like. (Yes that means some young people are unfairly taxed but that cost is needed to have the benefits of a functioning insurance market) Removing the tax would of destroyed legislation. This is the problem with negotiating with the republican congress, they attach unholy conditions to legislation, even if said legislation that helps America. These attached conditions do more harm than good and put the president in a impossible position to help americans. The only people that are helped out the politicians who use the media coverage chance to raise a war chest for the next election
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) I think the postponement of some Obamacare features is in the interest of Americans and the economy. Unfortunately Congress is so dysfunctional and the gerrymandering has made centerist compromises all but impossible. If the president went to congress and asked "can we extend the deadline for the individual market policies to become compliant so people don't lose their health insurance?" That reasonable question would be answered by congress: "Heck no, in fact just for even asking this question we are going to orchestrate a default on the national debt and take food stamps away from poor people". Hence Obama using his own discretion on what parts of the law should be enforced. No, he's not. He has unilaterally changed the law, and is enforcing things that aren't contained in the law. Furthermore, this is his law. If the law was such an abomination that he couldn't bear to enforce it, then why did he pass it? Furthermore, what obligation or responsibility do Republicans, who wanted no part of this law, which had bi-partisain dissent, have to clean up the President's mess? The answer is none. However, the President could go to congress and ask them to repeal the law; which they would most certainly do. This is how the balance of powers works. Congress is not simply a court advisor, which the President can utilize when they will expedite his agenda and lend him Constitutional credibility. They are the Law Making Body of the United States, and the President does not have the authority to act outside of the law. That's what the "Rule of Law" litterally means, as opposed to the "Right of Kings". Further, to your point that the President wouldn't have been able to acheive his "reforms" if he had to wait for Congress? So what? That's how the United States Government works, by design. It's the entire purpose of our Congress. Edited February 7, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker
DC Tom Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 BaHAHAHAAHAH do you really you think Obama would be able to achieve the reforms in congress that he has implemented through executive discretion? haha if true you are just as out to lunch as congress. Anyway the the key point your missing is the companion piece to that bill meant that people who don't buy insurance wouldn't be taxed. The whole point of this bill is the insurance market only functions when there are adequate risk pools, that means healthy and sick need to sign up a like. (Yes that means some young people are unfairly taxed but that cost is needed to have the benefits of a functioning insurance market) Removing the tax would of destroyed legislation. This is the problem with negotiating with the republican congress, they attach unholy conditions to legislation, even if said legislation that helps America. These attached conditions do more harm than good and put the president in a impossible position to help americans. The only people that are helped out the politicians who use the media coverage chance to raise a war chest for the next election Remember the part where the Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, and never even bothered to negotiate with the minority party? I believe the quote was "We don't mind Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."
JuanGuzman Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Further, to your point that the President wouldn't have been able to acheive his "reforms" if he had to wait for Congress? So what? That's how the United States Government works, by design. It's the entire purpose of our Congress. I'm no legal scholar but I agree with that politicians should follow the rules of land. Politics is murky though, whether the reforms meet the principle of executive discretion or not, I'll leave that up to legal scholars. The point is he wouldn't have been able to achieve the health reforms he wanted in congress so he sidestepped congress. Just like many presidents have done in the past and many presidents will do in the future. that's how business gets done.
DC Tom Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 I'm no legal scholar but I agree with that politicians should follow the rules of land. Politics is murky though, whether the reforms meet the principle of executive discretion or not, I'll leave that up to legal scholars. The point is he wouldn't have been able to achieve the health reforms he wanted in congress so he sidestepped congress. Just like many presidents have done in the past and many presidents will do in the future. that's how business gets done. This isn't Roosevelt sending the Great White Fleet around the world, bonehead. Obama isn't "sidestepping" Congress, he's explicitly ignoring the law. He's even taken it to the point where when the Republican Congress has suggested changes to the law (delaying the individual mandate by a year), he told Congress he'd veto such legislation...then administratively delayed the individual mandate by a year in violation of the law.
TheMadCap Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 This isn't Roosevelt sending the Great White Fleet around the world, bonehead. Obama isn't "sidestepping" Congress, he's explicitly ignoring the law. He's even taken it to the point where when the Republican Congress has suggested changes to the law (delaying the individual mandate by a year), he told Congress he'd veto such legislation...then administratively delayed the individual mandate by a year in violation of the law. and people have the gall to wonder why the GOP doesn't trust the administration...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) I'm no legal scholar but I agree with that politicians should follow the rules of land. Politics is murky though, whether the reforms meet the principle of executive discretion or not, I'll leave that up to legal scholars. It's not murky at all. It's why it's spelled out in black and white. It's the whole purpose that we actually have laws instead of ruling by imperial dictate. Additionally, it takes time to determine exactly who has the standing to challenge the President in the Courts, if anyone at all has the standing to challenege (an unfortunate effect of birth certificate nonsense from 5 years ago). Once that has been determind, it can take years for courts to rule; and it the mean while, the Rule of Law has been abandoned. The point is he wouldn't have been able to achieve the health reforms he wanted in congress so he sidestepped congress. No, the point is that President Obama is not sysnoymous with The Government of the United States. It doesn't particularly matter what the President wants when what he wants is outside of his purview. That, once again, is why we have laws. Just like many presidents have done in the past and many presidents will do in the future. that's how business gets done. No, that's how dictatorships are run. That's what you're arguing in favor of. Given your notions of what Government should be, we may as well simply disband the Congress. After all, they're only there to stand by with a rubber stamp, when they will; and simply stand aside when they won't, right? Edited February 7, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker
3rdnlng Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 BaHAHAHAAHAH do you really you think Obama would be able to achieve the reforms in congress that he has implemented through executive discretion? haha if true you are just as out to lunch as congress. Anyway the the key point your missing is the companion piece to that bill meant that people who don't buy insurance wouldn't be taxed. The whole point of this bill is the insurance market only functions when there are adequate risk pools, that means healthy and sick need to sign up a like. (Yes that means some young people are unfairly taxed but that cost is needed to have the benefits of a functioning insurance market) Removing the tax would of destroyed legislation. This is the problem with negotiating with the republican congress, they attach unholy conditions to legislation, even if said legislation that helps America. These attached conditions do more harm than good and put the president in a impossible position to help americans. The only people that are helped out the politicians who use the media coverage chance to raise a war chest for the next election Note the bolded above and figure out what you did wrong. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. (like you did with jboyst) First of all the POTUS is required by law to follow the law. He didn't do that with his change of the employer mandate. When Congress said they would pass a law making his actions legal the POTUS said he would veto it. Why would he want to do that? He wanted to continue making power grabs and setting precedence. You just don't get it. This country was set up with checks and balances and Obama is outside the law. You think that is ok because you agree with what he is doing. Will you be happy in 2016 when President Santorum nullifies Roe vs Wade?
JuanGuzman Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 He's even taken it to the point where when the Republican Congress has suggested changes to the law (delaying the individual mandate by a year), he told Congress he'd veto such legislation...then administratively delayed the individual mandate by a year in violation of the law. Once again you're only telling one half of the story, the side that suits you. On congress suggested changes, the other half was the companion piece would have prevented the individual mandate from functioning. The individual mandate is the guts of the health insurance, its why health reform worked in Massachusetts under governor Romney, and delaying it for a year would of doomed ACA. why do you think the Repubs suggested it??? You guy's always want to have it both ways, it sickens me... you cry like babies when Obamacare cancels insurance policies that don't meet its requirements (Fine I too think its scary that some people who had bare minimum insurance might not have any insurance due to obamacare) But you complain Oh No Obama's not following the rules game when he allows people more time to get an insurance plan that meets ACA standards. There is no logic to it, It's just blinding ideology. Lets stop pretending where having a debate on the merits of ObamaCare Most of the crew in PPP simply don't want it, so they'll latch onto any argument no matter how contrived, how convoluted and argue the point. Me myself I'm evidenced based and I note that ACA has real costs, it also has real benefits. The Benefits outweigh the costs so lets fire this baby up, and get Affordable care going in America.
Nanker Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Heard that several states are putting their prison population on Obamacare. Well, that explains the uptick in the insured.
3rdnlng Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Once again you're only telling one half of the story, the side that suits you. On congress suggested changes, the other half was the companion piece would have prevented the individual mandate from functioning. The individual mandate is the guts of the health insurance, its why health reform worked in Massachusetts under governor Romney, and delaying it for a year would of doomed ACA. why do you think the Repubs suggested it??? You guy's always want to have it both ways, it sickens me... you cry like babies when Obamacare cancels insurance policies that don't meet its requirements (Fine I too think its scary that some people who had bare minimum insurance might not have any insurance due to obamacare) But you complain Oh No Obama's not following the rules game when he allows people more time to get an insurance plan that meets ACA standards. There is no logic to it, It's just blinding ideology. Lets stop pretending where having a debate on the merits of ObamaCare Most of the crew in PPP simply don't want it, so they'll latch onto any argument no matter how contrived, how convoluted and argue the point. Me myself I'm evidenced based and I note that ACA has real costs, it also has real benefits. The Benefits outweigh the costs so lets fire this baby up, and get Affordable care going in America. Karma's a B word ain't it?
Recommended Posts