Obamacare delayed- To help elect democrats

[buckshot24]

Lol, ok.

You righties hope and pray the government turns to shit and will do anything you can to see to it that that happens. Everytime something goes wrong you dumb shits are the first to say, "see I told you so!". Lol no shit! What did you expect to happen when you intentionally break government?

The government turns to shit because lefties like to think they can legislate stuff out of/into existence.

As I mentioned earlier, there are no better proposals being made, just more cheering when the wrench you righties throw in the machine breaks.

Status quo would be better than this piece of shit.

Hell! There is a whole fucking thread dedicated to what country the righties are going to run to when they perceive America as going to shit! Not how we can fix it or make it better, just running for the next place they plan on turning into a shit hole.

What a delusional twat. You libs are what is fucking the country up. The federal government just grows and grows and grows then you pricks want more. Then you blame us for all the bad shit that happens.

 

[buckshot24]

Uhh, no. Looking past the end of our noses just isn't relevant to your dishonest "point", such as it is.

The ACA isn't just about pooling risk across plan participants, but also across the lifetimes of individual participants. Decades ago, the old system did much the same thing, when jobs were plentiful & workers' share of income was much larger, when lifetime employment was more the norm. Employer paid health plans were common, and worker contributions were small, so younger workers had no impetus to not participate.

It's not like workers changed that. Quite the contrary.

So what do you commie morons do to help? Make labor more expensive! Yeah that is going to turn out well for everybody. But you dumb asses trying to stick it to the rich the poor end up getting screwed but you're so blinded by your hatred of the rich that you can't see that.

 

[Incorruptible]

So what do you commie morons do to help? Make labor more expensive! Yeah that is going to turn out well for everybody. But you dumb asses trying to stick it to the rich the poor end up getting screwed but you're so blinded by your hatred of the rich that you can't see that.

This sums up these idiots quite well.

 

[CrackRabbit]

This sums up these idiots quite well.

Why do you keep supporting the Jihadists? We want to know.

 

[Incorruptible]

Does obama really think people are this stupid they will simply forget obamacare and it's serious consequences?

 

[zinfamous]

Best reply to this moron so far. He is one of the most anti-American posters here.

and yet, you support the jihadists. I am sure you are the most anti-American around here.

 

[Incorruptible]

and yet, you support the jihadists. I am sure you are the most anti-American around here.

and yet, you support the jihadists. I am sure you are the most anti-American around here.

 

[CrackRabbit]

and yet, you support the jihadists. I am sure you are the most anti-American around here.

Why won't you explain why you support the terrorists?

 

[Jhhnn]

So what do you commie morons do to help? Make labor more expensive! Yeah that is going to turn out well for everybody. But you dumb asses trying to stick it to the rich the poor end up getting screwed but you're so blinded by your hatred of the rich that you can't see that.

Heh. Reduced to foaming at the mouth, raving the usual slogans.

In terms of share of national income, Labor has been getting cheaper for over 30 years. Meanwhile, the fabled Job Creators! have been doing exactly the opposite of what they claim, actually reducing employment & pay for American workers.

Who'll make the mortgage payments on the vast expanses of suburbia when we're all making Chinese wages? Who'll buy the cars, the fuel, the electricity, the groceries and so forth that American business needs to sell?

Not that you really care- You got yours, right? And you seem to think that taking that side of the argument means you'll get to keep it.

Not likely. What happens to your livelihood when everybody around you can't pay?

 

[buckshot24]

In terms of share of national income, Labor has been getting cheaper for over 30 years. Meanwhile, the fabled Job Creators! have been doing exactly the opposite of what they claim, actually reducing employment & pay for American workers.

For the sake of argument I'll grant you all this and that its wrong and blah blah blah. It's immaterial to what I said. Employment isn't going to go up when you make it more expensive to purchase. Did you skip the first day of your economics course? But even if a company keeps their same labor force they will have to make up for it in other ways, namely higher prices. Who do you think is hurt by higher prices more? The poor or the rich?

Who'll make the mortgage payments on the vast expanses of suburbia when we're all making Chinese wages? Who'll buy the cars, the fuel, the electricity, the groceries and so forth that American business needs to sell?

Who indeed? When you and your ilk want to make it harder for businesses to hire people and make products and services more expensive which hurts poor people more than it hurts rich people.

Not that you really care- You got yours, right? And you seem to think that taking that side of the argument means you'll get to keep it.

I'm not worried about keeping mine. I will always be able to keep mine because what I do is valuable. I'm worried about the poor that you're trying to help. I want more poor people to not be poor so more of them can buy my services. The thing with libs is that if you don't want to "help" people in their form then you want them to eat shit and die.

Not likely. What happens to your livelihood when everybody around you can't pay?

Exactly moron! Your policies create more poor people, that's why I don't like them.

 

[Sea Ray]

Can anybody show me where in the Constitution Obama suddenly got the right to pick and choose which laws he'll enforce and when? Did a 28th Amendment pass over the weekend that I missed? The Constitution says that the Executive branch will enforce all laws passed by Congress and signed into law. How is it that this White House thinks that they can unilaterally decide to delay implementation without any input from Congress?

 

[buckshot24]

Can anybody show me where in the Constitution Obama suddenly got the right to pick and choose which laws he'll enforce and when? Did a 28th Amendment pass over the weekend that I missed? The Constitution says that the Executive branch will enforce all laws passed by Congress and signed into law. How is it that this White House thinks that they can unilaterally decide to delay implementation without any input from Congress?

Because nobody is stopping him.

 

[werepossum]

Can anybody show me where in the Constitution Obama suddenly got the right to pick and choose which laws he'll enforce and when? Did a 28th Amendment pass over the weekend that I missed? The Constitution says that the Executive branch will enforce all laws passed by Congress and signed into law. How is it that this White House thinks that they can unilaterally decide to delay implementation without any input from Congress?

Seems to me that the ACA is all about empowering the bureaucracy; the addition of "free birth control" made that point if you'd missed it. Given that and the waivers, I think Obama can clearly do pretty much whatever he wants with health care without Congress' input. It's a brave new world.

Perhaps more to the point, the ACA is currently a fustercluck of the first water and this needs to be put off, with the added benefit that more people will now qualify for the exchanges. With all the extra-Constitutional shenanigans going on in the IRS, BATFE and NSA, are we really going to drawn the line at a good decision?

 

[Jhhnn]

Can anybody show me where in the Constitution Obama suddenly got the right to pick and choose which laws he'll enforce and when? Did a 28th Amendment pass over the weekend that I missed? The Constitution says that the Executive branch will enforce all laws passed by Congress and signed into law. How is it that this White House thinks that they can unilaterally decide to delay implementation without any input from Congress?

Can you quote the statute, the part of the ACA that demands implementation by a certain date to support your rant?

Probably not, so you assume facts not in evidence. I really don't know, but then I don't jump to conclusions about it, either.

 

[palehorse]

Can you quote the statute, the part of the ACA that demands implementation by a certain date to support your rant?

Probably not, so you assume facts not in evidence. I really don't know, but then I don't jump to conclusions about it, either.

Sactoking provided the exact ACA sections and corresponding federal law codes a few pages back which clearly state that the legal date of effectiveness for the employer reporting mandates is 1 January 2014.

I believe the relevant ACA sections are 1513 and 1514.

I'm a perfect world, the entire bill would be scrapped, they'd replace it with a simple one page law regarding pre-existing conditions and coverage denials/drops, and be done... one can dream, right?

 

[Zebo]

They need to pass amnesty to really help them. That's approx 30-50m new potential voters and 70-75% democrat. Say just 10m vote I dont see republicans winning for a long time based how close elections have been in past.

 

[palehorse]

They need to pass amnesty to really help them. That's approx 30-50m new potential voters and 70-75% democrat. Say just 10m vote I dont see republicans winning for a long time based how close elections have been in past.

Don't forget the 10-50 million additional ACA tax credits and "free" insurance plans that I'm sure the CBO left out of their cost estimates...

 

[Jhhnn]

Sactoking provided the exact ACA sections and corresponding federal law codes a few pages back which clearly state that the legal date of effectiveness for the employer reporting mandates is 1 January 2014.

I believe the relevant ACA sections are 1513 and 1514.

I'm a perfect world, the entire bill would be scrapped, they'd replace it with a simple one page law regarding pre-existing conditions and coverage denials/drops, and be done... one can dream, right?

A search didn't reveal such a post by Sactoking, nor have you done anything more than make an assertion in support of Sea Ray's original unsupported assertion. The Treasury Dept cites older statutes in support of the delay-

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.c...tter-defending-legality-of-obamacare-employer

I think we're seeing the usual "throw shit against the wall & see if anything will stick" attack here... Coming from the usual suspects, it's like a condemned man complaining about the Governor issuing a stay of execution.

 

[sactoking]

A search didn't reveal such a post by Sactoking, nor have you done anything more than make an assertion in support of Sea Ray's original unsupported assertion. The Treasury Dept cites older statutes in support of the delay-

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.c...tter-defending-legality-of-obamacare-employer

I think we're seeing the usual "throw shit against the wall & see if anything will stick" attack here... Coming from the usual suspects, it's like a condemned man complaining about the Governor issuing a stay of execution.

I'd direct you to post #93 in this thread.

 

[palehorse]

A search didn't reveal such a post by Sactoking, nor have you done anything more than make an assertion in support of Sea Ray's original unsupported assertion. The Treasury Dept cites older statutes in support of the delay-

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.c...tter-defending-legality-of-obamacare-employer

I think we're seeing the usual "throw shit against the wall & see if anything will stick" attack here... Coming from the usual suspects, it's like a condemned man complaining about the Governor issuing a stay of execution.

You're such a pompous ass... scroll up and read post #93 in this thread.

 

[OutHouse]

i didnt know the president can just say, we are not going to enforce a law on his whim. he is not king and the constitution clearly outlines what his boundaries are.

 

[palehorse]

i didnt know the president can just say, we are not going to enforce a law on his whim. he is not king and the constitution clearly outlines what his boundaries are.

This is apparently a function of the Treasury Department derived from their ability to provide "relief" to taxed entities affected by any particular legislation. In this case, said relief comes in form of delaying specific reporting requirements in the legislation that would supposedly place an undue burden on the taxed entities given the fact that the reporting system and rules are not yet ready for primetime... again, supposedly.

 

[Bowfinger]

Can you quote the statute, the part of the ACA that demands implementation by a certain date to support your rant?

Probably not, so you assume facts not in evidence. I really don't know, but then I don't jump to conclusions about it, either.

i didnt know the president can just say, we are not going to enforce a law on his whim. he is not king and the constitution clearly outlines what his boundaries are.

You didn't know that? Really? Did you sleep through the Bush administration (and Clinton, and Bush 41, and Reagan, and ...)? Government always picks and chooses which laws it enforces. Bush was selective on environmental and "anti-business" laws. Many states are selective about drugs, especially weed. It's common practice. When one agrees with their decision, it's using good judgment to ignore a bad law; when one disagrees, it's OUTRAGEOUS!

I do have to laugh at the naked hypocrisy of those who've spent the last few years demonizing Obamacare suddenly acting even more outraged that part will be delayed. It's what you should want, but it's the Obama administration's decision so you have to oppose it (or at least that's what the angry man on [ Fox | the radio ] said). Pavlov's clowns, howling on cue.

 

[palehorse]

You didn't know that? Really? Did you sleep through the Bush administration (and Clinton, and Bush 41, and Reagan, and ...)? Government always picks and chooses which laws it enforces. Bush was selective on environmental and "anti-business" laws. Many states are selective about drugs, especially weed. It's common practice. When one agrees with their decision, it's using good judgment to ignore a bad law; when one disagrees, it's OUTRAGEOUS!

I do have to laugh at the naked hypocrisy of those who've spent the last few years demonizing Obamacare suddenly acting even more outraged that part will be delayed. It's what you should want, but it's the Obama administration's decision so you have to oppose it (or at least that's what the angry man on [ Fox | the radio ] said). Pavlov's clowns, howling on cue.

Some of us want it completely dismantled, not just delayed. Having said that, appreciating the delay should not negate the criticism for the fact that the delay is politically motivated, at least partially, rather than practically motivated.

We can also rightfully criticise the admin for failing to successfully meet their self-imposed deadlines -- once again, even when we feel that the entire bill is a pile of garbage.

If nothing else, this just goes to show that the entire Act is even worse and more complex than we possibly imagined... it's a f'n mess!

 

[Fern]

You didn't know that? Really? Did you sleep through the Bush administration (and Clinton, and Bush 41, and Reagan, and ...)? Government always picks and chooses which laws it enforces. Bush was selective on environmental and "anti-business" laws. Many states are selective about drugs, especially weed. It's common practice. When one agrees with their decision, it's using good judgment to ignore a bad law; when one disagrees, it's OUTRAGEOUS!

I do have to laugh at the naked hypocrisy of those who've spent the last few years demonizing Obamacare suddenly acting even more outraged that part will be delayed. It's what you should want, but it's the Obama administration's decision so you have to oppose it (or at least that's what the angry man on [ Fox | the radio ] said). Pavlov's clowns, howling on cue.

Really?

Mr. McConnell, a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and a professor of law and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution disagrees with you.

The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which advises the president on legal and constitutional issues, has repeatedly opined that the president may decline to enforce laws he believes are unconstitutional. But these opinions have always insisted that the president has no authority, as one such memo put it in 1990, to "refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons."

Attorneys general under Presidents Carter, Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton all agreed on this point. With the exception of Richard Nixon, whose refusals to spend money appropriated by Congress were struck down by the courts, no prior president has claimed the power to negate a law that is concededly constitutional.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323823004578591503509555268.html

Fern