Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    03 Jul '13 03:13 / 1 edit
    Holy bowel movement!

    And, he delays Obamacare until after the 2014 elections!

    Bwahahahahahahaha! What a...douche!


    White House delays employer mandate requirement until 2015
    By Sarah Kliff, Published: JULY 02, 5:51 PM ET
    Aa
    The Obama administration will not penalize businesses that do not provide health insurance in 2014, the Treasury Department announced Tuesday.

    Instead, it will delay enforcement of a major Affordable Care Act requirement that all employers with more than 50 employees provide coverage to their workers until 2015.


    (Photo by Jessica Rinaldi/Reuters)

    The administration said it would postpone the provision after hearing significant concerns from employers about the challenges of implementing it.

    “We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively,” Mark Mazur, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, wrote in a late Tuesday blog post. “We recognize that the vast majority of businesses that will need to do this reporting already provide health insurance to their workers, and we want to make sure it is easy for others to do so.”

    The Affordable Care Act requires all employers with more than 50 full-time workers provide health insurance or pay steep fines. That policy had raised concerns about companies downsizing their workforce or cutting workers’ hours in order to dodge the new mandate.

    In delaying the enforcement of that rule, the White House sidesteps those challenges for one year. It is also the second significant interruption for the Affordable Care Act, following a one-year delay on key functions of the small business insurance marketplaces.

    Together, the moves could draw criticism that the administration will not be able to put into effect its signature legislative accomplishment on schedule.
  2. Standard member caissad4online
    Child of the Novelty
    03 Jul '13 05:01
    And it leaves in place the penalties for individuals who do not purchase health insurance. How kind and caring ! :'(:'(:'(
  3. 03 Jul '13 05:36 / 1 edit
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/07/02/we-re-listening-businesses-about-health-care-law

    From the start, this Administration has encouraged an ongoing dialogue with the leaders of our nation’s businesses, large and small. There’s more to do, but working together we’ve helped rebuild our economy. Businesses have added 6.9 million private-sector jobs in the past 39 months and we’ve helped strengthen the middle class. Today, most Americans get their health insurance through their jobs and that will be the case moving forward.

    To help restore middle class security, we are making health care more affordable to businesses, government, and American families through the Affordable Care Act. While major portions of the law have yet to be implemented, it’s already a little more affordable for businesses to offer quality health coverage to their employees. A recent report suggests that medical cost growth will be lower in 2014 than an already low rate in 2013, both “defying historical patterns.”

    Starting next year, the law also ensures all Americans will have access to affordable health coverage. We are on target to open the Health Insurance Marketplace on October 1 where small businesses and ordinary Americans will be able to go to one place to learn about their coverage options and make side-by-side comparisons of each plan’s price and benefits before they make their decision.

    As we implement this law, we have and will continue to make changes as needed. In our ongoing discussions with businesses we have heard that you need the time to get this right. We are listening. So in response to your concerns, we are making two changes.

    First, we are cutting red tape and simplifying the reporting process. We have heard the concern that the reporting called for under the law about each worker’s access to and enrollment in health insurance requires new data collection systems and coordination. So we plan to re-vamp and simplify the reporting process. Some of this detailed reporting may be unnecessary for businesses that more than meet the minimum standards in the law. We will convene employers, insurers, and experts to propose a smarter system and, in the interim, suspend reporting for 2014.

    Second, we are giving businesses more time to comply. As we make these changes, we believe we need to give employers more time to comply with the new rules. Since employer responsibility payments can only be assessed based on this new reporting, payments won’t be collected for 2014. This allows employers the time to test the new reporting systems and make any necessary adaptations to their health benefits while staying the course toward making health coverage more affordable and accessible for their workers.

    Just like our effort to turn the 21 page application for health insurance into a 3 page application, we are working hard to adapt and to be flexible in employer and insurer reporting as we implement the law.

    Meanwhile, here is a quick review of what small and big businesses need to know about the health law and how it will work:

    If you are a small business with less than 50 workers, the law’s employer shared responsibility policies does not apply to you. Instead, you will gain access to the Small Business Health Options Program that gives you the purchasing power of large businesses. In fact, you may be eligible for a tax credit that covers up to half the cost of insurance if you offer quality coverage to your employees
    If you own a business with more than 50 workers that already offers full-time workers affordable, quality coverage, you are fine – we’ll work with you to keep that coverage affordable.
    And if you are a company with more than 50 employees but choose not to offer quality affordable coverage, we have provided as much flexibility and transition time as possible for you to move to providing affordable, quality coverage to your workers.

    We are full steam ahead for the Marketplaces opening on October 1. For more information on what is coming check out: HealthCare.gov


    But.. but.. the Obama administration is anti-business! It's a tyrannical anti-business machine, why would they be reasonable and flexible to help them with the transition?
  4. 03 Jul '13 05:38
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Holy bowel movement!

    And, he delays Obamacare until after the 2014 elections!

    Bwahahahahahahaha! What a...douche!


    White House delays employer mandate requirement until 2015
    By Sarah Kliff, Published: JULY 02, 5:51 PM ET
    Aa
    The Obama administration will not penalize businesses that do not provide health insurance in 2014, the Trea ...[text shortened]... ration will not be able to put into effect its signature legislative accomplishment on schedule.
    Holy cow, great news! All those employees will have to wait another year for medical insurance!
  5. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    03 Jul '13 12:41
    But... won't people die?
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    03 Jul '13 13:01
    Is it even legal for the Executive to "delay" implementation of a requirement created by a federal statute?
  7. 03 Jul '13 13:06 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Is it even legal for the Executive to "delay" implementation of a requirement created by a federal statute?
    Is it legal? LOL.

    Was it legal for Barak Obama to create Executive Orders that ignore illegal immigration laws? Was it legal for him to remain in Libya and bypass the War Powers Act? Was it legal for the NSA to spy on innocent civilians? Was it legal for Obama to sign the NDAA, a document which allows the government to detain us without due process? Did he not swear to uphold the Constitution and did he not sign the NDAA which no one can argue defecates on the Constitution? By all right, he should be impeached.

    Now getting back to your question, is it legal? Who the hell cares? No one, that's who. Laws are meaningless without the will to enforce them. The American people are docile lemmings. The laws now only apply to the citizens, not those in government who don't even bother paying taxes.
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    03 Jul '13 13:15
    Well, obviously, what is bad for the country in an election year can be good for the country in a non-election year.

    Duh.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    03 Jul '13 13:21
    Originally posted by whodey
    Is it legal? LOL.

    Was it legal for Barak Obama to create Executive Orders that ignore illegal immigration laws? Was it legal for him to remain in Libya and bypass the War Powers Act? Was it legal for the NSA to spy on innocent civilians? Was it legal for Obama to sign the NDAA, a document which allows the government to detain us without due process? D ...[text shortened]... ws now only apply to the citizens, not those in government who don't even bother paying taxes.
    Please shut up.

    It's a serious question not really meant to be answered by raving and ranting.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    03 Jul '13 13:24
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Is it even legal for the Executive to "delay" implementation of a requirement created by a federal statute?
    The President, as head of the executive branch, has wide discretion in determining which federal laws to enforce. For example, the administration has declined to enforce federal marijuana laws in cases where the activity is legal in the given state. It the President could simply decline to enforce the law, that would seem to have the same effect as announcing a delay of it going into effect.
  11. 03 Jul '13 13:34
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Is it even legal for the Executive to "delay" implementation of a requirement created by a federal statute?
    I actually wondered the same thing. Seeing how nobody seems to be making a fuss about it, I imagine it's written in the law that the federal government can allow for some flexibility.
  12. 03 Jul '13 13:37
    Originally posted by sh76
    The President, as head of the executive branch, has wide discretion in determining which federal laws to enforce. For example, the administration has declined to enforce federal marijuana laws in cases where the activity is legal in the given state. It the President could simply decline to enforce the law, that would seem to have the same effect as announcing a delay of it going into effect.
    Speaking of which, didn't the president say he would not defend DOMA? Who represented the opposition to the repeal?
  13. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    03 Jul '13 14:15 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Speaking of which, didn't the president say he would not defend DOMA? Who represented the opposition to the repeal?
    The President certainly doesn't have to defend any specific legal position, even assuming he has a responsibility to enforce the laws that are on the books.

    In the DOMA case, there was a Congressional Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group ("BLAG" ) that commissioned the great Paul Clement to argue its case. There was a standing argument made that the case should be dismissed based on this argument, but the SCOTUS took the case on its merits anyway.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    03 Jul '13 14:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    The President, as head of the executive branch, has wide discretion in determining which federal laws to enforce. For example, the administration has declined to enforce federal marijuana laws in cases where the activity is legal in the given state. It the President could simply decline to enforce the law, that would seem to have the same effect as announcing a delay of it going into effect.
    IF the President can simply decline to enforce any law he pleases, that gives him, in effect, an impossible to override veto. Surely that is not in line with constitutional principles of separation of powers.

    EDIT: I'm not the only one wondering about this: Avik Roy at Forbes wonders whether "left wing activists" will bring a lawsuit to force enforcement of the employer mandate as the law is unequivocal that "“The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013,” concludes Section 1513.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/07/02/white-house-to-delay-obamacares-employer-mandate-until-2015-far-reaching-implications-for-the-private-health-insurance-market/
  15. 03 Jul '13 14:47
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    IF the President can simply decline to enforce any law he pleases, that gives him, in effect, an impossible to override veto. Surely that is not in line with constitutional principles of separation of powers.
    I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with no1.

    Dictator powers can come two ways.

    1. Give the president the power to make up cruel laws and apply them to whomever he pleases.
    2. Pass cruel laws, and give the president the power to exempt whomever he pleases.

    Admittedly this is not quite a full dictatorship. But in the case of ObamaCare, it is economically very problematic, but Obama has been already been granting "exemptions" for years.