Obamacare delayed- To help elect democrats

[Incorruptible]

Or perhaps because it's going to succeed, just like Medicare & SS.



I want them to recognize that it's the law of the land, achieved through entirely democratic means. I want them to recognize that it was achieved by the legitimate representatives of the people.



People who don't like the ACA are generally convinced of that from sources they trust, not sources who are telling the truth or actually have any expertise beyond reading the script handed to them by their employers. Taken individually, the provisions of the law enjoy widespread support, other than the individual mandate. Oh, wait- we weren't talking about that, were we?

Winning and losing politically? How quaint you'd offer that, given that the ACA is Romneycare, and the personal mandate is from the Heritage institute nearly 20 years ago. It was Repubs' idea in the first place, but now they hate it, because Obama likes it.

Who's playing politics?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/obamacare-and-conservative-self-delusion.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheri-and-allan-rivlin/public-opinion-will-swing_b_1643144.html

Delusion and denial are a self fulfilling prophesy on the Right.

Medicare and SS aren't successful. Are you really this stupid? Of course since you support obama.

 

[Vic Vega]

...

 

[Zorkorist]

It shows what is wrong with Obamacare.

Government capriciousness.

Government power.

Government corruption.

Government waste.

Government inefficiencies.

ie. politics.

-John

 

[michal1980]

I have a serious question.

Can Obama do this?

The law says it has to take in effect at the end of 2013. How can Obama just decided to change the date?

 

[Zorkorist]

The Executive Branch of Government "executes" (or enforces) Government.

He can hold off.

It's law that it starts in 2013 but he simply won't enforce it until 2014.

Once it is known that he (the Executive Branch of Government) won't enforce it, it basically isn't a law.

-John

 

[Jhhnn]

Medicare and SS aren't successful. Are you really this stupid? Of course since you support obama.

Like I said, utterly and completely delusional. I wonder how or if you actually function in the real world, or if you just rave from your Mom's basement.

Many millions of Americans have worked, retired, and collected SS and Medicare benefits until the end of their lives. Millions are doing so today. For those people, it's obviously a success.

SS has been so successful that it's actually created an enormous surplus, loaned to the Treasury & accounted for as trust funds currently valued at nearly $3T.

Just because some ebil soshulist program offends your fringewhack sensibilities doesn't mean it's not successful. It just means that you're a Looney Tune.

 

[Jhhnn]

I have a serious question.

Can Obama do this?

The law says it has to take in effect at the end of 2013. How can Obama just decided to change the date?

Perhaps you'd care to quote the relevant passages in the statutes that demand implementation in the fashion you describe.

 

[IGBT]

low information obamBots won't connect the lines till it's too late.

 

[Zorkorist]

http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blo...-the-ACA-in-a-Careful-Thoughtful-Manner-.aspx

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

low information obamBots won't connect the lines till it's too late.

Reddit is really mad at Obama right now.

Of course, tomorrow, they will be sniffing cat butts.

-John {the more cat butts, the better}

 

[Zorkorist]

Like I said, utterly and completely delusional. I wonder how or if you actually function in the real world, or if you just rave from your Mom's basement.

Many millions of Americans have worked, retired, and collected SS and Medicare benefits until the end of their lives. Millions are doing so today. For those people, it's obviously a success.

SS has been so successful that it's actually created an enormous surplus, loaned to the Treasury & accounted for as trust funds currently valued at nearly $3T.

Just because some ebil soshulist program offends your fringewhack sensibilities doesn't mean it's not successful. It just means that you're a Looney Tune.

So successful, that our Government is considered bankrupt and is having trouble obtaining credit?

So successful, that beyond Government Party members, that rape the public and get rich on the average American who is getting fucked harder, and harder?

Fuck Medicare and Social Security.

-John

 

[buckshot24]

Or perhaps because it's going to succeed, just like Medicare & SS.

Probably not. Medicare and SS aren't actually succeeding if you consider that they are going broke either.

I want them to recognize that it's the law of the land, achieved through entirely democratic means. I want them to recognize that it was achieved by the legitimate representatives of the people.

So you don't have a problem with trying to undo it through the same process?

People who don't like the ACA are generally convinced of that from sources they trust, not sources who are telling the truth or actually have any expertise beyond reading the script handed to them by their employers. Taken individually, the provisions of the law enjoy widespread support, other than the individual mandate. Oh, wait- we weren't talking about that, were we?

Here's a poll for you....

Would you prefer to be physically fit?

Yes/No/No opinion

Would you be willing to wake up early and workout before work?

Yes/No/No opinion

Of course people are happy to get the "goodies" but ask them if they like the negative aspects of the law and I'm sure you'd get much different results.

Winning and losing politically? How quaint you'd offer that, given that the ACA is Romneycare, and the personal mandate is from the Heritage institute nearly 20 years ago. It was Repubs' idea in the first place, but now they hate it, because Obama likes it.

Who gives a shit who may have come up with the law 20 years ago? Hack.

Bottom line is that this law expands federal governmental power and I don't like that. The IRS is already powerful enough without them caring if I had a prostate exam or whether I purchase a product or not. I don't care if Ronald Reagan himself came up with this shit, I don't like it along with millions of other people.

 

[ivwshane]

Seriously?

There have been claims that under Obamacare many/some employers will drop HI coverage and just pay the fine instead.

If that were to happen next year the Dems can kiss their election hopes good bye come November.

Looks to me like the Dems are afraid the dropped coverage just might happen and don't want to take the chance.

Or it could be that premiums will rise etc. or the Dems just don't want to risk the possible negatives of Obamcare leading up to the elections. heck, some Dems in Congress are already on record calling it a train wreck. They're worried.



See above.

Fern

Is providing healthcare for employees currently required by law? No. Then why do companies provide healthcare to their employees if they don't have to? Why would that reason change because of the ACA?

 

[ivwshane]

This is another non story where the right cries wolf again and the usual sheep follow along.

The mandate would affect roughly 5% of businesses, that's a pretty small number in the grand scheme of things. The people who would be affected by this would be those that work for large companies making minimum wage and they tend to vote for democrats. If it was a political move it was a stupid one as the negative impact would be against the dems.

 

[michal1980]

This is another non story where the right cries wolf again and the usual sheep follow along.

The mandate would affect roughly 5% of businesses, that's a pretty small number in the grand scheme of things. The people who would be affected by this would be those that work for large companies making minimum wage and they tend to vote for democrats. If it was a political move it was a stupid one as the negative impact would be against the dems.

So if the impact is small then why delay it?


(PS did your dem leaders finally hand out your talking points)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is another non story where the right cries wolf again and the usual sheep follow along.

The mandate would affect roughly 5% of businesses, that's a pretty small number in the grand scheme of things. The people who would be affected by this would be those that work for large companies making minimum wage and they tend to vote for democrats. If it was a political move it was a stupid one as the negative impact would be against the dems.

You've got this backwards. If things are put off then it's business as usual. If it's implemented as scheduled and it hurts their jobs by being crap then the employees will feel it. Which is going to get those "pretty small" people more upset?

 

[Incorruptible]

Like I said, utterly and completely delusional. I wonder how or if you actually function in the real world, or if you just rave from your Mom's basement.

Many millions of Americans have worked, retired, and collected SS and Medicare benefits until the end of their lives. Millions are doing so today. For those people, it's obviously a success.

SS has been so successful that it's actually created an enormous surplus, loaned to the Treasury & accounted for as trust funds currently valued at nearly $3T.

Just because some ebil soshulist program offends your fringewhack sensibilities doesn't mean it's not successful. It just means that you're a Looney Tune.

Like I said, utterly and completely delusional. I wonder how or if you actually function in the real world, or if you just rave from your Mom's basement.

Listen you moron, Medicare and SS are so successful that the US is $17 trillion in debt.

You've already lost the debate since you have to resort to insults because you got nothing else.

You're a pathetic excuse for a human being who would get his ass kicked on the street so you go on an internet forum and act like a toughguy. It's not my fault that you're such a left wing hack.

 

[sactoking]

I have a serious question.

Can Obama do this?

The law says it has to take in effect at the end of 2013. How can Obama just decided to change the date?

As was mentioned, legitimacy of a law and enforcement of a law are closely related but technically separate. If you're a large employer subject to the mandate and you don't provide affordable minimum essential coverage in 2014 you will be breaking the law, there just won't be anyone enforcing it.

This is a politically risky move by Obama because it sets legitimate precedence for a potential future Republican president to also fail to enforce the law purely for idealogical reasons.

Perhaps you'd care to quote the relevant passages in the statutes that demand implementation in the fashion you describe.

Section 1514 of the ACA details the requirement for employers to report on the insurance provided to their employees. This is the section Treasury says cannot be complied with. Here is the text of §1514(d):

EFFECTIVE DATE - The amendments made by this section shall apply to periods beginning after December 31, 2013.

Section 1513 of the ACA is the employer shared responsibility requirement, which details the penalties and how they are triggered. This is the section Treasury says cannot be complied with if §1514 is delayed. Here is the text of §1513(d):

EFFECTIVE DATE - The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.

Section 1514 was codified as 26 USC §6056 and section 1513 was codified as 26 USC §4980H. They are fully implemented federal laws with explicit effective dates.

This is another non story where the right cries wolf again and the usual sheep follow along.

The mandate would affect roughly 5% of businesses, that's a pretty small number in the grand scheme of things. The people who would be affected by this would be those that work for large companies making minimum wage and they tend to vote for democrats. If it was a political move it was a stupid one as the negative impact would be against the dems.

I'd like to point out that the "5%" approximation the media uses is not accurate. That number represents the large employers that do not provide coverage. It does not account for the number of employers that provide coverage that is "unaffordable" or otherwise non-compliant. That number is much higher. For example, a fast food chain might offer a "mini-med" plan to its workers. That is coverage, so the employer is not counted in the 5%, but it is not compliant insurance in 2014 so the mandate will affect the fast food chain. The administration has said that no other aspects of the ACA are affected by this delay but that just isn't true.

 

[michal1980]

As was mentioned, legitimacy of a law and enforcement of a law are closely related but technically separate. If you're a large employer subject to the mandate and you don't provide affordable minimum essential coverage in 2014 you will be breaking the law, there just won't be anyone enforcing it.

This is a politically risky move by Obama because it sets legitimate precedence for a potential future Republican president to also fail to enforce the law purely for idealogical reasons.

So lets say a Republican gets elected in 2016. Based on what Obama did, they would be free to just say none of Obamacare is to be enforced, and the law would just be dead?

As much as I'm not a fan of Obama, this sounds terrible.

 

[Matt1970]

Is providing healthcare for employees currently required by law? No. Then why do companies provide healthcare to their employees if they don't have to?

Lefties don't want to hear the answer to that question. It goes against everything the have been taught about evil corporations.

 

[Incorruptible]

Lefties don't want to hear the answer to that question. It goes against everything the have been taught about evil corporations.

Lefties are nothing but idiots since this contradicts their idiotic views.

 

[Fern]

Is providing healthcare for employees currently required by law? No. Then why do companies provide healthcare to their employees if they don't have to? Why would that reason change because of the ACA?

Big Multinationals? No, they won't change.

Smaller type employers? Yeah, it could. Plans with fairly high deductibles that exist primarily to handle major medical expenses (up to a limited point) are common. But my understanding from all the commentary is that those won't be allowed. Many use HSA's, they won't fly either. Most current Cafeteria Plans? Nope. We'll have to see what happens. And for decades I've watched the govt get pummeled the 'law of unintended consequences', will this time be any different? IDK.

But the concern that smaller type business faced with high HI might just opt to pay the $2K penalty and give employees some $'s to go shop for themselves seems possible.

Fern

 

[Fern]

sactoking

A question:

Since the mandate for employers has been delayed, but not for individuals, are we looking at a situation where the penalty has basically just been transferred from businesses to individuals?

In theory, if the penalty for business forced them to provide coverage for employees but now that's gone, does it all now fall on the employees themselves?

TIA

Fern

 

[sactoking]

sactoking

A question:

Since the mandate for employers has been delayed, but not for individuals, are we looking at a situation where the penalty has basically just been transferred from businesses to individuals?

In theory, if the penalty for business forced them to provide coverage for employees but now that's gone, does it all now fall on the employees themselves?

TIA

Fern

In a manner of speaking, yes. Based on a cursory review it would seem to hit the "middle class" the hardest and may be a boon for the "lower middle class" or "working poor".

The employer mandate effectively trumped the individual mandate insofar as an employee receiving the option of coverage was barred from receiving an advance premium tax credit. Since employers often have contribution ratios starting at 50% (meaning the employer pays 50% of the premium) this harmed people who were working but at <400% FPL, since their subsidy may have been more than the employer's contribution.

Without the employer mandate, technically anyone can claim to not get coverage from an employer in 2014 and thus be eligible for a tax credit. (This assumes that the suspension of ACA §1514 on employer reporting also overflows into individual eligibility, which it seems like it will)

If I had to venture a guess I would say that the "lower middle class" or "working poor", those who work but earn <250-300% FPL, will be better off by delaying the mandate since they will be able to claim they don't have employer-based coverage and get a better subsidy plus potentially a cost-sharing reduction variation silver plan. The working "middle class" that's between 300-400% FPL will be slightly worse off since the subsidy may well fall short of the 50% employer contribution. The working "middle class" above 400% FPL will be considerably worse off since the employer wouldn't be making their contribution and the family wouldn't qualify for a subsidy. Of course, the assumption is based on a prior assumption that delay of the mandate will cause some employers to not offer coverage, so their employees are the ones in question. For those employers that continue to offer coverage which is affordable minimum essential coverage, nobody "loses" and the low-wage employees potentially gain.

 

[sactoking]

So lets say a Republican gets elected in 2016. Based on what Obama did, they would be free to just say none of Obamacare is to be enforced, and the law would just be dead?

As much as I'm not a fan of Obama, this sounds terrible.

It's certainly possible; look at what the fed did on medical marijuana until the Obama admin changed course.