UPDATE BELOW
President Obama is well within his Constitutional rights to delay implementation of certain parts of the ACA:
The Affordable Care Act is the law, and Executive Branch has been constitutionally given the power to implement the law. These sorts of delays in implementation are common. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have used them.
The Supreme Court has found that it is constitutional for the Executive Branch to delay the implementation of a law, “As held by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a leading case on this subject, Heckler v. Chaney, courts must respect an agency’s presumptively superior grasp of “the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities.” Chief Justice Rehnquist suggested that courts could lose their deference to Executive Branch judgment if an “agency has consciously and expressly adopted a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities.” The Obama Administration has not and is not about to abdicate its responsibility to implement the statute on whose success his historical legacy will most centrally depend."
SOURCE
UPDATE:
Meanwhile, as the chattering asses freak out over the latest on Obamacare, here's the real scoop on how the delay and the caps will affect Americans:
THE LATEST RIGHTWING FREAK-OUT OVER OBAMACARE
17 comments:
ACA is the law. A bad law perhaps, but the law nonetheless.
The Executive (the President) is charged with insuring the smooth implementation of said law.
Therefore, as the Executive he has the latitude after consultation to take action he seems appropriate to accomplish that end.
It really is that simple. But what do I know? I'm a fiscal conservative, which of course makes me a right wing know nothing.
RN, I directed this post at "know-nothings on the right." It is YOU who dentified yourself in that category, not I.
I did not direct this post to ALL people on the right, just the ones who are willfully "know nothings."
Question for you. Do you really expect those you directed the post to will see themselves?
The last post I did at a conservative/Libertarian blog resulted in me losing press creds. because I strayed to far off the plantation so to speak.
Oh well, perception is reality for those holding the perception. Right Shaw?
RN,
Feeling sorry for yourself? Self pity is no way to win an argument.
Meanwhile, here is what sequestration and budget cuts have wrought: A Dark Age for Science in Amerika. You can't have civilization or make advancements in medical science on the cheap.
RN,
I do know that many righties come here and read my blog, then run to their rightwing buddies on other blogs and complain about what I write.
Perhaps a bit of reality on this particular subject may shock them out of their FAUX NOOZ stupor?
Not at all. But whatever you wish to believe works just fine for me.
Perhaps. We shall see. Meanwhile, over at that up and coming paragon of virtuous Sleeping With the Devil.
Stupid conservatives:
"Freedom, by the wayAugust 13, 2013 at 12:06:00 PM EDT
Yet, a president cannot change a law, including timelines, without congress taking action. They have not. So, don't these timeines as written, stay in place? If the president--who has not been granted power by the constitution to change a law at will is permitted to do so, what is stopping any American citizen from "changing" a law at will? Um, I think I'll push back the due date on my taxes and not incur a penalty because well, we let another citizen without that right get away with it."
The taxing portion of the law has started as well and the large corporation exemptions. The taxing of individuals and companies will not begin until after the 2014 elections.
This could not be not for political gains could it, of course not.
Perhaps, perhaps not.
One thing is fairly certain however. A person's perception is their reality. And therefore all other considerations, including facts, be damned.
RN: Meanwhile, over at that up and coming paragon of virtuous Sleeping With the Devil.
Trying to turn Shaw against me RN? This was one of the reasons I offered you a truce... but you told me to shove it. Hopefully Shaw and I can agree to disagree on this matter.
As for the ACA being a "bad law"... it is what it is due to Republicans refusing to work with Democrats to craft the legislation and the Democratic Party being big tent. The Dems had to make concessions to their more conservative members to secure the votes. If some more Moderate Republicans had come on board the legislation might have been better for it. Or if Harry Reid had reformed the filibuster (then it would probably have been even better).
DS, Obamacare, the ACA, was a Republican idea, and it was fashioned on Romneycare here in Massachusetts.
The GOP has been dead set against a Democrat EVER enacting a universal health care law because the GOP knows it will be popular AND successful, this is something they've been dead set against.
Republicans' vision for health care for their fellow Americans:
"During a debate on the Affordable Care Act, Republican Frank Lonegan, who's running for New Jersey senate seat said:
“Well, I’ll go one step further. I’ll be as callous and uncaring as you can imagine. I have no interest in paying for your health care. I’d hate to see you get cancer, but that’s your problem not mine. I’m going to pay for my health care, I’m going to take care of my children’s health care and tend to my wife. And when I stand for charity care (inaudible), you no one else has the authority to infringe on my right (inaudible) dig into my pocket and my ability to pay to pay for your health care or anybody else’s.”
h/t crooks and liars
Dervish my son, you, as usual know not of which you speak. Either that or your a flat out liar.
Nonetheless, my purpose is not, never has been, nor will it ever be to turn Shaw, or anyone else AGAINST you. Only you are capable of allowing that to happen.
Further, Shaw, as well as MOST individuals who visit this site are capable of thinking for themselves and it is VERY highly unlikely that my sarcastic comment about your site being a paragon of virtue will change what they already believe of either you or I.
Now, as to the ACA, IMNHO it is bad law as written and mandated. I'm PERFECTLY fine with you loving the badly crafted law.
If you like you can visit my site and read my post today, it's essentially about this subject.
Shaw you amaze.
When Obamacare was passed it was a great idea, now that it is turning out to be a huge albatross, it was the GOP.
Next you will blame the GOP and Bush for Bengazi, IRS gate, NSI overreach, and of course the Egyptian uprising.
But like the smartest women in the world said after four Americans were murdered, What Difference Does it Make.
ACA is law, and that leaves its implementation and funding up to the Congress, not the president. Congress can change that law, or eliminate it. After 40 attempts to kill the law, you think Republican leaders and House majority have other things to do, like funding the law.
Shaw: Obamacare, the ACA, was a Republican idea, and it was fashioned on Romneycare here in Massachusetts.
Indeed. According to the Wonkette blog, "Obamacare is based on RomneyCare, the Massachusetts program that has increased health care coverage to 98% of the population in the state. That plan was based on ideas from the Heritage Foundation, a group that was more than happy to take credit for successes in Massachusetts".
A idea from a Right-wing organization that was signed into law by a Republican governor is now terrible because the Democrats are going to get credit for it. Maybe they could have signed on and shared in the credit? Nope. Bringing down our nation's first Black president was more important to them.
That's why they are currently pushing all these phony scandals. I wish the American people would wise up and show them the door. Time to elect politicians who are interested in doing their jobs instead of preventing anything from getting done simply to make the ELECTED president look bad.
RN: you, as usual know not of which you speak. Either that or you're a flat out liar. ... Only you are capable of allowing that to happen.
Neither and untrue. Other words could be said, but out of respect for the rules of this blog I'll let it drop.
BTW, I've got my own suspicions regarding who this "Sword of Truth" character might be.
Post a Comment