Does The President Have the Right To Change Obamacare?

[Howey]

The argument is endless coming from the right...the President is overstepping his bounds by signing Executive Orders or otherwise making procedural changes to the ACA.

26 U.S. Code § 7805 gives him the permission to do exactly that:

(b) Retroactivity of regulations

(1) In general

Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no temporary, proposed, or final regulation relating to the internal revenue laws shall apply to any taxable period ending before the earliest of the following dates:

(A) The date on which such regulation is filed with the Federal Register.

(B) In the case of any final regulation, the date on which any proposed or temporary regulation to which such final regulation relates was filed with the Federal Register.

(C) The date on which any notice substantially describing the expected contents of any temporary, proposed, or final regulation is issued to the public.

(2) Exception for promptly issued regulations

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to regulations filed or issued within 18 months of the date of the enactment of the statutory provision to which the regulation relates.

(3) Prevention of abuse

The Secretary may provide that any regulation may take effect or apply retroactively to prevent abuse.

(4) Correction of procedural defects

The Secretary may provide that any regulation may apply retroactively to correct a procedural defect in the issuance of any prior regulation.

(5) Internal regulations

The limitation of paragraph (1) shall not apply to any regulation relating to internal Treasury Department policies, practices, or procedures.

(6) Congressional authorization

The limitation of paragraph (1) may be superseded by a legislative grant from Congress authorizing the Secretary to prescribe the effective date with respect to any regulation.

Here's an example of the citation:

PART 1—INCOME TAXES

Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. Section 1.833–1 is added to read as follows:

§ 1.833–1 Medical Loss Ratio Under Section 833(c)(5).

(a) In general. Section 833 does not apply to an organization unless the organization’s medical loss ratio (MLR) for a taxable year is at least 85 percent. Paragraph (b) of this section provides definitions that apply for purposes of section 833(c)(5) and this section. Paragraph (c) of this section provides rules for computing an organization’s MLR under section 833(c)(5). Paragraph (d) of this section addresses the treatment under section 833 of an organization that has an MLR of less than 85 percent. Paragraph (e) of this section provides the effective/applicability date.

(b) Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of section 833(c)(5) and this section.

(1) Reimbursement for clinical services provided to enrollees. The term reimbursement for clinical services provided to enrollees has the same meaning as that term has in section 300gg-18 of title 42, United States Code and the regulations issued under that section (see 45 CFR 158.140).

(2) Total premium revenue. The term total premium revenue means the total amount of premium revenue (excluding Federal and State taxes and licensing or regulatory fees and after accounting for payments or receipts for risk adjustment, risk corridors, and reinsurance under sections 1341, 1342, and 1343 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111–148 (124 Stat. 119 (2010)) (42 U.S.C. sections 18061, 18062, and 18063)) as those terms are used for purposes of section 300gg-18(b) of title 42, United States Code and the regulations issued under that section (see 45 CFR Part 158).

It is my hope that this information helps educate those of lesser intelligence on this forum.

 

[Super_Lantern]

Do future presidents get to change Obamacare?

 

[occupied]

Do future president get to change Obamacare?

You mean sabotage it to death by executive order? I suppose so but doing so out of political spite is liable to be a lot more unpopular than trying to make it easier to sign up.

 

[Politico]

Yes they do. Yes they do.

 

[Howey]

Do future presidents get to change Obamacare?

If needed to ensure the smooth transition, of course. Not, of course, to repeal it.

 

[HenryBHough]

Do future presidents get to change Obamacare?

If needed to ensure the smooth transition, of course. Not, of course, to repeal it.

Not hard to imagine an Executive Order forbidding the (former) Justice Department to enforce any of it. Perhaps in the same one ordering The IRS to lay off. And then another sequestering any money that some foolish Congress might appropriate to fund it.

Sometimes you have to drive several wooden stakes to ensure a kill.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The argument is endless coming from the right...the President is overstepping his bounds by signing Executive Orders or otherwise making procedural changes to the ACA.

26 U.S. Code § 7805 gives him the permission to do exactly that:

(b) Retroactivity of regulations

(1) In general

Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no temporary, proposed, or final regulation relating to the internal revenue laws shall apply to any taxable period ending before the earliest of the following dates:

(A) The date on which such regulation is filed with the Federal Register.

(B) In the case of any final regulation, the date on which any proposed or temporary regulation to which such final regulation relates was filed with the Federal Register.

(C) The date on which any notice substantially describing the expected contents of any temporary, proposed, or final regulation is issued to the public.

(2) Exception for promptly issued regulations

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to regulations filed or issued within 18 months of the date of the enactment of the statutory provision to which the regulation relates.

(3) Prevention of abuse

The Secretary may provide that any regulation may take effect or apply retroactively to prevent abuse.

(4) Correction of procedural defects

The Secretary may provide that any regulation may apply retroactively to correct a procedural defect in the issuance of any prior regulation.

(5) Internal regulations

The limitation of paragraph (1) shall not apply to any regulation relating to internal Treasury Department policies, practices, or procedures.

(6) Congressional authorization

The limitation of paragraph (1) may be superseded by a legislative grant from Congress authorizing the Secretary to prescribe the effective date with respect to any regulation.

Here's an example of the citation:

PART 1—INCOME TAXES

Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. Section 1.833–1 is added to read as follows:

§ 1.833–1 Medical Loss Ratio Under Section 833(c)(5).

(a) In general. Section 833 does not apply to an organization unless the organization’s medical loss ratio (MLR) for a taxable year is at least 85 percent. Paragraph (b) of this section provides definitions that apply for purposes of section 833(c)(5) and this section. Paragraph (c) of this section provides rules for computing an organization’s MLR under section 833(c)(5). Paragraph (d) of this section addresses the treatment under section 833 of an organization that has an MLR of less than 85 percent. Paragraph (e) of this section provides the effective/applicability date.

(b) Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of section 833(c)(5) and this section.

(1) Reimbursement for clinical services provided to enrollees. The term reimbursement for clinical services provided to enrollees has the same meaning as that term has in section 300gg-18 of title 42, United States Code and the regulations issued under that section (see 45 CFR 158.140).

(2) Total premium revenue. The term total premium revenue means the total amount of premium revenue (excluding Federal and State taxes and licensing or regulatory fees and after accounting for payments or receipts for risk adjustment, risk corridors, and reinsurance under sections 1341, 1342, and 1343 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111–148 (124 Stat. 119 (2010)) (42 U.S.C. sections 18061, 18062, and 18063)) as those terms are used for purposes of section 300gg-18(b) of title 42, United States Code and the regulations issued under that section (see 45 CFR Part 158).

It is my hope that this information helps educate those of lesser intelligence on this forum.

If you ever obtain a handle on the import of the words you quote, and if you ever get the first clue on the meaning of "statutory construction" and Constitutionally permissible "delegation of statutory power," such information and insight might help YOU (a person of clearly lesser intelligence) attain a degree of education almost on par with your undeservedly large ego.

To dumb that down for you: you are wrong.

 

[emilynghiem]

Part of the objection is that Obama opposed Congress making any changes at all, including delaying the individual mandate, and when they first agreed on a budget that included this change, he demanded no changes at all. And he even blamed the resulting shut down solely on the GOP and accepted no responsibility for rejecting their compromise to avoid the shutdown, because he insisted that no changes would be made.

So when he goes back on his own word, and makes any changes at all, this is intellectually dishonest to have blamed Republicans for pointing out the issues with the individual mandate. (I even talked with a staff member of Congresswoman Lee's office who didn't see the point of these deadlines.)

So why blame Republicans for that if the President is changing them anyway?

The overall objection is that he is making changes based on partisan interest and political belief: only political supporters are getting exemptions negotiated and approved; but if Hobby Lobby or political opponents have issues, those are fought off legally, politically and through the media.

The SPIRIT of this law and the decisions/interpretations on how to apply it
are based on political interest and are NOT based on Constitutional equal protection and representation of ALL people of ALL views.

The changes made by the Executive and also the Judiciary are equally opposed because these changes keep getting made in favor of one political view or belief, while any changes to support or include opposing views are either denied or minimalized. The most the President changed in favor of contested regulations was to amend the birth control provisions to go through insurance and not through religious organizations opposed.

This STILL does not address the "big elephant in the room" that the whole bill was unconstitutional to begin with because it imposes a political agenda or belief by one party over opposition by equally valid beliefs, and in effect establishes a "national religion" by majority rule over dissenting parties and beliefs. That is unconstitutional by discriminating on the basis of creed. So all these arguments stem from that problem not addressed or resolved, by imposing beliefs of one party and dismissing beliefs of others as unequal, invalid, excluded and penalized under law. Based on the belief it is lawful to abuse government this way, against Constitutional laws from the First to Fourteenth amendments.

The argument is endless coming from the right...the President is overstepping his bounds by signing Executive Orders or otherwise making procedural changes to the ACA.

26 U.S. Code § 7805 gives him the permission to do exactly that:

(b) Retroactivity of regulations

(1) In general

Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no temporary, proposed, or final regulation relating to the internal revenue laws shall apply to any taxable period ending before the earliest of the following dates:

(A) The date on which such regulation is filed with the Federal Register.

(B) In the case of any final regulation, the date on which any proposed or temporary regulation to which such final regulation relates was filed with the Federal Register.

(C) The date on which any notice substantially describing the expected contents of any temporary, proposed, or final regulation is issued to the public.

(2) Exception for promptly issued regulations

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to regulations filed or issued within 18 months of the date of the enactment of the statutory provision to which the regulation relates.

(3) Prevention of abuse

The Secretary may provide that any regulation may take effect or apply retroactively to prevent abuse.

(4) Correction of procedural defects

The Secretary may provide that any regulation may apply retroactively to correct a procedural defect in the issuance of any prior regulation.

(5) Internal regulations

The limitation of paragraph (1) shall not apply to any regulation relating to internal Treasury Department policies, practices, or procedures.

(6) Congressional authorization

The limitation of paragraph (1) may be superseded by a legislative grant from Congress authorizing the Secretary to prescribe the effective date with respect to any regulation.

Here's an example of the citation:

PART 1—INCOME TAXES

Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. Section 1.833–1 is added to read as follows:

§ 1.833–1 Medical Loss Ratio Under Section 833(c)(5).

(a) In general. Section 833 does not apply to an organization unless the organization’s medical loss ratio (MLR) for a taxable year is at least 85 percent. Paragraph (b) of this section provides definitions that apply for purposes of section 833(c)(5) and this section. Paragraph (c) of this section provides rules for computing an organization’s MLR under section 833(c)(5). Paragraph (d) of this section addresses the treatment under section 833 of an organization that has an MLR of less than 85 percent. Paragraph (e) of this section provides the effective/applicability date.

(b) Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of section 833(c)(5) and this section.

(1) Reimbursement for clinical services provided to enrollees. The term reimbursement for clinical services provided to enrollees has the same meaning as that term has in section 300gg-18 of title 42, United States Code and the regulations issued under that section (see 45 CFR 158.140).

(2) Total premium revenue. The term total premium revenue means the total amount of premium revenue (excluding Federal and State taxes and licensing or regulatory fees and after accounting for payments or receipts for risk adjustment, risk corridors, and reinsurance under sections 1341, 1342, and 1343 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111–148 (124 Stat. 119 (2010)) (42 U.S.C. sections 18061, 18062, and 18063)) as those terms are used for purposes of section 300gg-18(b) of title 42, United States Code and the regulations issued under that section (see 45 CFR Part 158).

It is my hope that this information helps educate those of lesser intelligence on this forum.

I hope these discussions lead to mutual understanding of political beliefs and differences, and the problems caused with legalizing one party's views and penalizing the others!

These rules you cite are not meant to be abused to "codify and nationalize" one party's religious beliefs to impose through government on all people through the political process.
The Constitution and all rules and regulations thereunder are supposed to represent the consent and interests of ALL people of ALL beliefs, independent of creed.
Clearly this whole ACA process has become a contest to push one party's political beliefs or agenda over the others; and that is not the role or duty of Government.

See all the Code of Ethics for Government Service, where federal employees are supposed to place duty to the Constitution, laws and regulations first over Party.
No one is supposed to let their beliefs or biases about Singlepayer Government manipulate the writing, passing, enforcing and changing of these laws.

All these conflicts between political ideologies should be kept OUT of government, and only keep what is mutually and centrally agreed upon within federal jurisdiction.
Opponents to ACA regulations by federal government clearly do not agree with this bill, so it should have been set up and run voluntarily such as through a support system
and network of Democrat and other party members who BELIEVE in it. if it matches those political BELIEFS, then it should be supported by those who agree to follow it, like a religion.

And only reserve the federal government to policies that ALL PEOPLE agree on so they represent the entire PUBLIC EQUALLY, not just one set of views or beliefs of one party.
that is abuse of government, by the Code of Ethics for Government service:

"Any person in Government service should
I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.

II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion."

 

[Howey]

II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.[/b]"

Just wondering...does repeatedly trying to defund Obamacare fall under that?

 

[The Rabbi]

The lo-los just keep coming
Hey, Howie. Do you know the difference between legislation and regulation? Just asking. When you figure it out, get back to us.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.[/b]"

Just wondering...does repeatedly trying to defund Obamacare fall under that?

When done by Congress that is one of their functions dumb ass.

 

[Old Rocks]

Do future presidents get to change Obamacare?

I am quite sure that the next one will. It will be segued into a full universal single payer health care system, and we will leave the 19th century and join the other democratic industrial nations in the 21st century.

 

[Redfish]

The implementation schedule was part of the law. the cited language does not permit any president to change the provisions that are written into the law.

the cited language allows a president to use executive orders to address things that are not written into the law, not to change things that are specifically included in the law.

the OP is wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do future presidents get to change Obamacare?

I am quite sure that the next one will. It will be segued into a full universal single payer health care system, and we will leave the 19th century and join the other democratic industrial nations in the 21st century.

In complete bankruptcy.
Yes, we know what progresssives want.

 

[Redfish]

Do future presidents get to change Obamacare?

I am quite sure that the next one will. It will be segued into a full universal single payer health care system, and we will leave the 19th century and join the other democratic industrial nations in the 21st century.

^^^dumb as a sack full of goat feet. Here's a hint old fart------universal single payer medicine IS NOT FREE AND IT SUCKS IF YOU ARE SICK.

 

[The Rabbi]

The implementation schedule was part of the law. the cited language does not permit any president to change the provisions that are written into the law.

the cited language allows a president to use executive orders to address things that are not written into the law, not to change things that are specifically included in the law.

the OP is wrong.

Shame on you for using facts. Now the OP has to go back, dissemble, lie, obfuscate, insist he is right, call you an idiot, quote what he just quoted, add bold to parts he thinks you didnt see, and then declare he already proved his point.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Federal agencies charged with administering laws passed by Congress have the authority to write the regulations that implement those laws, the authority given to them by Congress:

Article II does not say that a law shall be carried out at all cost, so every President operates on the assumption that federal agencies can be given some leeway in how they do it. And every lawyer advising a President is certain to provide more than one memo saying that the process of executing a law should aim at ensuring that it carries out the goal Congress set for it, even if that means varying somewhat from the text.

Given the complexity of modern government operations, very few of the laws that Congress passes are completely self-executing; most if not all of them require regulations to put them into actual effect. And writing regulations is the business of the federal agencies. An array of government agencies have been working for more than three years, for example, to write the rules for the new Affordable Care Act – the vast new law regulating the entire health care financing system.

The Supreme Court just last month went a long way toward requiring federal courts to trust the government agencies that execute the laws to interpret for themselves just what authority Congress has given them in their areas of official activity. What an agency decides is the range of its power, that ruling said, should be given considerable deference by the courts.

Constitution Check: Can the government legally delay the health care mandates?

Consequently, the conservative notion that the president is ‘changing’ laws is ignorant, partisan nonsense.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Federal agencies charged with administering laws passed by Congress have the authority to write the regulations that implement those laws, the authority given to them by Congress:

Article II does not say that a law shall be carried out at all cost, so every President operates on the assumption that federal agencies can be given some leeway in how they do it. And every lawyer advising a President is certain to provide more than one memo saying that the process of executing a law should aim at ensuring that it carries out the goal Congress set for it, even if that means varying somewhat from the text.

Given the complexity of modern government operations, very few of the laws that Congress passes are completely self-executing; most if not all of them require regulations to put them into actual effect. And writing regulations is the business of the federal agencies. An array of government agencies have been working for more than three years, for example, to write the rules for the new Affordable Care Act – the vast new law regulating the entire health care financing system.

The Supreme Court just last month went a long way toward requiring federal courts to trust the government agencies that execute the laws to interpret for themselves just what authority Congress has given them in their areas of official activity. What an agency decides is the range of its power, that ruling said, should be given considerable deference by the courts.

Constitution Check: Can the government legally delay the health care mandates?

Consequently, the conservative notion that the president is ‘changing’ laws is ignorant, partisan nonsense.

You calling anyone ignorant is a laugh after the crap you post.
Repeating it here again: The black letter law of ACA contains dates of implementation. It is not a regulation. It is not subject to judgement by HHS or the executive. Congress itself specified the dates of implementation. Only Congress can change those. Not HHS, not the President.
Clear now?

 

[Redfish]

The Federal agencies charged with administering laws passed by Congress have the authority to write the regulations that implement those laws, the authority given to them by Congress:

Article II does not say that a law shall be carried out at all cost, so every President operates on the assumption that federal agencies can be given some leeway in how they do it. And every lawyer advising a President is certain to provide more than one memo saying that the process of executing a law should aim at ensuring that it carries out the goal Congress set for it, even if that means varying somewhat from the text.

Given the complexity of modern government operations, very few of the laws that Congress passes are completely self-executing; most if not all of them require regulations to put them into actual effect. And writing regulations is the business of the federal agencies. An array of government agencies have been working for more than three years, for example, to write the rules for the new Affordable Care Act – the vast new law regulating the entire health care financing system.

The Supreme Court just last month went a long way toward requiring federal courts to trust the government agencies that execute the laws to interpret for themselves just what authority Congress has given them in their areas of official activity. What an agency decides is the range of its power, that ruling said, should be given considerable deference by the courts.

Constitution Check: Can the government legally delay the health care mandates?

Consequently, the conservative notion that the president is ‘changing’ laws is ignorant, partisan nonsense.

wrong again. the law says that the employer mandate takes affect on a date certain, it says that the individual mandate takes affect on a date certain. Those dates are part of the law. no regulations are needed regarding those dates.

Obama has illegally changed a law passed by congress and signed by him. He should be impeached.

 

[Redfish]

The Federal agencies charged with administering laws passed by Congress have the authority to write the regulations that implement those laws, the authority given to them by Congress:

Article II does not say that a law shall be carried out at all cost, so every President operates on the assumption that federal agencies can be given some leeway in how they do it. And every lawyer advising a President is certain to provide more than one memo saying that the process of executing a law should aim at ensuring that it carries out the goal Congress set for it, even if that means varying somewhat from the text.

Given the complexity of modern government operations, very few of the laws that Congress passes are completely self-executing; most if not all of them require regulations to put them into actual effect. And writing regulations is the business of the federal agencies. An array of government agencies have been working for more than three years, for example, to write the rules for the new Affordable Care Act – the vast new law regulating the entire health care financing system.

The Supreme Court just last month went a long way toward requiring federal courts to trust the government agencies that execute the laws to interpret for themselves just what authority Congress has given them in their areas of official activity. What an agency decides is the range of its power, that ruling said, should be given considerable deference by the courts.

Constitution Check: Can the government legally delay the health care mandates?

Consequently, the conservative notion that the president is ‘changing’ laws is ignorant, partisan nonsense.

You calling anyone ignorant is a laugh after the crap you post.
Repeating it here again: The black letter law of ACA contains dates of implementation. It is not a regulation. It is not subject to judgement by HHS or the executive. Congress itself specified the dates of implementation. Only Congress can change those. Not HHS, not the President.
Clear now?

Libs and obama worshipers do not deal in facts and reality. they deal in idol worship and blind obedience. they are sheep who walk on two legs.