Game Over For Obama

[bodecea]

A couple of decades from now, GOPrs will be holding up signs saying "Keep your Government out of my ACA".

ACA: worst health crisis since the Spanish Flu

Yeah, go with that.

 

[Flopper]

Note that 3 states that have already rejected the fix are liberal states.

(CBS News) The confusion over the Affordable Care Act only seems to deepen for many Americans trying to figure out what exactly is going to happen to their health insurance.

President Obama is now calling for a one-year extension of policies that insurance companies have already canceled, but the companies and state regulators are saying it's not that simple.

It's the customers who are caught in the middle.

In the next week, millions of people who received cancellation notices of their health care insurance may be getting another letter in the mail, this time a way to extend coverage that was canceled.

"It's a logistical nightmare that if done is likely to lead to serious customer service problems," said Robert Laszewski, a prominent insurance industry consultant with Health Policy and Strategy Associates.

Mr. Obama is pressing insurance companies to re-issue canceled plans, but whether that happens also depends on states' insurance commissioners.

And while a majority tells CBS News they continue to research the president's fix, at least three states - Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington - have already rejected it.

Meanwhile, the enrollment clock is ticking, and insurers are staring down Dec. 15. It is a key date on the calendar for anyone wishing to have coverage at the start of the new year.

Some insurance companies may send follow-up letters similar to one obtained by CBS News.

It was addressed to a canceled policyholder in late September and included an option to re-enroll for coverage with their original insurance company through Nov. 30, 2014, perhaps a temporary solution for people who remain confused about their coverage, how much their premiums will cost and whether they can keep their doctor.

Obamacare fix "a logistical nightmare," insurance industry consultant says - CBS News

Two of those states, Washington and Vermont have their own health insurance exchanges which are working so there is no reason for the state to force the companies to extend the current plans. The insurance commission in Arkansas said 95 insurance companies have already said they will extend their plans another year.

The decision the insurance commissions face is whether to require the companies to extend the plans which seems very unlikely in most states. Many companies have already decided to do so. To cancel plans of current customers that they hope will eventually upgrade to the new plans would create a real public relations problem, one that would cost them customers.

 

[gallantwarrior]

then you learned nothing when Romrom ran

WTF does Romney not getting elected have to do with this huge abomination called ACA?

Since you need it spelled out to you the Republicans made the 2012 election about the ACA and they lost. They have failed to repeal the ACA 40+ times. They have failed to get the ACA overturned by the Supreme Court. They have failed to shutdown the government in an attempt to defund the ACA.

The ACA is still around and the GOP is splitting apart. At some point you are going to have to stop and realize that your obsession with the ACA is doing your own party far more harm than good.

Ignore the fact that all that happened before people starting getting dumped by their insurance they liked and shunted to a website that's a miserable failure.

 

[Jarlaxle]

many pre-existing conditions are not expensive to treat. the insurance companies might have to give a % or two of profit to make it happen, not really a big deal.

what we don't need is another govt program.

Now too late for that.

Its never too late to do the right thing. ACA is falling apart, it needs to be scraped. There are too many things wrong with it to fix it.

It's like trying to "fix" a case of syphilis.

 

[Trajan]

Doesn't look good when even the Washington Post says it may be game over for Obama.

Does the health-care fumble mean game over for Obama?


Four times he mentioned fumbling — both the HealthCare.gov Web site and his promise that people could keep their health plans if they liked them. “These are two fumbles on something that — on a big game, which — but the game’s not over,” he said.

In a narrow sense, that’s probably true: There may well be enough time to salvage Obamacare.

But on the broader question of whether Obama can rebuild an effective presidency after this debacle, it’s starting to look as if it may be game over.

The record for recent second-term presidents is not good: Reagan had Iran-contra, Clinton had impeachment and Bush had Katrina and Iraq. Once a president suffers a blow such as Obama is now suffering with his health-care law — in which the public not only disapproves of a president’s actions but starts to take a negative view of him personally — it is difficult to recover.

This week’s Quinnipiac University poll found Obama’s job-approval rating at its lowest ever, 39 percent. More ominous: Only 44 percent say Obama is honest and trustworthy, while 52 percent say he is not; that’s the first time more thought him untrustworthy than trustworthy. Polls show Obama’s personal favorability rating has dropped in tandem.

We have seen this before. After the flubbed response to Katrina in 2005, George W. Bush’s honest-and-trustworthy rating fell below 50 percent for the first time, and it never returned. Bill Clinton began his second term with 42 percent calling him honest and trustworthy; he soon slipped into the 20s in Post polling and stayed there.

The loss of trust will make even harder the already uphill effort to persuade Congress to enact other items on his agenda, such as immigration reform and a comprehensive budget deal. House Speaker John Boehner this week dashed hopes of immigration legislation getting through Congress anytime soon, saying the House wouldn’t even negotiate with the Senate over an immigration bill that chamber had passed.

Also this week, House and Senate conferees meeting to discuss the budget they have been assigned to produce acknowledged they had given up hope for a far-reaching agreement.

“As someone who’s been naive enough to believe that we could actually do a larger deal,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) told his fellow conferees, “at least getting something done for a year or two would, I think, have an extraordinarily positive effect.”

Obama, in his Thursday news conference, spoke of regaining his clout as part of the game. His game plan: “My intention in terms of winning back the confidence of the American people is just to work as hard as I can, identify the problems that we’ve got, make sure that we’re fixing them.”

“There are going to be ups and downs during the course of my presidency,” Obama said. “I think I said early on when I was running, I am not a perfect man and I will not be a perfect president.”

Dana Milbank: Does health-care fumble mean game over for Obama? - The Washington Post

Most presidents accomplish little in their last years in their second term, however without another election in front of him, I think a lot of people will be surprised by Obama.

In spite of the fumbles in launching Obamacare, I doubt that we will see any significant changes to the law until 2017.

a) he already suffered a huge set back ala gun control....remember?

b) we are not even at the end of the first obama year, hes punted FP to new lows and his legacy, what he spent a year and half , his house and senate supra majority on as well as every bit of the meager political capital he had attained he blew on...obamacare, so hows that going again?

c) what world do you live on, is it close to this solar system? we already have seen "significant" changes to Obamacare...wtf

 

[Trajan]

then you learned nothing when Romrom ran

WTF does Romney not getting elected have to do with this huge abomination called ACA?

Since you need it spelled out to you the Republicans made the 2012 election about the ACA and they lost. They have failed to repeal the ACA 40+ times. They have failed to get the ACA overturned by the Supreme Court. They have failed to shutdown the government in an attempt to defund the ACA.

The ACA is still around and the GOP is splitting apart. At some point you are going to have to stop and realize that your obsession with the ACA is doing your own party far more harm than good.

they made the 2012 election about obamacare?

 

[Flopper]

Doesn't look good when even the Washington Post says it may be game over for Obama.

Does the health-care fumble mean game over for Obama?


Four times he mentioned fumbling — both the HealthCare.gov Web site and his promise that people could keep their health plans if they liked them. “These are two fumbles on something that — on a big game, which — but the game’s not over,” he said.

In a narrow sense, that’s probably true: There may well be enough time to salvage Obamacare.

But on the broader question of whether Obama can rebuild an effective presidency after this debacle, it’s starting to look as if it may be game over.

The record for recent second-term presidents is not good: Reagan had Iran-contra, Clinton had impeachment and Bush had Katrina and Iraq. Once a president suffers a blow such as Obama is now suffering with his health-care law — in which the public not only disapproves of a president’s actions but starts to take a negative view of him personally — it is difficult to recover.

This week’s Quinnipiac University poll found Obama’s job-approval rating at its lowest ever, 39 percent. More ominous: Only 44 percent say Obama is honest and trustworthy, while 52 percent say he is not; that’s the first time more thought him untrustworthy than trustworthy. Polls show Obama’s personal favorability rating has dropped in tandem.

We have seen this before. After the flubbed response to Katrina in 2005, George W. Bush’s honest-and-trustworthy rating fell below 50 percent for the first time, and it never returned. Bill Clinton began his second term with 42 percent calling him honest and trustworthy; he soon slipped into the 20s in Post polling and stayed there.

The loss of trust will make even harder the already uphill effort to persuade Congress to enact other items on his agenda, such as immigration reform and a comprehensive budget deal. House Speaker John Boehner this week dashed hopes of immigration legislation getting through Congress anytime soon, saying the House wouldn’t even negotiate with the Senate over an immigration bill that chamber had passed.

Also this week, House and Senate conferees meeting to discuss the budget they have been assigned to produce acknowledged they had given up hope for a far-reaching agreement.

“As someone who’s been naive enough to believe that we could actually do a larger deal,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) told his fellow conferees, “at least getting something done for a year or two would, I think, have an extraordinarily positive effect.”

Obama, in his Thursday news conference, spoke of regaining his clout as part of the game. His game plan: “My intention in terms of winning back the confidence of the American people is just to work as hard as I can, identify the problems that we’ve got, make sure that we’re fixing them.”

“There are going to be ups and downs during the course of my presidency,” Obama said. “I think I said early on when I was running, I am not a perfect man and I will not be a perfect president.”

Dana Milbank: Does health-care fumble mean game over for Obama? - The Washington Post

Most presidents accomplish little in their last years in their second term, however without another election in front of him, I think a lot of people will be surprised by Obama.

In spite of the fumbles in launching Obamacare, I doubt that we will see any significant changes to the law until 2017.

a) he already suffered a huge set back ala gun control....remember?

b) we are not even at the end of the first obama year, hes punted FP to new lows and his legacy, what he spent a year and half , his house and senate supra majority on as well as every bit of the meager political capital he had attained he blew on...obamacare, so hows that going again?

c) what world do you live on, is it close to this solar system? we already have seen "significant" changes to Obamacare...wtf

When I say changes, I'm talking about changes to the law ,not regulations or executive orders. The law isn't going to change this year or next year because the House will only agree to a bill that delays or weakens the law and Obama would never sign it. By 2017, the law will be fully in effect, a new president will be in the White House but repeal will be impossible. Any new legislation will have to build on what is in effect.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Flopper has the gist of it, and all the whining and pining mean nothing.

 

[oreo]

Doesn't look good when even the Washington Post says it may be game over for Obama.

Does the health-care fumble mean game over for Obama?


Four times he mentioned fumbling — both the HealthCare.gov Web site and his promise that people could keep their health plans if they liked them. “These are two fumbles on something that — on a big game, which — but the game’s not over,” he said.

In a narrow sense, that’s probably true: There may well be enough time to salvage Obamacare.

But on the broader question of whether Obama can rebuild an effective presidency after this debacle, it’s starting to look as if it may be game over.

The record for recent second-term presidents is not good: Reagan had Iran-contra, Clinton had impeachment and Bush had Katrina and Iraq. Once a president suffers a blow such as Obama is now suffering with his health-care law — in which the public not only disapproves of a president’s actions but starts to take a negative view of him personally — it is difficult to recover.

This week’s Quinnipiac University poll found Obama’s job-approval rating at its lowest ever, 39 percent. More ominous: Only 44 percent say Obama is honest and trustworthy, while 52 percent say he is not; that’s the first time more thought him untrustworthy than trustworthy. Polls show Obama’s personal favorability rating has dropped in tandem.

We have seen this before. After the flubbed response to Katrina in 2005, George W. Bush’s honest-and-trustworthy rating fell below 50 percent for the first time, and it never returned. Bill Clinton began his second term with 42 percent calling him honest and trustworthy; he soon slipped into the 20s in Post polling and stayed there.

The loss of trust will make even harder the already uphill effort to persuade Congress to enact other items on his agenda, such as immigration reform and a comprehensive budget deal. House Speaker John Boehner this week dashed hopes of immigration legislation getting through Congress anytime soon, saying the House wouldn’t even negotiate with the Senate over an immigration bill that chamber had passed.

Also this week, House and Senate conferees meeting to discuss the budget they have been assigned to produce acknowledged they had given up hope for a far-reaching agreement.

“As someone who’s been naive enough to believe that we could actually do a larger deal,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) told his fellow conferees, “at least getting something done for a year or two would, I think, have an extraordinarily positive effect.”

Obama, in his Thursday news conference, spoke of regaining his clout as part of the game. His game plan: “My intention in terms of winning back the confidence of the American people is just to work as hard as I can, identify the problems that we’ve got, make sure that we’re fixing them.”

“There are going to be ups and downs during the course of my presidency,” Obama said. “I think I said early on when I was running, I am not a perfect man and I will not be a perfect president.”

Dana Milbank: Does health-care fumble mean game over for Obama? - The Washington Post

Obama is done, you can stick a fork in him. After this debacle he the lamest President in history--to my memory--this soon into his second term. He might as well just hang out in the Oval office closet for the next 3 years.

That tingly feeling up everyone's leg is now long gone. He lied to the American public--and he did it over 40 times about being able to keep their insurance if they like it.

Democrats are running like a bunch of rats leaving a sinking ship on this. They are getting thousands of nasty-grams from their constituents--and they already know they're going to get slaughtered in the mid-term elections. All of them voted for Obamacare--and they even voted against a FIX--to allow Americans to keep their policies in 2010. They're toast and they know it. But they are also very angry at Obama--and they will distance themselves from him.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Doesn't look good when even the Washington Post says it may be game over for Obama.

Does the health-care fumble mean game over for Obama?


Four times he mentioned fumbling — both the HealthCare.gov Web site and his promise that people could keep their health plans if they liked them. “These are two fumbles on something that — on a big game, which — but the game’s not over,” he said.

In a narrow sense, that’s probably true: There may well be enough time to salvage Obamacare.

But on the broader question of whether Obama can rebuild an effective presidency after this debacle, it’s starting to look as if it may be game over.

The record for recent second-term presidents is not good: Reagan had Iran-contra, Clinton had impeachment and Bush had Katrina and Iraq. Once a president suffers a blow such as Obama is now suffering with his health-care law — in which the public not only disapproves of a president’s actions but starts to take a negative view of him personally — it is difficult to recover.

This week’s Quinnipiac University poll found Obama’s job-approval rating at its lowest ever, 39 percent. More ominous: Only 44 percent say Obama is honest and trustworthy, while 52 percent say he is not; that’s the first time more thought him untrustworthy than trustworthy. Polls show Obama’s personal favorability rating has dropped in tandem.

We have seen this before. After the flubbed response to Katrina in 2005, George W. Bush’s honest-and-trustworthy rating fell below 50 percent for the first time, and it never returned. Bill Clinton began his second term with 42 percent calling him honest and trustworthy; he soon slipped into the 20s in Post polling and stayed there.

The loss of trust will make even harder the already uphill effort to persuade Congress to enact other items on his agenda, such as immigration reform and a comprehensive budget deal. House Speaker John Boehner this week dashed hopes of immigration legislation getting through Congress anytime soon, saying the House wouldn’t even negotiate with the Senate over an immigration bill that chamber had passed.

Also this week, House and Senate conferees meeting to discuss the budget they have been assigned to produce acknowledged they had given up hope for a far-reaching agreement.

“As someone who’s been naive enough to believe that we could actually do a larger deal,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) told his fellow conferees, “at least getting something done for a year or two would, I think, have an extraordinarily positive effect.”

Obama, in his Thursday news conference, spoke of regaining his clout as part of the game. His game plan: “My intention in terms of winning back the confidence of the American people is just to work as hard as I can, identify the problems that we’ve got, make sure that we’re fixing them.”

“There are going to be ups and downs during the course of my presidency,” Obama said. “I think I said early on when I was running, I am not a perfect man and I will not be a perfect president.”

Dana Milbank: Does health-care fumble mean game over for Obama? - The Washington Post

Obama is done, you can stick a fork in him. After this debacle he the lamest President in history--to my memory--this soon into his second term. He might as well just hang out in the Oval office closet for the next 3 years.

That tingly feeling up everyone's leg is now long gone. He lied to the American public--and he did it over 40 times about being able to keep their insurance if they like it.

Democrats are running like a bunch of rats leaving a sinking ship on this. They are getting thousands of nasty-grams from their constituents--and they already know they're going to get slaughtered in the mid-term elections. All of them voted for Obamacare--and they even voted against a FIX--to allow Americans to keep their policies in 2010. They're toast and they know it. But they are also very angry at Obama--and they will distance themselves from him.

Yes, there are Dems in close races that are facing challenges so they are hedging their bets for 2014. To expect a politician to do otherwise is to expect too much of them. On the flip side there are Republicans facing challenges where there were none before too. 2014 is not shaping up as expected. The attempt to impeach Holder will only needlessly hurt the GOP brand and distract media attention away from the ACA. By the time they focus on it again it might be up and running and hundreds of thousands of people will be enrolling each month. It is silly unforced errors by the political neophytes in the Tea Party that are primary cause of these self inflicted wounds that the GOP is suffering from at present. Unfortunately I don't see anyone taking charge and cauterizing the bleeding.

 

[JakeStarkey]

With the GOP helping to make ACA better now, a lot of voters are getting confused.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Dude...we all know that "confused" is your natural state. But not everyone is as stupid as you, boy.

 

[Trajan]

Most presidents accomplish little in their last years in their second term, however without another election in front of him, I think a lot of people will be surprised by Obama.

In spite of the fumbles in launching Obamacare, I doubt that we will see any significant changes to the law until 2017.

a) he already suffered a huge set back ala gun control....remember?

b) we are not even at the end of the first obama year, hes punted FP to new lows and his legacy, what he spent a year and half , his house and senate supra majority on as well as every bit of the meager political capital he had attained he blew on...obamacare, so hows that going again?

c) what world do you live on, is it close to this solar system? we already have seen "significant" changes to Obamacare...wtf

When I say changes, I'm talking about changes to the law ,not regulations or executive orders. The law isn't going to change this year or next year because the House will only agree to a bill that delays or weakens the law and Obama would never sign it. By 2017, the law will be fully in effect, a new president will be in the White House but repeal will be impossible. Any new legislation will have to build on what is in effect.

did he not change the law already? for god sakes example- this past week, you know, like LAST week, He just changed it again with this naked ploy for time ala making the ins. co's try and reload what they have cancelled...

Oh, I get it so, Obama only gets to 'delay' or decide what amendments are enforced or changed.......by 2017 if its around you can count on may more changes to the law by then, (when is obamcare not really obamacare anymore?) like the Union carve out thats coming.

As a general note; You know, holding on to something for the sake of it, is, well, pugnacious to the point of stupidity. sorry but there it is. you're holding on to the idea that the obamacare bill as it was signed is what we have today, in fact, its already been massaged changed and due to that massaging I think it will have to be restructured to the point its a Frankenstein, your only concern I think is that obama keeps his name on it and some how he ( and the dems) get credit .......good luck on that, you're getting credit now and, hows that going?

 

[Trajan]

With the GOP helping to make ACA better now, a lot of voters are getting confused.

sooooo obamacare was flawed?

and what if no dems at all were saying anything or voted for the upton amendment, would you be saying they were making it better?

 

[Derideo_Te]

With the GOP helping to make ACA better now, a lot of voters are getting confused.

And how exactly is this any different to their normal state of confusion?

Sorry, couldn't resist!

 

[Derideo_Te]

a) he already suffered a huge set back ala gun control....remember?

b) we are not even at the end of the first obama year, hes punted FP to new lows and his legacy, what he spent a year and half , his house and senate supra majority on as well as every bit of the meager political capital he had attained he blew on...obamacare, so hows that going again?

c) what world do you live on, is it close to this solar system? we already have seen "significant" changes to Obamacare...wtf

When I say changes, I'm talking about changes to the law ,not regulations or executive orders. The law isn't going to change this year or next year because the House will only agree to a bill that delays or weakens the law and Obama would never sign it. By 2017, the law will be fully in effect, a new president will be in the White House but repeal will be impossible. Any new legislation will have to build on what is in effect.

did he not change the law already? for god sakes example- this past week, you know, like LAST week, He just changed it again with this naked ploy for time ala making the ins. co's try and reload what they have cancelled...

Oh, I get it so, Obama only gets to 'delay' or decide what amendments are enforced or changed.......by 2017 if its around you can count on may more changes to the law by then, (when is obamcare not really obamacare anymore?) like the Union carve out thats coming.

As a general note; You know, holding on to something for the sake of it, is, well, pugnacious to the point of stupidity. sorry but there it is. you're holding on to the idea that the obamacare bill as it was signed is what we have today, in fact, its already been massaged changed and due to that massaging I think it will have to be restructured to the point its a Frankenstein, your only concern I think is that obama keeps his name on it and some how he ( and the dems) get credit .......good luck on that, you're getting credit now and, hows that going?

Obama is not "changing" the ACA law. He is merely changing the implementation timetable. Only Congress can change the law itself. The Executive Branch has the authority to decide upon the implementation schedule and it is perfectly legitimate to delay parts that are not ready or might cause problems. It has happened with the implementation of many other laws in the past so this is nothing new or special.

 

[Trajan]

When I say changes, I'm talking about changes to the law ,not regulations or executive orders. The law isn't going to change this year or next year because the House will only agree to a bill that delays or weakens the law and Obama would never sign it. By 2017, the law will be fully in effect, a new president will be in the White House but repeal will be impossible. Any new legislation will have to build on what is in effect.

did he not change the law already? for god sakes example- this past week, you know, like LAST week, He just changed it again with this naked ploy for time ala making the ins. co's try and reload what they have cancelled...

Oh, I get it so, Obama only gets to 'delay' or decide what amendments are enforced or changed.......by 2017 if its around you can count on may more changes to the law by then, (when is obamcare not really obamacare anymore?) like the Union carve out thats coming.

As a general note; You know, holding on to something for the sake of it, is, well, pugnacious to the point of stupidity. sorry but there it is. you're holding on to the idea that the obamacare bill as it was signed is what we have today, in fact, its already been massaged changed and due to that massaging I think it will have to be restructured to the point its a Frankenstein, your only concern I think is that obama keeps his name on it and some how he ( and the dems) get credit .......good luck on that, you're getting credit now and, hows that going?

Obama is not "changing" the ACA law. He is merely changing the implementation timetable. Only Congress can change the law itself. The Executive Branch has the authority to decide upon the implementation schedule and it is perfectly legitimate to delay parts that are not ready or might cause problems. It has happened with the implementation of many other laws in the past so this is nothing new or special.

uh huh;

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, former Tenth Circuit Appeals Court judge Michael McConnell begs to disagree. Noting that according to a 1990 memo by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the president “does not have the right to refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons,” McConnell writes that the health law has no provision allowing the administration to suspend the employer mandate. He points to Section 1513(d) of the law, which governs the employer mandate provisions, and states clearly that “the amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.”

The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon offers further analysis to this effect. Although the law gives the Health and Human Services Secretary the authority to determine when to collect the penalties that result from the employer mandate, he writes, it does not provide the authority to waive the penalty entirely. There is a provision allowing the Treasury Department (which is officially responsible for the delay) to waive the penalty on a state-specific basis if a state can show that it has enacted an alternate but equally expansive coverage scheme that does not add to the federal cost, which is clearly not the case here. But even if it was, the provision does not allow this waiver to go into effect until 2017.

Does the Obama Administration Have the Authority to Delay Obamacare?s Employer Mandate? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

and the Grassley amendment?


and regards the latest change, yes change;

The president’s change in the law is plainly illegal, as Eugene Kontorovich, who teaches constitutional law at Northwestern University, has noted. As Kontorovich points out, President Obama’s change does not simply suspend requirements imposed on insurers, but also imposes “new obligations” on insurers that seek to take advantage of the waiver, something that is quintessentially legislative, rather than executive, in character. Thus, even if Obama had the statutory authority to suspend ACA requirements to allow insurers to continue offering plans that do not meet the new law’s requirements (no statutory authority was cited in yesterday’s letter announcing the change), he lacks the ability to condition such waivers on criteria imposed by executive fiat.

 

[Trajan]

With the GOP helping to make ACA better now, a lot of voters are getting confused.

And how exactly is this any different to their normal state of confusion?

Sorry, couldn't resist!

if they were so confused then why does this thread even exist?

man, I cannot wait for December 1st....time to recalibrate the snark, or bury heads in the sand even further.

 

[Freewill]

When I say changes, I'm talking about changes to the law ,not regulations or executive orders. The law isn't going to change this year or next year because the House will only agree to a bill that delays or weakens the law and Obama would never sign it. By 2017, the law will be fully in effect, a new president will be in the White House but repeal will be impossible. Any new legislation will have to build on what is in effect.

did he not change the law already? for god sakes example- this past week, you know, like LAST week, He just changed it again with this naked ploy for time ala making the ins. co's try and reload what they have cancelled...

Oh, I get it so, Obama only gets to 'delay' or decide what amendments are enforced or changed.......by 2017 if its around you can count on may more changes to the law by then, (when is obamcare not really obamacare anymore?) like the Union carve out thats coming.

As a general note; You know, holding on to something for the sake of it, is, well, pugnacious to the point of stupidity. sorry but there it is. you're holding on to the idea that the obamacare bill as it was signed is what we have today, in fact, its already been massaged changed and due to that massaging I think it will have to be restructured to the point its a Frankenstein, your only concern I think is that obama keeps his name on it and some how he ( and the dems) get credit .......good luck on that, you're getting credit now and, hows that going?

Obama is not "changing" the ACA law. He is merely changing the implementation timetable. Only Congress can change the law itself. The Executive Branch has the authority to decide upon the implementation schedule and it is perfectly legitimate to delay parts that are not ready or might cause problems. It has happened with the implementation of many other laws in the past so this is nothing new or special.

Can you cite the example of one of the many times in the past?

Can you cite where in the law it authorizes the President to do as he has done? CONGRESS makes law. What I think you are thinking is that it is like a regulation such as with the EPA. Congress passes a law for clean water for example. The regulations are not built in that is left to the created EPA to determine the regulations to fulfill the LAW. They can't change the law they ENFORCE the law. Just as Obama is suppose to ENFORCE his own law. Not grant waivers to his political pays and change the law trying to save the 2014 election.

 

[Flopper]

When I say changes, I'm talking about changes to the law ,not regulations or executive orders. The law isn't going to change this year or next year because the House will only agree to a bill that delays or weakens the law and Obama would never sign it. By 2017, the law will be fully in effect, a new president will be in the White House but repeal will be impossible. Any new legislation will have to build on what is in effect.

did he not change the law already? for god sakes example- this past week, you know, like LAST week, He just changed it again with this naked ploy for time ala making the ins. co's try and reload what they have cancelled...

Oh, I get it so, Obama only gets to 'delay' or decide what amendments are enforced or changed.......by 2017 if its around you can count on may more changes to the law by then, (when is obamcare not really obamacare anymore?) like the Union carve out thats coming.

As a general note; You know, holding on to something for the sake of it, is, well, pugnacious to the point of stupidity. sorry but there it is. you're holding on to the idea that the obamacare bill as it was signed is what we have today, in fact, its already been massaged changed and due to that massaging I think it will have to be restructured to the point its a Frankenstein, your only concern I think is that obama keeps his name on it and some how he ( and the dems) get credit .......good luck on that, you're getting credit now and, hows that going?

Obama is not "changing" the ACA law. He is merely changing the implementation timetable. Only Congress can change the law itself. The Executive Branch has the authority to decide upon the implementation schedule and it is perfectly legitimate to delay parts that are not ready or might cause problems. It has happened with the implementation of many other laws in the past so this is nothing new or special.

You're correct. Although the president is charged with faithfully executing the law, Congress has also given the executive branch some flexibility in determining what it means to “faithfully” execute a law. It’s hard, after all, for legislators to predict every thorny issue that will come up in implementing a law. Delaying implementation is legal until the court says it isn't.