The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[DC Tom]

No. It's pretty clear...his intent was to lie straight up to get this law passed. In typical progressive thinking, once everyone enjoys the lush sweetness of free health care, his lies would be quickly forgotten. Pelosi and Wasserman-Shutlz and Reid are more Baghdad Bob in their lies, but Obama told the biggest and his legacy of being the first black president will forever take a deep backseat to his legacyh of being the single most blatantly dishonest and incompetent of presidents in the history of forever.

 

Following Obama's interview with O'Reilly, when he compared himself to Nixon, someone somewhere commented that you know things are bad when the president who started out comparing himself to Lincoln is hoping people will at least compare him to Nixon.

 

I'm still more inclined to believe it was cluelessness. I think he honestly believed that's how the law would work, and was genuinely surprised when it didn't work out that way.

 

Because let's face it: no one understood the ramifications of this piece-of-**** legislation. No one studied it closely enough. You really think Obama bothered to be fully informed and aware of the law and all its nuances when he was campaigning for it?

[IDBillzFan]

I'm still more inclined to believe it was cluelessness. I think he honestly believed that's how the law would work, and was genuinely surprised when it didn't work out that way.

 

Because let's face it: no one understood the ramifications of this piece-of-**** legislation. No one studied it closely enough. You really think Obama bothered to be fully informed and aware of the law and all its nuances when he was campaigning for it?

 

I think when you call a special session of congress for a televised address to push the law, and specifically tell everyone watching they can keep their doctor and plan, I get more comfort out of thinking he was lying than I do believing that he was that unbelievably clueless.

 

Because that's beyond Biden clueless. Beyond gatorman clueless.

 

If Biden and gatorman had a baby and named it conner, it STILL wouldn't be that clueless. Frightening is the word that comes to mind.

[Taro T]

I was explaining the economic theory behind government involvement in health care, not trying to win an election.

 

But if you want my election pitch here it:

 

Obamacare means 30 million Americans will have access to good quality health insurance. The program is fully funded in part by a small tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. Obamacare means that losing your job doesn't mean losing your health insurance. It addresses flaws in the individual insurance market that has made health care prohibitively expensive for many Americans with pre-existing conditions.

Too bad prior to Obamacare 250MM Americans had access to good quality health insurance.

[B-Man]

The Health-Care Myths We Live By :Many assumptions in health care turn out to be completely untrue.

 

By Charles Krauthammer

 

FTA:

 

But if that’s how dicey biological “facts” can be, imagine how much more problematic are the handed-down verities about the workings of our staggeringly complex health-care system. Take three recent cases:

 

Emergency room usage: It’s long been assumed that insuring the uninsured would save huge amounts of money because they wouldn’t have to keep using the emergency room, which is very expensive. Indeed, that was one of the prime financial rationales underlying both Romneycare and Obamacare.

 

Well, in a randomized study, Oregon recently found that when the uninsured were put on Medicaid, they increased their ER usage by 40 percent.

Perhaps they still preferred the immediacy of the ER to waiting for an office appointment with a physician. Whatever the reason, this finding contradicted a widely shared assumption about health-care behavior.

 

Medicaid’s effect on health: Oregon allocated by lottery scarce Medicaid slots for the uninsured. Comparing those who got Medicaid with those who didn’t yielded the following stunning result, published in the New England Journal of Medicine: “Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first two years.”

 

To be sure, the Medicaid group was more psychologically and financially secure. Which is not unimportant (though for a $425 billion program, you might expect more bang for the buck). Nevertheless, once again, quite reasonable expectations are overturned by evidence.

 

Electronic records will save zillions: That’s why the federal government is forcing doctors to convert to electronic health records (EHR), threatening penalties for those who don’t by the end of 2014. All in the name of digital efficiency, of course. Yet one of the earliest effects of the EHR mandate is to create a whole new category of previously unnecessary health workers. Scribes, as they are called, now trail the doctor, room to room, entering data.

Why? Because the EHR are so absurdly complex, detailed, tiresome, and wasteful that if the doctor is to fill them out, he can barely talk to and examine the patient, let alone make eye contact — which is why you go to the doctor in the first place.

 

Doctors rave about the scribes, reports the New York Times, because otherwise they have to stay up nights endlessly checking off boxes. Like clerks. Except that these are physicians whose skills are being ridiculously wasted.

 

This is not to say that medical practice should stand still. It is to say that we should be a bit more circumspect about having central planners and their assumptions revolutionize by fiat the delicate ecosystem of American health care.

 

In the case of EHR, for example, doctors were voluntarily but gradually going digital anyway, learning through trial and error what best saves time and money. Instead, Washington threw $19 billion (2009 “stimulus” money) and a rigid mandate at the problem — and created a sprawling mess.

 

This is not to indict, but simply to advocate for caution grounded in humility. It’s not surprising that myths about the workings of the fabulously complex U.S. health-care system continue to tantalize — and confound — policymakers. After all, Americans so believe in their vitamins/supplements that they swallow $28 billion worth every year.

[birdog1960]

"it may be better to wait and see but waiting doesn't make you money....each patient is like an ATM machine". http://www.nytimes.c...comes-soar.html

[JuanGuzman]

"it may be better to wait and see but waiting doesn't make you money....each patient is like an ATM machine". http://www.nytimes.c...comes-soar.html

 

This in interesting thanks.

[JuanGuzman]

The director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said the obvious: losing your job and choosing to work less aren’t the same thing. If you lose your job, you suffer immense personal and financial hardship. If, on the other hand, you choose to work less and spend more time with your family, “we don’t sympathize. We say congratulations.”

 

Worth the read in full: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/opinion/krugman-health-work-lies.html?_r=0&referrer=

[Nanker]

The director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said the obvious: losing your job and choosing to work less aren't the same thing. If you lose your job, you suffer immense personal and financial hardship. If, on the other hand, you choose to work less and spend more time with your family, "we don't sympathize. We say congratulations. Here's your check of other people's tax dollars sent to you from the government. Enjoy!"

 

Worth the read in full: http://mobile.nytime...?_r=0&referrer=

[Keukasmallies]

Aha! So the real underpinnings of the ACA, understood from the git go by POTUS, is to introduce leisure to the hewers of wood and drawers of water! Why didn't someone say so in the first place?

[birdog1960]

This in interesting thanks.

you're welcome. i think these numbers need to be widely disseminated along with salaries for top healthcare executives. is nearly $1mil necessary to incentivize students to go into orthopedics or nearly .5 mil to go into dermatology? obviously not, as evidenced by their presence in the rest of the world. yet that's the argument you often hear made to support extremely high salaries. it's really no surprise that a system based to a large extent on greed, leads to greed.

 

The director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said the obvious: losing your job and choosing to work less aren't the same thing. If you lose your job, you suffer immense personal and financial hardship. If, on the other hand, you choose to work less and spend more time with your family, "we don't sympathize. We say congratulations."

 

Worth the read in full: http://mobile.nytime...?_r=0&referrer=

i'm gonna read the oreilly and limpaugh transcripts tonight to get their take on this statement from the cbo. they'll be debating it, undoubtedly.

[IDBillzFan]

I think you progs should understand and accept that citing Paul Krugman is to conservatives what citing InfoWars is to progressives.

[birdog1960]

I think you progs should understand and accept that citing Paul Krugman is to conservatives what citing InfoWars is to progressives.

so, wait. it's appropriate to bandy about the nonpartisan cbo report findings but not to highlight what the director of the cbo stated as a clarification on that same report?

[JuanGuzman]

Durr krugman may be mean to you republicans be he is no hack. The article goes on to rightfully point out that impact on labour supply does have some costs to society: "Just to be clear, the predicted long-run fall in working hours isn’t entirely a good thing. Workers who choose to spend more time with their families will gain, but they’ll also impose some burden on the rest of society, for example, by paying less in payroll and income taxes. So there is some cost to Obamacare over and above the insurance subsidies. "

 

[B-Man]

The Human Tragedy of Obamacare’s Job Losses

by Grace Marie Turner

 

The CBO report released this week says finds that the president’s health law creates massive incentives for Americans, particularly those at the lower end of the income scale, to opt out of the work force or to adjust their hours to qualify for big subsidies — to the tune of 2.3 million fewer “full-time-equivalent workers” by 2021​.

 

In congressional testimony Wednesday, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf acknowledged, under questioning from House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), that “the act creates a disincentive for people to work.”

 

This cuts through the White House’s claims that Republicans are mischaracterizing the CBO findings. Americans will find that earning more money can cost them thousands of dollars in in-kind benefits and, for many, working more will not be worth the costs of the added payroll taxes and work-related transportation and child-care expenses.

 

White House press secretary Jay Carney argued that the subsidies allow people to “pursue their dreams” without the terrible burden of working jobs they may despise, claiming that “individuals will be empowered to make choices about their own lives and livelihoods, like retiring on time rather than working into their elderly years.”

 

But in what alternative liberal universe can we pay people not to work and expect the economy to thrive?

 

Carney’s argument means that other people who still are working will be paying the bills so these newly “empowered” individuals will be able to enjoy free or heavily subsidized health insurance. And second, what was this about “working into their elderly years”? Medicare already provides health coverage for those over the age of 65 — and Medicaid provides it for many just under that age.

 

{snip}

 

When the CBO talks about the loss of 2.5 million “full-time equivalent jobs,” that means there could be several times that number of workers who will cut back on their hours – and their incomes – in order to qualify for generous health-insurance subsidies. Many millions could be tempted to forgo income — stalling their careers and their chances for advancement – in order to get Obamacare subsidies. The human tragedy of Obamacare, in other words, is enormous.

[DC Tom]

The director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said the obvious: losing your job and choosing to work less aren't the same thing. If you lose your job, you suffer immense personal and financial hardship. If, on the other hand, you choose to work less and spend more time with your family, "we don't sympathize. We say congratulations."

 

Worth the read in full: http://mobile.nytime...?_r=0&referrer=

 

Until this week, chronic underemployment was considered a bad thing.

 

Unreal.

[Doc]

So basically people are going to be able to work less, but make more money off the backs of the taxpayers, and the double whammy is fewer payroll and income taxes. Awesome!

[keepthefaith]

The brainwashing of America is in full swing. What do people think Obama would do if he actually had the power legally and fully to recast society through government action? What changes would he make? It's a scary thought.

 

Durr krugman may be mean to you republicans be he is no hack. The article goes on to rightfully point out that impact on labour supply does have some costs to society: "Just to be clear, the predicted long-run fall in working hours isn't entirely a good thing. Workers who choose to spend more time with their families will gain, but they'll also impose some burden on the rest of society, for example, by paying less in payroll and income taxes. So there is some cost to Obamacare over and above the insurance subsidies. "

 

This is what you get when you think too much, think incorrectly and have far too much self confidence. You sir, would be laughed out of meetings in the real world where business really gets done.

[IDBillzFan]

so, wait. it's appropriate to bandy about the nonpartisan cbo report findings but not to highlight what the director of the cbo stated as a clarification on that same report?

 

You can bandy all you want. I'm just mocking the authoritative voice you chose to amplify. Perhaps his next article will be how great it is to see the unemployment rate dropping so quickly. I mean, "just to be clear..." it's because people have given up trying to find a job...but hey, that number is the best in five years, ammmiright?

[boyst]

Durr krugman may be mean to you republicans be he is no hack. The article goes on to rightfully point out that impact on labour supply does have some costs to society: "Just to be clear, the predicted long-run fall in working hours isn't entirely a good thing. Workers who choose to spend more time with their families will gain, but they'll also impose some burden on the rest of society, for example, by paying less in payroll and income taxes. So there is some cost to Obamacare over and above the insurance subsidies. "

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?

[JuanGuzman]

 

 

Until this week, chronic underemployment was considered a bad thing.

 

Unreal.

 

I couldn't agree any more. I just don't think forcing people to work so they can access the group market instead of the individual market for health insurance is the way to solve it.

 

IMO if you wanted to reduce unemployment id increase the earned income tax credit, increase fiscal spending by building roads to ease congestion and new airports. I'd also be in conversation with the federal reserve trying to make sure the economy escapes slow growth mode. Only when unemployment dropped below 5% or inflation started to rise above 3 per cent.

 

If you want to deal with the unemployment crises target it directly.

[B-Man]

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]

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.

[GG]

Hi trolly.

[JuanGuzman]

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]

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]

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]

“Doc Shock” Reaches The Masses.

by Megan McCardle

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obamacare isn't a train wreck, it's a cancer

by 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

.

[TheMadCap]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Heard that several states are putting their prison population on Obamacare. Well, that explains the uptick in the insured.

[3rdnlng]

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?