Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You can't administratively exempt someone from taxation requirements.
[MENTION=32096]OODA_Loop[/MENTION] "taxation requirements?"
You do know the 'shared payment responsibility' in the PPACA mandate is a penalty under the law? The SCOTUS did not change the language of the law. The 'penalty' is collected by the IRS, so it functions as a tax for constitutional purposes.
Only people who choose not to have health insurance get penalized.
Frigging rightwing morons can't even read their own OP
Corbin said. If his actions in this case (waiver, extensions, etc.) amount to him becoming a lawmaker rather than a law executor, they are unconstitutional.
big IF
Legal Scholar: Changes Made by Obama to the ACA are Unconstitutional
Actually, the administration of the program is constitutional. Tuff dat.
Don't have to prove my assertion when the OP has been summarily dismissed for lack of obvious proof.
Selective crony exemption from tax requirements, delay/postponement of critical dates and in/validation of existing policy is not w/in executive purview or administrative execution of the law.
Those acts materially and substantively change the foundation and "making" of the law.
It wasn't selective. It was for any company which offered "mini-med" plans to employees and who asked for the allowed exemption. That was to help those companies adjust to the new plans, otherwise, their employees on such plans would have incurred significantly higher premiums until 2014, when ObamaCare goes into full effect.Selective crony exemption from tax requirements, delay/postponement of critical dates and in/validation of existing policy is not w/in executive purview or administrative execution of the law.
Those acts materially and substantively change the foundation and "making" of the law.
It wasn't selective. It was for any company which offered "mini-med" plans to employees and who asked for the allowed exemption. That was to help those companies adjust to the new plans, otherwise, their employees on such plans would have incurred significantly higher premiums until 2014, when ObamaCare goes into full effect.Selective crony exemption from tax requirements, delay/postponement of critical dates and in/validation of existing policy is not w/in executive purview or administrative execution of the law.
Those acts materially and substantively change the foundation and "making" of the law.
Furthermore, Obama changed nothing in the law. This is yet another case of rightwingnuts pissing in the wind because, as usual, they are woefully misinformed by the rightwing blogosphere. In reality, companies which qualified for the exemption were give a one year extension from having to change their employees' medical coverage to a qualified plan under ObamaCare. And that extension was before ObamaCare goes into full effect next year, meaning the law was not changed. When the law goes into full effect, all companies with 50 or more employees will be bound by the law.
It wasn't selective. It was for any company which offered "mini-med" plans to employees and who asked for the allowed exemption. That was to help those companies adjust to the new plans, otherwise, their employees on such plans would have incurred significantly higher premiums until 2014, when ObamaCare goes into full effect.Selective crony exemption from tax requirements, delay/postponement of critical dates and in/validation of existing policy is not w/in executive purview or administrative execution of the law.
Those acts materially and substantively change the foundation and "making" of the law.
Furthermore, Obama changed nothing in the law. This is yet another case of rightwingnuts pissing in the wind because, as usual, they are woefully misinformed by the rightwing blogosphere. In reality, companies which qualified for the exemption were give a one year extension from having to change their employees' medical coverage to a qualified plan under ObamaCare. And that extension was before ObamaCare goes into full effect next year, meaning the law was not changed. When the law goes into full effect, all companies with 50 or more employees will be bound by the law.
It wasn't selective. It was for any company which offered "mini-med" plans to employees and who asked for the allowed exemption. That was to help those companies adjust to the new plans, otherwise, their employees on such plans would have incurred significantly higher premiums until 2014, when ObamaCare goes into full effect.Selective crony exemption from tax requirements, delay/postponement of critical dates and in/validation of existing policy is not w/in executive purview or administrative execution of the law.
Those acts materially and substantively change the foundation and "making" of the law.
Furthermore, Obama changed nothing in the law. This is yet another case of rightwingnuts pissing in the wind because, as usual, they are woefully misinformed by the rightwing blogosphere. In reality, companies which qualified for the exemption were give a one year extension from having to change their employees' medical coverage to a qualified plan under ObamaCare. And that extension was before ObamaCare goes into full effect next year, meaning the law was not changed. When the law goes into full effect, all companies with 50 or more employees will be bound by the law.
Don't have to prove my assertion when the OP has been summarily dismissed for lack of obvious proof.
LOL, sorry pop.
YOU made the claim that the President can arbitrarily enforce or change the Law which carried out to its logical conclusion means he/she can do the same to ANY law....feel free to prove it liar.
Don't have to prove my assertion when the OP has been summarily dismissed for lack of obvious proof.
LOL, sorry pop.
YOU made the claim that the President can arbitrarily enforce or change the Law which carried out to its logical conclusion means he/she can do the same to ANY law....feel free to prove it liar.
You are lying. I said no such thing.
Reread what I wrote and we can try again: to this point, you are fail.
This is like the birfer nonsense of "send us more money so we can keep digging to get the truth."
This latest move by Obama is so sad and pathetic, as well as being transparently political and unconstitutional. His latest move to try to fix one of his many previous lies sinks him to a new low. Here is a key quote from a legal scholar. Even Howard Dean is questioning the legality of the move. Poor, poor Obummer.
The president certainly has some regulatory and prosecutorial discretion in how he executes the law, but he has no legislative power, Corbin said. If his actions in this case (waiver, extensions, etc.) amount to him becoming a lawmaker rather than a law executor, they are unconstitutional.
Though the Constitution is clear that all legislative powers belong to Congress, Corbin said it sometimes comes down to how those in power choose to interpret the law.
Im not sure he will be able to get away with it in this case because I think people are going to understand that if you are going to remove the law of any legal standing by having the enforcement mechanisms or the penalties stripped out, then what is the law?
the professor added.
Here is the link to the full article. Obama to Alter Parameters of Obamacare Yet Again ? Does He Have the Authority to Unilaterally Change Laws Passed by Congress? | TheBlaze.com
That can't be!..I read obama is a constitutional scholar all by hissef.
Obama is a lawyer. A graduate of Harvard Law, the toughest school in America.
The Blaze's source is a political scientist at a second tier Liberal Arts college.
Affordable Care Act
- 1989 ..... the conservative Heritage Foundation proposed an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer health care
- championed for a time by conservative economists and Republican senators as a market-based approach to healthcare reform on the basis of individual responsibility and avoidance of free rider problems
- President Bill Clinton proposed a healthcare reform bill in 1993 that included a mandate for employers to provide health insurance to all employees through a regulated marketplace of health maintenance organizations, Republican Senators proposed an alternative that would have required individuals, but not employers, to buy insurance.
- the 1993 Republican alternative, introduced by Senator John Chafee as the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, contained a "universal coverage" requirement with a penalty for noncompliance—an individual mandate—as well as subsidies to be used in state-based 'purchasing groups'.
- advocates for the 1993 bill included prominent Republicans who today oppose a mandate, such as Senators Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, and Kit Bond. Of the 43 Republicans Senators from 1993, 20 supported the HEART Act.
- at the time of these proposals, Republicans did not raise constitutional issues with the mandate; Mark Pauly, who helped develop a proposal that included an individual mandate for George H.W. Bush, remarked, "I don’t remember that being raised at all. The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax."
- Romney's implementation of the 'Health Connector' exchange and individual mandate in Massachusetts was at first lauded by Republicans. During Romney's 2008 presidential campaign, Senator Jim DeMint praised Romney's ability to "take some good conservative ideas, like private health insurance, and apply them to the need to have everyone insured."
- Romney said of the individual mandate: "I'm proud of what we've done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be the model for the nation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
Legal Scholar: Changes Made by Obama to the ACA are Unconstitutional
While conservatives continue to dither about "unconstitutional" changes in Obamacare, there is a deafening silence when it comes to providing affordable healthcare for the approximately 50 million uninsured Americans.
Legal Scholar: Changes Made by Obama to the ACA are Unconstitutional
While conservatives continue to dither about "unconstitutional" changes in Obamacare, there is a deafening silence when it comes to providing affordable healthcare for the approximately 50 million uninsured Americans.
What has been provided is NOT affordable.
Legal Scholar: Changes Made by Obama to the ACA are Unconstitutional
No legal scholar of consequence writes for an organ like TheBlaze.com
