by Worthington Daily Globe
July 9, 2013 at 7:00 pm in Worthington Daily Globe
No less than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce praised the Obama administration last week for delaying implementation of a central requirement of the Affordable Health Care Act. Continue Reading
Tags: Editorials, healthcare, Opinion, Politics 14 Comments »
37 bills to repeal the ACA as of May 2013. Its no wonder nothing is done in Washington and approval rating is the lowest ever.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 38 21
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I couldn’t even read this article in one sitting it was so full of liberal B.S.
Rush had it right when he made the claim that even the liberals in Washington know that when you need to do what’s best for the country you do the conservative thing. Delaying the business requirement had nothing to do with helping the roll out of the law. Years have passed since the law was implemented and there is no reason why any business shouldn’t have been able in that time to setup health care for their employees.
The idiot progressives in Washington are only delaying it because they know their liberal law is bad for business and they are delaying it for political reasons only. They will wait until after the 2014 mid-term to finish implementation because the admin won’t have to run again and won’t care that the law will be a train-wreck for business and job growth.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 28 43
“there is no reason why any business shouldn’t have been able in that time to setup health care for their employees.”
Most business owners i know and have spoken with, stated that they waited until the Supreme Courts ruling (which was just 1 year ago) before they even started to look into healthcare options. Now had it not gone to the Supreme Court, then yes, they would have plenty of time to prepare. But with 1 year to pick and decide which plans they want to offer and cost, its not enough time to effectively select the best option for the business and employees.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 38 23
It’ all about the 2014 election……nothing more…….
Hot debate. What do you think? 28 33
“It’ all about the 2014 election……nothing more…….” Couldn’t agree more! ANYONE, who can’t see through this B.S. move is totally blind. (Patiently waiting for eastender (robert), to jump in and tell us all to calm down, and then defend the failed admin).
Hot debate. What do you think? 28 37
“But with 1 year to pick and decide which plans they want to offer and cost, its not enough time to effectively select the best option for the business and employees.” #1) There IS no good option. #2) Couldn’t they have just jumped in on the government designed exchange? THEY knew it was coming LOOOOONG ago, well over a year. They don’t have it ready either? It’s a financial disaster waiting to happen. Pure politics is the reason it’s being put off, nothing less, nothing more.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 24 36
“Couldn’t they have just jumped in on the government designed exchange?”….well NO. They haven’t been set up yet. Some states have refused to set up state exchanges (bet you can guess which states those are). In Minnesota, the availablity to sign up for the state run exchange isn’t until October of THIS YEAR. Thats if you have 50 employees or less.
Hot debate. What do you think? 28 20
Also the state deadline to tell the federal government that they would participate was Jan 1 of 2013. Again, many opposed states wanted to see the Supreme Court decision and didn’t bother attempting to set anything up.
Hot debate. What do you think? 29 19
Regardless of where you stand on the Affordable Healthcare Act, what should trouble everyone is how the executive branch is repeatedly ignoring its Constitutional role. Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This is the executive branch’s duty, it is not a discretionary power. While the executive branch does have discretion about how to enforce a law, it has no discretion about whether to do so. This administration has repeatedly decided to effectively repealed welfare work requirements through executive order, has “enacted” its own version of immigration reform by declaring it will not enforce existing immigration laws, and is now unilaterally deciding which parts of the Affordable Healthcare Act will be enforced and which will not be enforced. There is no question that from a drafting standpoint the Act is an abomination, but the Executive Branch is required to enforce the law, not select which laws will be enforced and which won’t. Can you imagine the outrage if Romney would have been elected and he had decided to unilaterally decided which parts of the Affordable Healthcare Act, if any, would be enforced. This is no different than if the Executive Branch were to decide that particular provisions of the Internal Revenue Code should not be enforced. The Executive Branch has the authority to provide “interpretive” regulations to implement a law and “legislative” regulations when authorized by Congress. It doesn’t have the right to pick and chose which laws will be enforced.
The following is a quote from a well written article that recently appeared in the Wall Street Journal (written by one of the more liberal members of the Stanford Law School faculty and former Democratic appointment to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals):
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.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 20 30
As an additional follow up even the Senate Democrats have question President Obama’s decision to not enforce part of the law. One of the law’s authors, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, was quoted as follows in the New York Times, “This was the law. How can they change the law?”
Hot debate. What do you think? 21 28
And the other article you used…
Hot debate. What do you think? 27 22
You really should have the respect of the author in their ideas and article to include the link to your copy and paste. Otherwise its plagiarism.
Hot debate. What do you think? 30 20
I can’t believe that people are surprised that the President is picking and choosing what laws he wants to enforce. Or if he wants to follow the Constitution. There are current laws on the book for immigration but he has decided not to allow them to be enforced. This latest move is just the status quot for this liberals. I don’t understand why certain groups get a break, but us in the middle class get crushed and have to comply by 2014.
Hot debate. What do you think? 28 25
Maybe if you would quit voting for Teapublican the middle would quit getting crushed.
Like or Dislike: 8 15
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first. You can also create an account.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company