Obamacare is crashing...

[Kulindahr]

No it the inevitable result of our system of popular nomination and election of the President. It was less true when nominations were actually made at the conventions. The two party system is another inevitable result of the popular election system. Any third party vote is effectively a vote for the candidate the voter likes least. Democrats voting for Nader elected Bush. Republicans voting for Perot elected Clinton. Republicans voting for Roosevelt elected Wilson.

That's an important aspect. Allowing people to be elected by a plurality instead of an actual majority doesn't help (if I had my way, a majority of registered voters would be required; anyone staying home would be voting "None Of The Above").

 

[Benvolio]

That's an important aspect. Allowing people to be elected by a plurality instead of an actual majority doesn't help (if I had my way, a majority of registered voters would be required; anyone staying home would be voting "None Of The Above").

The apathetic, indolent and ignorant should not be allowed to nullify the votes of the conscientious.

 

[Kulindahr]

The apathetic, indolent and ignorant should not be allowed to nullify the votes of the conscientious.

Maybe they could count as 3/5 of a vote.

 

[Jack Springer]

Shutting down the government to force negotiation on repealing or defunding or delaying a law legally passed by Congress is not legal. It fits the definition of sedition -- at the very minimum it's intentional obstruction of the democratic process.

.. and yet you can't comment on the illegality of Obama's actions of changing a law that includes taxes which was passed by Congress. If this had been a republican you would have been going ape-shit-crazy the last couple of years -- but nothing.

What you and others fail to realize is that we do get to elect a new President -- Obama has set a new rule for further Presidents -- they will be able to change laws passed by Congress. When Rand Paul become President in 2017 he'll be able to rule by Executive Order and bypass the US Congress. Thank you Obama and weak senators and congressmen and in-love media.

 

[Benvolio]

.. and yet you can't comment on the illegality of Obama's actions of changing a law that includes taxes which was passed by Congress. If this had been a republican you would have been going ape-shit-crazy the last couple of years -- but nothing.

What you and others fail to realize is that we do get to elect a new President -- Obama has set a new rule for further Presidents -- they will be able to change laws passed by Congress. When Rand Paul become President in 2017 he'll be able to rule by Executive Order and bypass the US Congress. Thank you Obama and weak senators and congressmen and in-love media.

When the Republicans take Congress a 11 months from now they won't have those pesky democrat filibusters to worry about. Dirty Harry shot himself in the foot with his 45 Magnum this time. The Republicans will be able to get spending under control and the economy moving as they did during the Clinton and Bush years.

 

[xbuzzerx]

.. and yet you can't comment on the illegality of Obama's actions of changing a law that includes taxes which was passed by Congress. If this had been a republican you would have been going ape-shit-crazy the last couple of years -- but nothing.

What you and others fail to realize is that we do get to elect a new President -- Obama has set a new rule for further Presidents -- they will be able to change laws passed by Congress. When Rand Paul become President in 2017 he'll be able to rule by Executive Order and bypass the US Congress. Thank you Obama and weak senators and congressmen and in-love media.

You're listening to way too much Fox. I suppose next you're going to start the impeach Obama crap.

 

[Jack Springer]

You're listening to way too much Fox. I suppose next you're going to start the impeach Obama crap.

Could you at least address my concern instead of making a 'funny' response.

Obama has crossed the line. This looks more and more like a grave constitutional matter that needs to be addressed.

 

[Kulindahr]

Could you at least address my concern instead of making a 'funny' response.

Obama has crossed the line. This looks more and more like a grave constitutional matter that needs to be addressed.

Bush taught him how, with all his "signing statements" that redefined laws. Obama's just skipping the redefining part and going straight to changing the law.

 

[palbert]

.. and yet you can't comment on the illegality of Obama's actions of changing a law that includes taxes which was passed by Congress. If this had been a republican you would have been going ape-shit-crazy the last couple of years -- but nothing.

What you and others fail to realize is that we do get to elect a new President -- Obama has set a new rule for further Presidents -- they will be able to change laws passed by Congress. When Rand Paul become President in 2017 he'll be able to rule by Executive Order and bypass the US Congress. Thank you Obama and weak senators and congressmen and in-love media.

There is a lot of talk about Obama changing the mandates. I am certain that were his actions unconstitutional or without statutory authority some in Congress or otherwise would have started a lawsuit challenging his actions. I am aware of none.

Can any one point to any section of that huge law which says he can or cannot change the mandates?

 

[palbert]

I found this:

When Obama Rewrites Obamacare, Why Doesn't Anyone Sue Him?

Republicans have denounced such actions as "lawless." But if what the president has done is illegal, then why haven't Republicans, or anyone else, taken him to court to stop him? According to Senator Mike Lee of Utah, a conservative Republican with impeccable legal credentials, the main problem is finding someone who would have the standing to sue the president over his unilateral changes to the law.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...amacare-why-doesnt-anyone-sue-him_781480.html

 

[Jack Springer]

There is a lot of talk about Obama changing the mandates. I am certain that were his actions unconstitutional or without statutory authority some in Congress or otherwise would have started a lawsuit challenging his actions. I am aware of none.

Can any one point to any section of that huge law which says he can or cannot change the mandates?

I doubt if any one person has read the law as it was passed by Congress or the law how it was written by the HHS or the law as it has been rewritten by Obama.

It's time for someone to stand up -- either democrat or republican (or best both) .. and stand for the rule of our Constitution keeping the 3 branches of government in their respective roles.

If you're a concerned American -- you'd want to stop what he has done -- because future republican Presidents will take up where Obama left off. The executive branch of government does not write laws.

 

[palbert]

If these are ultra vires why won't a cause of action, say an information in the nature of quo warranto, lie?

 

[palbert]

It would appear that the mandate extensions are ultra vires:

The Obama Administration's decision to delay the employer health insurance mandate was met with immediate criticism as an illegal action.[2][4] The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act states in several different places that the employer mandate begins in January 2014 - certain tax credits become available January 1, penalties are stated for 2014 (to be adjusted by inflation in the following years), and the section about the employer mandate has a specific effective date.[4] There is a specific section granting the authority to waive certain requirements, but only under a set of exact conditions, only on a state level basis, and not beginning until 2017; this indicates that "Congress clearly did not want the administration to waive it unless certain specified conditions were met."[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority_for_Mandate_Delay_Act_(H.R._2667;_113th_Congress)

But The Atlantic is more flexible:

The GOP says Obama's decision to postpone implementing the "employer mandate" stomps all over the Constitution. It doesn't, and here's why.
...
The Administration has not postponed the employer mandate out of policy opposition to the ACA, nor to the specific provision itself. Thus, it's misleading to characterize the action as a "refusal to enforce." Rather, the President has authorized a minor temporary course correction regarding individual ACA provisions, necessary in his Administration's judgment to faithfully execute the overall statute, other related laws, and the purposes of the ACA's framers. As a legal as well as a practical matter, that's well within his job description.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...atantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/

I cannot find "course correction" in the Constitution. It appears not yet available (under the terms of the ACA).

 

[Benvolio]

It would appear that the mandate extensions are ultra vires:



But The Atlantic is more flexible:



I cannot find "course correction" in the Constitution. It appears not yet available (under the terms of the ACA).

In the meantime, insurance companies are required to insure the uninsurable without the income that the mandates were designed to generate. Is it Obama's real intent to bankrupt the companies, forcing us to socialized medicine?

 

[chrisrobin]

In the meantime, insurance companies are required to insure the uninsurable without the income that the mandates were designed to generate. Is it Obama's real intent to bankrupt the companies, forcing us to socialized medicine?

ACA will have enrolled 5 million by the end of March. Now, go put it back in your pants.

Barack Hussein Obama's long term goal is to destroy the planet.

What? "Benghazigate" not good enough?

 

[Jack Springer]

ACA will have enrolled 5 million by the end of March. Now, go put it back in your pants.

Barack Hussein Obama's long term goal is to destroy the planet.

How many of those imaginary 5 million do you think will be paying for their insurance?

 

[palbert]

In the meantime, insurance companies are required to insure the uninsurable without the income that the mandates were designed to generate. Is it Obama's real intent to bankrupt the companies, forcing us to socialized medicine?

I would not object to it being a conspiracy to implement a "single payer" system. Medicare and AARP work for me.

 

[chrisrobin]

Seriously Jack are you kidding?

Japan comes to consult us about education? Are you serious? lmao.

As I've already asked you, stay away from Japan. Japan is asking for advice from the U.S.

Also, they want pointers from Ford... to bring back the Edsel.

 

[chrisrobin]

How many of those imaginary* 5 million do you think will be paying for their insurance?

You will. It's all a conspiracy to take your money.

*Imaginary is not the same as prediction.

 

[Benvolio]

I would not object to it being a conspiracy to implement a "single payer" system. Medicare and AARP work for me.

If you actually are in Medicare and AARP supplemental, you know that they are not a single payer system. They work by taking large monthly premiums from your Social Security payment. The system cannot be expanded to the general population because they do not receive SS payments to be diverted.