Hasn't anyone noticed this is just a clever ploy???...a ruse???...a regime gift to the Democrats for the 2014 election cycle? What a joke. And yet, even on this board, with all the so-called gun advocates, we continue to see the hypocrisy from those toads with their heads shoved where the sun don't shine, continuing their allegience to this oligarchy. Are we to assume they are too stupid to recognize what is happening to THEIR country??? OR, don't they just give a damn?
But Won’t People Die?
By: Erick Erickson (Diary) |
They told us we had to do it. We had to rush through Obamacare; passing it to find out what was in it, as Nancy Pelosi told us. We had to do it and it could not wait because lives were depending on it. We needed to save lives and we needed to provide women access to birth control.
Suddenly, yesterday, the Obama Administration announced it would deny women access to contraception paid for by their employer after campaigning throughout 2012 on just how important paying for abortions and birth control under employer provided plans would be.
If you aren’t following along, Barack Obama has decided to delay implementation of the employer mandate — the mandate that employers must provide health insurance to employees — until after the 2014 election cycle. The law that had to be passed quickly to save lives can now be delayed. So how many people will die? That was their rhetoric. Lives depended on Obamacare.
Contraception is now considered an “essential benefit” under Obamacare that employers must provide, but now it’s only going to be essential to those who already have employer health insurance. The rest of the women? Sorry.
Back on May 24, 2013, Ezra Klein opined that employers would not stop dropping employees when the employer mandate went into effect.
Now he says repeal it. We’re going to hear this a lot. Barack Obama suddenly does not think he needs a central part of his law so it can be scrapped.
What is ironic here is that the left has, for months, used the talking point that Republicans are causing problems by obstructing the implementation of Obamacare. Now, suddenly, the President is going to delay implementation of one part of Obamacare.
Republicans need to take notice. We sent them to Washington to end Obamacare, not mend it. There should be no fixes. There should only be a continued fight to repeal Obamacare. The law we had to have yesterday is suddenly a law that can be punted. That means we should be able to repeal it and, concurrently in the debt ceiling fight, work to defund it.
Employers who have held off hiring employees because of the employer mandate will not suddenly start hiring, knowing they’re just prolonging the inevitable fines and taxes. This delay leaves uncertainty in the economy and the whole law should be repealed or, at a minimum, fully defunded. There should be no half measures.
Obama runs America the way the Democrats have run Chicago. You can see how swell that is working out. You too can enjoy the same superb level of health care offered to Chicagoans by Cook County Regional Hospital. You'll have lots of time to sit and cool (i.e., to room temperature) while waiting for a foreign medical graduate to treat your bullet wound and if you're lucky enough to receive some morphine while you wait you can be drift off with the comfortable thought that the gun used to shoot you was illegal and you were so much safer without one of your own.
There's now talk of a lawsuit to block the suspension of the employer mandate. Candidly, this reminds me of the story of the Woo-Woo bird. The Woo-Woo bird flies in ever decreasingly smaller concentric circles and eventually flies up its own a**hole and is heard to chirp "Woo-Woo."
OTOH we have the Democrats who say the ACA is the greatest thing since sliced bread and is the one thing this country really needed, yet they are now delaying implementation of a key provision such that all the other provisions will be in complete disarray. The Republicans hate the ACA and have passed countless resolutions in the House to destroy it either by defunding it or eliminating it altogether yet they are talking about a lawsuit to keep it in place.
Can you imagine talking to a injun about healthcare,when you can't even understand them discussing your DVD player ?*
This has been mentioned before, but always gets conveniently ignored. Additionally, I have read somewhere that the state exchanges are funded by the law, but Federal exchanges are not. One of the glitches overlooked.
Of course, we could also say that the administration is arbitrarily "waiving" the employer mandate without the approval of Congress by delaying the implementation of this particular tax.
For good reason the Internal Revenue Service is one of the most despised government agencies, and it’s more unpopular than ever. A Fox News poll finds that 84 percent of those responding were concerned about the agency’s abuse of powerhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/lb_icon1.png. It’s only going to get worse.
Obamacare requires states to establish health care exchanges by Jan. 1, 2014. These bureaucratic creations are meant to offer highly regulated health plans carrying the administration’s seal of approval. This is a central element of how Obamacare works: Individuals who obtain health insurance through a state exchange qualify for federal subsidies and tax creditshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png. The availability of subsidies is the basis of the employer mandate.
The text of the health care law unambiguously says that a “state” must set up the exchange to enforce the tax credit and the mandate penalty. The federal government can create a federal exchange, but the plain language of the statute clearly says the mandate penalty and associated tax credits apply only to state exchanges. A new lawsuit argues that this puts the 33 states that chose not to establish state exchanges off the Obamacare hook.
To get around this difficulty, the IRS unilaterally declared Obamacare’s tax provisions applicable to the federal exchange. The IRS decision sets out that subsidies shall be available to anyone “enrolled in one or more qualified health plans through an Exchange,” and then defines “Exchange” to mean “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and Federally-facilitated Exchange.”
Michael Carvin, who argued the Supreme Court’s Obamacare cases last year, is working with the Competitivehttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png Enterprise Institute to reverse the agency’s decision. “The IRS rule we are challenging,” says Mr. Carvin, “is at war with the act’s plain language and completely rewrites the deal that Congress made with the states on running these insurance exchanges.”
If the Obama administration thinks there’s a problem in the law, it should ask Congress to fix it. The White House can’t bring itself to admit the president botched his greatest legislative achievementhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png, so the IRS was dispatched to do the work behind the scene. Given the revelations of IRS misbehavior over the past few months, the agency itself demonstrates that it can’t be trusted. The courts should expedite this important case before the rogue agency undermines health care in the way it undermined the tax code.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2YIidIyin
If it is possible for the POTUS to waive this tax, or delay it, then why do we have to wait for Congress to fix the tax code? Couldn't an executive order simply re-arrange it temporarily?
This may sound like fluff on the surface, but essentially the executive branch is deciding, at it sole discretion, not to enforce a law made by Congress. Similar to a decision not to enforce existing immigration law.
As long as this kind of executive action is not challenged, what difference does it make if Congress passes any law if the executive branch can just choose to not enforce the law at its whimsy? If the law needs "fixing", then that is the job of Congress to fix it. If we complain about the fact that the SCOTUS ends up "legislating from the bench", then one has to ask why is that happening?
Another view of the tactic of delaying the employer mandate: The employer mandate is a very key element in the cost factors of ACA. With that mandate delayed, but no delay in the individual mandate, many individuals (than otherwise) could be forced into the "exchanges" ... which are subsidized by taxpayers in various ways.
Thus, individuals will feel the full financial force of the law; even more so than if both mandates went into effect simultaneously, rather than more gradually.
What of the states that have set up their exchanges? They will be given a burden of #s that they had not envisioned.
This will create a clamor toward single-payer at a much more rapid pace than if ACA followed its legislated course. Then the Ds can campaign on single-payer in 2016 and have a better chance of getting it if they continue to control the WH and the Senate. It was Obama's stated goal to progress toward a single-payer system.
If both mandates were suspended by the WH, then where would the main funding for the law come from? It would financially implode before it even got off the ground. So, it would appear the best way to move toward single-payer is to let the individuals feel the pain and "demand" single-payer.
It sounds a lot like the sequester scenario, with the exception that sequester turned out not to be painful enough for the grass roots as the Ds insisted it would be. In the interim, there has also been lots more info on fraud and corruption in the unwieldy Fed govt; which may very well make voters less inclined to give more in taxes to be wasted in the same way.
There is no hope of repeal of ACA as long as the President's party controls the Senate. There also seems no way to "fix" this law. Its complexity gives it so many tentacles that it's hard to tell what will be triggered when one tentacle is cut off when others are left intact. The only real way to "fix" it is to start from scratch, tackling individual weaknesses in the existing system in a pragmatic way.
The CBO has recently stated that 30 million will be left without health insurance once ACA is implemented in its present form. Isn't that just about the same number (or is it more?) that we started out with?
It appears the net result is that some who had very minimal coverage before might get better coverage with ACA ... or might get none at all. Some people who had more adequate coverage, may remain in the same relative position. Some who had very generous programs will have less with ACA in place (except for the people who wrote the law, that is!).
Since this law was so complex, it is possible that those who passed it expected it would give them a sweep of votes in 2014 and 2016. Now, that the flaws are showing up, they are realizing that it could bring disaster in those elections, and they need to postpone the electoral anger that would result from those flaws?
Do we remember how this law was passed? The Senate took a bill previously passed by the House, and gutted the contents of that bill. They left only the House Bill # & replaced the contents with ACA. They had to do that since bills involving taxation must originate in the House, and they knew the House would never pass the ACA crafted in the Senate. This process had been used for other bills in the past, but never one as impactful as ACA. There HAS to be something wrong there. I believe it was Harry Reid's brilliant idea, or one of his close cohorts.
I have no doubt that Obamacare was set up to evolve into a single EMPLOYER system. That is the true hoax that has been perpetrated on the American people. This is the cornerstong of total loss of individul freedoms. Once this happens there will be no bounds to the loss of other freedoms. I remember the statement I once heard, "I had rather see everyone poor than someone rich". Well, we are on the way to such a system.
Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy
Another interesting analysis: prosecutorial discretion may have been part of the system of checks and balances? The question would be whether there are enough informed voters to make the debate and use their votes to make a change.
Thus the remedy for the Executive's exercise of discretion not to enforce law is not judicial but political, that is, at the polls or by impeachment. [snip] Rather than impeaching Mr. Obama for refraining from enforcing ObamaCare, we should confer upon him a medal for admitting that his law is improvident, unenforceable, and, ineluctably, stupid and injurious to the people.
That medal should be conferred visibly, loudly, and repeatedly in public discourse from now through the elections of 2014 and probably all the way to 2016, for it is at the polls that the best, surest, and most resounding remedy will be found.
I call attention to the reference to an observation made by Randy Barnett that appears at the very end of Adler's post on VC [ed: Volokh Conspiracy]. Mr. Obama himself sets the precedent for a decision by a future President not to enforce ObamaCare in gross.
[snip] I observe that, in the absence of the conferment by a statute of some cognizable right that the statute makes assertable against a person (or entity) with a cognizable duty to yield to or satisfy the right (be it the government itself or a third party), it's hard to see how anyone has standing to seek judicial compulsion of executive action. And that's probably a good thing. If it is true that, in the real world, not every law can be enforced and not all laws can be enforced at all times, then someone has to decide which laws get enforced and which laws don't, and when. That, it seems to me, is a decision soundly committed by the Constitution to the Executive and not to the Legislature or the Judiciary. That the Legislature doesn't get to enforce the laws it makes is a check on the legislative power; that the Judiciary doesn't get to pick which cases come before it is a check on the judicial power. The Executive's power of inaction is thus a legitimate check on the powers of the other two branches, and the proper venue for review of the exercise of that is not the courtroom but the debating chamber or the hustings.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2YNrXmFO6
Evidently, since the employer reporting is delayed, individuals who apply to exchanges for a subsidy will be taken on their word as to their eligibility for a subsidy. What could go wrong? Surely no one will be untruthful about whether they qualify for a subsidy. Sorry, can't find the link again, but the source said the info appeared in the Federal Register (is that what it's called?) and quoted from it.
Gerry, it would be a lot easier to take your posts seriously if you could post links and cite your sources. Otherwise we can only view your posts as your opinions. While you are certainly welcome to post your opinions... is it OK if we take them as just such? You do post alot of them. Most of us have access to the same internet resources as do you. and some of us take them as gospel, and others do not. I'll ask? Why do you feel compelled to post internet gossip? Over and over again?
Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy
Tell us about your dogs. JD