Game Over For Obama

[Kathy58]

CURL: The beginning of the end for Barack Obama - Washington Times

CURL: The beginning of the end for Barack Obama

By Joseph Curl

Sunday, November 17, 2013




ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Second-term presidents in the past 30 years have had some pretty embarrassing news conferences, full of frank admissions of failure, submissive spasms of shame and groveling, grieving apologies.

Bill Clinton had to admit that he actually did have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky; George W. Bush finally thought of something he might have done wrong; his dad had to explain all those new taxes after his unequivocal pledge; and even Ronald Reagan ate crow over the Iran-Contra affair.

But there has never, ever, been a more pitiful presser than the one conducted last week by President Obama. In a nutshell, he said sure, everything’s a mess, but he just didn’t know. Introspective for the first time, he acknowledged he “fumbled the rollout” of Obamacare, said his “you can keep it” pledge “ended up not being accurate” and admitted that his “credibility” is in the dumper. And he tossed out this gem: “What we’re also discovering is that insurance is complicated to buy.” Ya think?

This second-term unraveling has beset nearly all modern presidents. Like Mr. Clinton before him (whose second-term agenda was derailed by a stained little blue dress), George W. Bush’s ambitious plans, including an overhaul of entitlement programs, died suddenly after the Hurricane Katrina debacle. His own party abandoned him on immigration reform, and he was left counting the days until he could go home to his Texas ranch. Even the Republican nominee for president didn’t want him around.

Read more: CURL: The beginning of the end for Barack Obama - Washington Times
Follow us: [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter

 

[Flopper]

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.

As long as the a delay is considered reasonable by the courts it will be allow. I think there would no doubt that this delay would be considered justifiable by the courts.

 

[Trajan]

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.

where did congress give obama this power? Can you site some examples please? Remember we are discussing statutory law...

and do I need to repost , yes I guess I do...

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]

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.

As long as the a delay is considered reasonable by the courts it will be allow. I think there would no doubt that this delay would be considered justifiable by the courts.

oh, so are you changing your mind now?

if I recall the SC upheld the mandate as a tax, yet obama vociferously argued it was not a tax......neither did his lawyers during the SC hearing.....taxes are crafted, introduced, voted upon ii congress and signed by the pres.....yes?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Yes, one or the other.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Poor Obama....
Getting picked on again....

Just because he's black!

Only racists complain about losing their health insurance because of Obamacare

 

[Redfish]

The taxpayer won't pay for #6? lolol

1. The insurance companies will skirt that easily by setting the cost of a policy for someone with a pre-existing condition at an astronomical level proportionate to the condition. Making a policy available will be meaningless because it will be unaffordable.

2. This will not allow people to keep that insurance they like, which you people are throwing fits over.

I corrected that on #6. there would be a cost but it would be tiny compared to what ACA is going to cost us.

on 1 and 2, the legislation could specify that the increase to the premium for pre-existing conditions could not be more than X% of the premium for a healthy person. Lifetime maximums are not a big deal except for a very few people, so I don't see that as a problem.

You're basically just citing provisions that are already in Obamacare.

Yes, and those I listed are the ONLY provisions that are needed. for example, we do not need a real estate sales tax in a healthcare bill. We do not need provisions that mandate that 65 year old women pay for birth control and maternity. We do not need provisions that mandate that 25 year olds pay for senility benefits. We do not need a federal law that tells us what insurance we must buy or be fined.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I corrected that on #6. there would be a cost but it would be tiny compared to what ACA is going to cost us.

on 1 and 2, the legislation could specify that the increase to the premium for pre-existing conditions could not be more than X% of the premium for a healthy person. Lifetime maximums are not a big deal except for a very few people, so I don't see that as a problem.

You're basically just citing provisions that are already in Obamacare.

Yes, and those I listed are the ONLY provisions that are needed. for example, we do not need a real estate sales tax in a healthcare bill. We do not need provisions that mandate that 65 year old women pay for birth control and maternity. We do not need provisions that mandate that 25 year olds pay for senility benefits. We do not need a federal law that tells us what insurance we must buy or be fined.

Your proposal doesn't solve the problem of people not buying insurance until they get sick.

65 year old women are on Medicare btw.

 

[Redfish]

You're basically just citing provisions that are already in Obamacare.

Yes, and those I listed are the ONLY provisions that are needed. for example, we do not need a real estate sales tax in a healthcare bill. We do not need provisions that mandate that 65 year old women pay for birth control and maternity. We do not need provisions that mandate that 25 year olds pay for senility benefits. We do not need a federal law that tells us what insurance we must buy or be fined.

Your proposal doesn't solve the problem of people not buying insurance until they get sick.

65 year old women are on Medicare btw.

ACA won't solve that either, it will make that situation worse, just pay the fine until you get sick and then buy a policy.

change it to 60 year old women in my example. not too many of them are concerned with maternity benefits.

 

[Redfish]

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.

The implementation schedule is PART OF THE LAW. Changing the implementation schedule is a violation of the law.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Certainly this is Obama's lowest point to date. The question becomes is this a trend or an anomaly?

Obviously the RW echo chamber would prefer this to be a trend and they have history on their side when it comes to 2nd terms. The impending attempt to impeach AG Holder looks like a partisan political stunt to try and re-use the same impeachment strategy that worked for 2000. The recent attempt to crash the economy was as if they were hoping to turn 2014 into a repeat of 2010 with the jobless voters in the midst of another recession venting their anger on the party in power.

So yes, tying the current ACA troubles to Katrina and labeling it as a "disaster" fits the pattern of not letting any "crisis go to waste" without taking the most partisan political advantage out of it.

The potus is definitely on the ropes but to count him out may be a little premature. There are no vivid pictures of people stranded on rooftops without food and water for days on end. The public has a limited appetite for manufactured scandals in DC. If the website is up and running and there are 500k people enrolled next month it will start to fade in my opinion.

Unlike Katrina, the damage from obamacare is not localized. You can't turn off the TV, eliminate the images, and go out in your own perfect front yard. obamacare is hurting millions of people from one end of the country to the other. If there are 500k people enrolled next month, that 500k of people who lost insurance they liked, now have insurance they don't like, lost their doctors, and the small business provisions will kick in next year making things even worse.

Exactly. With Bush it was Katrina and Iraq. But none of it was beyond a localized hemorrage. The majority of people could completely ignore the situation and it would not affect them.

With Obama Tax, that's not the case at all. You have millions of people from all over the country who are being directly affected in a number of ways:

They were lied to
Theya re losing their insurance
They are paying more to get insurance

And we havent even gotten to the part where certain delayed aspects, such as the employer mandate, take effect.

Obama is toast unless he comes up with a sure fix. Based on his track record and the lying etc...I dont see that happening. Democrats are going to jump ship and let him sink.

 

[Old Rocks]

Simple solution. Just go to a single payer universal health care plan. Then everything is covered, and we pay out of an income tax. Then 25 year olds are charged for senility costs, and 75 year olds are charged for injuries derived from racing motorcycles.

 

[Redfish]

Certainly this is Obama's lowest point to date. The question becomes is this a trend or an anomaly?

Obviously the RW echo chamber would prefer this to be a trend and they have history on their side when it comes to 2nd terms. The impending attempt to impeach AG Holder looks like a partisan political stunt to try and re-use the same impeachment strategy that worked for 2000. The recent attempt to crash the economy was as if they were hoping to turn 2014 into a repeat of 2010 with the jobless voters in the midst of another recession venting their anger on the party in power.

So yes, tying the current ACA troubles to Katrina and labeling it as a "disaster" fits the pattern of not letting any "crisis go to waste" without taking the most partisan political advantage out of it.

The potus is definitely on the ropes but to count him out may be a little premature. There are no vivid pictures of people stranded on rooftops without food and water for days on end. The public has a limited appetite for manufactured scandals in DC. If the website is up and running and there are 500k people enrolled next month it will start to fade in my opinion.

Unlike Katrina, the damage from obamacare is not localized. You can't turn off the TV, eliminate the images, and go out in your own perfect front yard. obamacare is hurting millions of people from one end of the country to the other. If there are 500k people enrolled next month, that 500k of people who lost insurance they liked, now have insurance they don't like, lost their doctors, and the small business provisions will kick in next year making things even worse.

Exactly. With Bush it was Katrina and Iraq. But none of it was beyond a localized hemorrage. The majority of people could completely ignore the situation and it would not affect them.

With Obama Tax, that's not the case at all. You have millions of people from all over the country who are being directly affected in a number of ways:

They were lied to
Theya re losing their insurance
They are paying more to get insurance

And we havent even gotten to the part where certain delayed aspects, such as the employer mandate, take effect.

Obama is toast unless he comes up with a sure fix. Based on his track record and the lying etc...I dont see that happening. Democrats are going to jump ship and let him sink.

Not only that, Obamacare will sink the Dem party and liberalism for many years to come, and thats a good thing for the country.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

The implementation schedule is PART OF THE LAW. Changing the implementation schedule is a violation of the law.

 

[Old Rocks]

Certainly this is Obama's lowest point to date. The question becomes is this a trend or an anomaly?

Obviously the RW echo chamber would prefer this to be a trend and they have history on their side when it comes to 2nd terms. The impending attempt to impeach AG Holder looks like a partisan political stunt to try and re-use the same impeachment strategy that worked for 2000. The recent attempt to crash the economy was as if they were hoping to turn 2014 into a repeat of 2010 with the jobless voters in the midst of another recession venting their anger on the party in power.

So yes, tying the current ACA troubles to Katrina and labeling it as a "disaster" fits the pattern of not letting any "crisis go to waste" without taking the most partisan political advantage out of it.

The potus is definitely on the ropes but to count him out may be a little premature. There are no vivid pictures of people stranded on rooftops without food and water for days on end. The public has a limited appetite for manufactured scandals in DC. If the website is up and running and there are 500k people enrolled next month it will start to fade in my opinion.

Unlike Katrina, the damage from obamacare is not localized. You can't turn off the TV, eliminate the images, and go out in your own perfect front yard. obamacare is hurting millions of people from one end of the country to the other. If there are 500k people enrolled next month, that 500k of people who lost insurance they liked, now have insurance they don't like, lost their doctors, and the small business provisions will kick in next year making things even worse.

Exactly. With Bush it was Katrina and Iraq. But none of it was beyond a localized hemorrage. The majority of people could completely ignore the situation and it would not affect them.

With Obama Tax, that's not the case at all. You have millions of people from all over the country who are being directly affected in a number of ways:

They were lied to
Theya re losing their insurance
They are paying more to get insurance

And we havent even gotten to the part where certain delayed aspects, such as the employer mandate, take effect.

Obama is toast unless he comes up with a sure fix. Based on his track record and the lying etc...I dont see that happening. Democrats are going to jump ship and let him sink.

Yep. He will definately not run for President in 2016.

Other than that, he won two terms as President, and passed the ACA. Now the problem is to make the ACA workable. As it morphs to a single payer universal health care system. Like all the other industrial nations have. With far better health care results, with far less cost. Seems to be a reasonable goal.

 

[Old Rocks]

Unlike Katrina, the damage from obamacare is not localized. You can't turn off the TV, eliminate the images, and go out in your own perfect front yard. obamacare is hurting millions of people from one end of the country to the other. If there are 500k people enrolled next month, that 500k of people who lost insurance they liked, now have insurance they don't like, lost their doctors, and the small business provisions will kick in next year making things even worse.

Exactly. With Bush it was Katrina and Iraq. But none of it was beyond a localized hemorrage. The majority of people could completely ignore the situation and it would not affect them.

With Obama Tax, that's not the case at all. You have millions of people from all over the country who are being directly affected in a number of ways:

They were lied to
Theya re losing their insurance
They are paying more to get insurance

And we havent even gotten to the part where certain delayed aspects, such as the employer mandate, take effect.

Obama is toast unless he comes up with a sure fix. Based on his track record and the lying etc...I dont see that happening. Democrats are going to jump ship and let him sink.

Not only that, Obamacare will sink the Dem party and liberalism for many years to come, and thats a good thing for the country.

Yep. Just like the Romney landslide of 2012

 

[Redfish]

Exactly. With Bush it was Katrina and Iraq. But none of it was beyond a localized hemorrage. The majority of people could completely ignore the situation and it would not affect them.

With Obama Tax, that's not the case at all. You have millions of people from all over the country who are being directly affected in a number of ways:

They were lied to
Theya re losing their insurance
They are paying more to get insurance

And we havent even gotten to the part where certain delayed aspects, such as the employer mandate, take effect.

Obama is toast unless he comes up with a sure fix. Based on his track record and the lying etc...I dont see that happening. Democrats are going to jump ship and let him sink.

Not only that, Obamacare will sink the Dem party and liberalism for many years to come, and thats a good thing for the country.

Yep. Just like the Romney landslide of 2012

the only person who predicted that was Dick Morris, and he is no longer on TV. Personally, I wanted Romney to win, but never thought he would.

 

[Redfish]

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.

The implementation schedule is PART OF THE LAW. Changing the implementation schedule is a violation of the law.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Unlike Katrina, the damage from obamacare is not localized. You can't turn off the TV, eliminate the images, and go out in your own perfect front yard. obamacare is hurting millions of people from one end of the country to the other. If there are 500k people enrolled next month, that 500k of people who lost insurance they liked, now have insurance they don't like, lost their doctors, and the small business provisions will kick in next year making things even worse.

Exactly. With Bush it was Katrina and Iraq. But none of it was beyond a localized hemorrage. The majority of people could completely ignore the situation and it would not affect them.

With Obama Tax, that's not the case at all. You have millions of people from all over the country who are being directly affected in a number of ways:

They were lied to
Theya re losing their insurance
They are paying more to get insurance

And we havent even gotten to the part where certain delayed aspects, such as the employer mandate, take effect.

Obama is toast unless he comes up with a sure fix. Based on his track record and the lying etc...I dont see that happening. Democrats are going to jump ship and let him sink.

Yep. He will definately not run for President in 2016.

Other than that, he won two terms as President, and passed the ACA. Now the problem is to make the ACA workable. As it morphs to a single payer universal health care system. Like all the other industrial nations have. With far better health care results, with far less cost. Seems to be a reasonable goal.

Single payer will never pass constitutional muster. Beyond that, you think you're going to be able to just move the goal posts? Yes, he won two terms off a lie, and now democrats are running from him even when they stood and lied to their constituents as well.

Democrats are going to have an extremely difficult time gaining the trust of voters going forward. And Obama's legacy is toast. He'll forever be known as the architect of Obamacare.

 

[Redfish]

Simple solution. Just go to a single payer universal health care plan. Then everything is covered, and we pay out of an income tax. Then 25 year olds are charged for senility costs, and 75 year olds are charged for injuries derived from racing motorcycles.

Like most liberal ideas, that sounds good until you actually think it through. Who is going to pay for the huge new inefficient govt beaurocracy that will be needed to manage such a program?

Do you really want your healthcare decisions made by a govt employee sitting at a phone bank that was outsourced to Pakistan?

There was, and is, no healthcare crisis in the USA that mandates destroying the entire medical system.

the few problems could be solved much cheaper and more efficiently.