Is Obamacare on death's door?

[Merc14]

tell me again why you care about Insurance companies collecting from those that sign up? It's up to them to collect. If you went thru the process, you have vested interest in finishing. I read a report yesterday that the rate of pay is about 82% currently and insurance companies leave some lag time. The ACA is NOT people paying the government because IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE and it's NOT GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE INSURANCE. The ACA sets up rules and facilitates the exchange. Do you understand now?

How do your face yourself in the mirror in the morning?

[aquatus1]

**Looks at new thread**

**Oh, that sounds interesting**

**clicks. Sees the first five words.**

- Obama, the dictator, just illegally---

Welp, there went my interest.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

No one cares about the population of Australia.

I do.

[F3SS]

I do.

Isn't it ironic he's from the party of unity and compassion?

[Merc14]

**Looks at new thread**

**Oh, that sounds interesting**

**clicks. Sees the first five words.**

Welp, there went my interest.

He is usurping congress's powers via Executive Order. If this was Bush you'd be reacting quite a bit differently I would guess.

[Merc14]

I do.

"That boy ain't right in the head" said Foghorn Leghorn looking at the turtle boy

Edited February 15, 2014 by Merc14

[aquatus1]

He is usurping congress's powers via Executive Order. If this was Bush you'd be reacting quite a bit differently I would guess.

No. If I looked at an article and saw "Bush, the dictator, just illegally yadda yadda", I'd leave as well.

I'm not interested in preaching or ranting. The moment I see those words, I know there isn't even going to be an attempt at objectivity.

[Merc14]

No. If I looked at an article and saw "Bush, the dictator, just illegally yadda yadda", I'd leave as well.

I'm not interested in preaching or ranting. The moment I see those words, I know there isn't even going to be an attempt at objectivity.

I am not sure what else you would call a president who announces to the country his intention to bypass congress and make law via EO. He has unilaterally changed a law, his party pushed through on questionable terms, twice now. That is outside his powers as the President as per the constitution. You can pussyfoot around it anyway you want but that he has assumed dictatorial powers and I calls them as I sees them. Jonathan Turley, a very left wing constitutional attorney agrees that we have a real bad problem with teh man sitting at 1600 PA ave.

[media=]

[/media]

I understand a character like Ninja applauding ths power grab but any rational American, right or left, should be very alarmed with what this man is doing.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Merc14

[aquatus1]

I am not sure what else you would call a president--

I would call him a "president", because I have no intention of making myself a cheering boy for either side. It's bad enough watching people lose their minds over things like sports or game shows, but to watch people act the same way in regards to the politics of their own countries is just downright depressing.

[Merc14]

I would call him a "president", because I have no intention of making myself a cheering boy for either side. It's bad enough watching people lose their minds over things like sports or game shows, but to watch people act the same way in regards to the politics of their own countries is just downright depressing.

That's fine aquatus, I have always respected your opinion and won't stop doing so now.

[aquatus1]

Thank you. And, for those watching, yes, I am aware of the irony in dismissing something because of the lack of objectivity while at the same time showing considerable elitism in disdaining something without it. My arrogance is a personal fault, I admit it.

[scorpiosonic]

http://www.mediaite....-off-employees/ 41% Of Small Businesses Froze Hiring Due To Obamacare, 19% Have Laid Off Employees

http://www.policymic...-with-obamacare 7 Companies That Have to Lay Off Employees to Deal With Obamacare

http://www.foxnews.c...tor-in-firings/ Thought Police: Firms must swear ObamaCare not a factor in firings.

i like the last one best, lol

Is the latest delay of ObamaCare regulations politically motivated?

Consider what administration officials announcing the new exemption for medium-sized employers had to say about firms that might fire workers to get under the threshold and avoid hugely expensive new requirements of the law. Obama officials made clear in a press briefing that firms would not be allowed to lay off workers to get into the preferred class of those businesses with 50 to 99 employees. How will the feds know what employers were thinking when hiring and firing? Simple. Firms will be required to certify to the IRS – under penalty of perjury – that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions. To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs. You can duck the law, but only if you promise not to say so.

EVERYTHING they do IS politically motivated.

It's not just the amount of employees stipulation businesses are dodging, it's also the amount of hrs. worked weekly by individual employees stipulation, (full-time vs. part-time).

***FROM THE OP: (Merc) " Obama, the dictator, just illegally delayed the employer mandate for businesses with less than 100 employees until he is safely out of office....."**

ACA isn't @ death's door yet, it's just going into the ICU.....give it time though.

You nailed it w/ "illegally delayed.....until he is safely out of office....."

Not just (illegally) delaying HIS OWN Sig Legislation, his plan is to bail out and be long gone, (retired) to avoid any/all responsibility before the schist really hits the fan when ACA is finally fully implemented, (It's called C.Y.A.).

Not to say that any other politician, or member of Obama's Admin, etc. was, IS, or will be held accountable for their actions.

Some have quoted numbers of 'ppl who will be helped by ACA' @ 14 Mil, 30 Mil, ETC.....plz remember this law was/is intended to 'help' (cover) ALL US Citizens...that's 320 Mil. (Unless of course U are lucky enough to have gotten a Waiver!)

Edited February 16, 2014 by scorpiosonic

[Harte]

He is usurping congress's powers via Executive Order. If this was Bush you'd be reacting quite a bit differently I would guess.

Like I stated in another thread, he is usurping absolutely nothing. I know it "feels" like that, but it is not that.

Due to the way the bill is written (in such a way that the Democrats that voted for it can elude responsibility,) the Executive has the authority to implement the act in the way he sees fit. End of story. This is only an example of elections having consequences.

It is obvious that Obama has put off compliance with the ACA by large employers in order to attempt to dodge the worst of the fallout against Democrats in the next election. Whether this will work is the question. There is no specific date in the bill concerning when this complaince must start.

I certainly do agree with you about your conjecture concerning what posters here would be screaming madly about if Bush had done these sorts of things, though.

Harte

[Merc14]

Like I stated in another thread, he is usurping absolutely nothing. I know it "feels" like that, but it is not that.

Due to the way the bill is written (in such a way that the Democrats that voted for it can elude responsibility,) the Executive has the authority to implement the act in the way he sees fit. End of story. This is only an example of elections having consequences.

It is obvious that Obama has put off compliance with the ACA by large employers in order to attempt to dodge the worst of the fallout against Democrats in the next election. Whether this will work is the question. There is no specific date in the bill concerning when this complaince must start.

I certainly do agree with you about your conjecture concerning what posters here would be screaming madly about if Bush had done these sorts of things, though.

Harte

It is not as clear cut as that. Read this and let me know what you think:

http://www.washingto...-is-that-legal/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/370909/obama-adds-irrationality-lawlessness-while-threatening-prosecution-andrew-c-mccarthy

Edited February 16, 2014 by Merc14

[Startraveler]

The hysterics are amusing.

In reality, the uninsurance rate is lower than it's been in over five years (dropping from a recent all-time high in a span of a few months), health care quality is improving rapidly, and health care cost growth remains near historic lows.

This may look like "death's door" to you but the fact remains that this moment, right now, is as good as things have ever been in the health sector. Perhaps that's a sad statement but that doesn't change the fact that it's true.

[Merc14]

The hysterics are amusing.

In reality, the uninsurance rate is lower than it's been in over five years (dropping from a recent all-time high in a span of a few months), health care quality is improving rapidly, and health care cost growth remains near historic lows.

This may look like "death's door" to you but the fact remains that this moment, right now, is as good as things have ever been in the health sector. Perhaps that's a sad statement but that doesn't change the fact that it's true.

Glad your happy loony tunes.

[ninjadude]

From your own looney link

I

n Congressional testimony, Treasury makes a counter argument: That the agency is by no means dispensing with the law -- they still plan to implement it -- but rather making an adjustment, well within executive discretion. The agency says this authority stems from its power to “prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title.”

Moreover, this is something that the agency has done more than a dozen times before, without a peep from Congress.

“On a number of prior occasions across administrations, this authority has been used to postpone the application of new legislation when the immediate application would have subjected taxpayers to unreasonable administrative burdens or costs,” Mark Iwry, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Retirement and Health Policy at Treasury, told legislators.

[Startraveler]

More devastating news: things are cheaper than expected.

It's been obvious since last year that in guessing the price tag of the ACA, the CBO overestimated how much health insurance premiums (and thus federal subsidies) would cost under it. In updating their budget picture this month, they've acknowledged that:

CBO and JCT lowered their estimate of average premiums for insurance coverage through exchanges in 2014 by about 15 percent on the basis of a preliminary analysis of plans offered through exchanges.

And the price tag of Medicare keeps dropping as its cost growth continues to slow:

...the slowdown in Medicare cost growth during the past several years has been sufficiently broad and persistent to lead CBO to project that growth will be slower than usual for some years to come. Markedly lower growth rates for Medicare spending in recent years have extended across all types of services, beneficiaries, and major regions. As spending has fallen short of CBO’s projections, the agency has made a series of downward adjustments to those projections. For example, since March 2010, CBO has reduced its projection of Medicare outlays in 2020 (the last year included in the March 2010 projection) by $109 billion, or about 12 percent, based on analysis by CBO and other analysts of data on Medicare spending.

In January 2010, just weeks before the ACA became law, the CBO thought Medicare spending in 2013 would be $638 billion. Actual Medicare spending last year was $585, or more than 8% cheaper than that.

Death's door, indeed!

[Xynoplas]

Too bad it's not called Romneycare. It might have had a chance of succeeding then, huh?

[Harte]

It is not as clear cut as that. Read this and let me know what you think:

http://www.washingto...-is-that-legal/

http://www.nationalr...drew-c-mccarthy

Both are editorials. I'm not inclined to necessarily take editorializing at face value (unless it's George Will! LOL)

Your Post link appears to agree with me. The National Review link does not.

What do you want me to say?

I stand by what I said.

An example would be that the law itself mandates employer-provided insurance or a fine after December 31, 2013.

2016 is "after" December 31, 2013.

Congress could have put a date certain in the law, but they didn't. No doubt due to the fact both houses were under democratic control and opposition wasn't in a position to force their hand.

Again, an example of elections having consequences.

Don't imagine for a minute that I like these consequences I'm talking about here. What I'm saying is focusing on Obama as dictator will get us nowhere fast.

Harte

[Harte]

Too bad it's not called Romneycare. It might have had a chance of succeeding then, huh?

It would have a much better chance if it was Romneycare.

Romney's plan did not require a single employer to provide health coverage.

Harte

[Merc14]

Both are editorials. I'm not inclined to necessarily take editorializing at face value (unless it's George Will! LOL)

Your Post link appears to agree with me. The National Review link does not.

What do you want me to say?

I stand by what I said.

An example would be that the law itself mandates employer-provided insurance or a fine after December 31, 2013.

2016 is "after" December 31, 2013.

Congress could have put a date certain in the law, but they didn't. No doubt due to the fact both houses were under democratic control and opposition wasn't in a position to force their hand.

Again, an example of elections having consequences.

Don't imagine for a minute that I like these consequences I'm talking about here. What I'm saying is focusing on Obama as dictator will get us nowhere fast.

Harte

Well, we can agree to disagree I guess. I see a President who is not attempting to enforce the unpopular aspects of a law because it may hurt his party and thereby is dooming the program the law created to failure. This failure will pose a massive cost to the taxpayer who will have to make well all the insurance companies being forced to abide by this law while its funding sources are being sabotaged by the president. This is clearly illegal.

[ninjadude]

Romney's plan did not require a single employer to provide health coverage.

do you have source for that? This is what I found. It would appear you are incorrect in this.

The individual and business mandates – Both laws require that individuals who can afford insurance to purchase insurance or face a financial penalty. The Massachusetts law required businesses with more than 10 employees provide health benefits to their workers or pay a $295 per employee “Fair Share” contribution. This provision was repealed in July 2013 in anticipation of the ACA business mandate.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/11/13/romneycare-vs-obamacare-key-similarities-differences/

mandated employers with more than 10 "full-time" employees to provide healthcare insurance,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform

[Harte]

Well, we can agree to disagree I guess. I see a President who is not attempting to enforce the unpopular aspects of a law because it may hurt his party and thereby is dooming the program the law created to failure. This failure will pose a massive cost to the taxpayer who will have to make well all the insurance companies being forced to abide by this law while its funding sources are being sabotaged by the president. This is clearly illegal.

Merc, I agree with all of the above except the last sentence.

You can blame Congress. I do.

Harte

[Harte]

do you have source for that? This is what I found. It would appear you are incorrect in this.

http://boston.cbsloc...es-differences/

https://en.wikipedia...lth_care_reform

From your own link;

Major revisions related to health care industry price controls were passed in August 2012, effectively ending the market orientation,^{[citation needed]} and the employer mandate was repealed in 2013.^[1]

Also:

Obamacare requires companies with 50 or more employees to offer insurance to their employees. If they do not, they must pay a penalty of $2,000 per employee.

Romneycare in Massachusetts requires all companies with 11 or more employees to offer insurance or pay a penalty of $285 per employee per year. However, Romney initially attempted to veto this mandate, and he opposes its use in federal healthcare policy. Romney’s current healthcare plans do not include the employer mandate.

Source

Included this last bit to show that Romney's plan never included the (added then repealed) employer mandate.

Harte

Edited February 17, 2014 by Harte