White House To Delay Obamacare's Employer Mandate Until 2015 (1 Viewer)

[ttwtt78640]

The Obama administration has decided to delay the implementation of Obamacare’s employer mandate—the requirement that all firms with 50 or more employees offer health coverage, or pay steep fines—until 2015. The mandate was supposed to go into effect on January 1, 2014. This development will have a significant impact on the rollout of Obamacare, the private health insurance market, and the nation’s economy, as I detail below.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...ions-for-the-private-health-insurance-market/

Since when can the executive simply alter the terms of a law as passed by congress? To delay the implementation of a law (ignore enforcement) should not be simply an executive option. My take is that this unpopular portion of the PPACA law was found to have a huge negative impact on the 2014 elections, especially for those Democrats (the only ones that supported it) so Obama will simply ignore it prior to those elections.

 

[Bronson]

Liberals before Obamacare was rammed down our throats against our will "We are in a HC Crisis! We NEED Obamacare now! We don't have time to read the bill!Just pass it!"

Liberals now "It can wait until after the election"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ht8msGqwI

 

[Deuce]

White House To Delay Obamacare's Employer Mandate Until 2015; Far-Reaching Implications For The Private Health Insurance Market - Forbes

Since when can the executive simply alter the terms of a law as passed by congress? To delay the implementation of a law (ignore enforcement) should not be simply an executive option. My take is that this unpopular portion of the PPACA law was found to have a huge negative impact on the 2014 elections, especially for those Democrats (the only ones that supported it) so Obama will simply ignore it prior to those elections.

HHS is given discretion on some of it.

Businesses whine about the mandate, want more time, given more time, OBAMA BAD.

 

[ttwtt78640]

HHS is given discretion on some of it.

Businesses whine about the mandate, want more time, given more time, OBAMA BAD.

Cite the source for this bold assertion. First we were told that, in all states, the PPACA exchanges would offer "competititive" plans by 1/1/2014 - but no longer.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released proposed guidelines for the exchanges, where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance beginning in 2014.

Federal Health Insurance Exchange Guidelines Released

http://www.acscan.org/pdf/healthcare/implementation/background/SmallBusinessHealthOptionsProgram.pdf

Beginning in 2014, an Exchange will be established in each state to help consumers make valid comparisons between plans that are certified to have met benchmarks for quality and affordability.

http://www.nh.gov/insurance/consumers/documents/naic_faq.pdf

 

[Deuce]

Cite the source for this bold assertion. First we were told that, in all states, the PPACA exchanges would offer "competititive" plans by 1/1/2014 - but no longer.



Federal Health Insurance Exchange Guidelines Released

http://www.acscan.org/pdf/healthcare/implementation/background/SmallBusinessHealthOptionsProgram.pdf



http://www.nh.gov/insurance/consumers/documents/naic_faq.pdf

You seem to be confusing insurance exchanges for the employer mandate. The exchanges are still going to be implemented.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You seem to be confusing insurance exchanges for the employer mandate. The exchanges are still going to be implemented.

You seem to be confusing what the PPACA law actually says and how the administration is choosing to implement it. I asked you to provide a link as to what portion of the PPACA law allows DHHS to alter the established implementation phase dates. You failed to do so, and instead call those that doubt your undocumented word confused. The exchanges are not being implmented as the PPACA law says, because the DHHS has had extreme difficulty in finding takers (at competitive rates) to offer plans to small businesses, so instead they have simply elected to delay that "hard to do" part, which they were initially hoping that the states would do for them as "mandated".

 

[Woodman909]

HHS is given discretion on some of it.

Businesses whine about the mandate, want more time, given more time, OBAMA BAD.

People didn't want this law, got this law, OBAMA BAD.

 

[Taylor]

HHS is given discretion on some of it.

Businesses whine about the mandate, want more time, given more time, OBAMA BAD.

Most of the country wants more time. Like 500 years or so. What are the chances he'll listen to us?

 

[Deuce]

You seem to be confusing what the PPACA law actually says and how the administration is choosing to implement it. I asked you to provide a link as to what portion of the PPACA law allows DHHS to alter the established implementation phase dates. You failed to do so, and instead call those that doubt your undocumented word confused. The exchanges are not being implmented as the PPACA law says, because the DHHS has had extreme difficulty in finding takers (at competitive rates) to offer plans to small businesses, so instead they have simply elected to delay that "hard to do" part, which they were initially hoping that the states would do for them as "mandated".

What is being delayed is the enforcement of the employer mandate, not implementation of the exchanges. You want me to show documentation that the Treasury can decide not to collect revenue?

 

[ttwtt78640]

What is being delayed is the enforcement of the employer mandate, not implementation of the exchanges. You want me to show documentation that the Treasury can decide not to collect revenue?

Yes. Show me where the PPACA law says that it is up to the Treasury to decide whether they will enforce the law. Do you assert that a GOP president can simply not play PPACA (or any part thereof) at their discretion? If the administration can decide what to collect then why not what not to pay out as well?

 

[Deuce]

Yes. Show me where the PPACA law says that it is up to the Treasury to decide whether they will enforce the law. Do you assert that a GOP president can simply not play PPACA (or any part thereof) at their discretion? If the administration can decide what to collect then why not what not to pay out as well?

Congress has discretion over spending, yes. They can change that spending by passing appropriate legislation. (which is unlikely to pass the Senate or be signed by the president)

Enforcement is executive, not legislative. The government chooses not to collect revenue they are technically owed all the time. For example, an error on my tax return might come with a penalty, but if it was a one-time, honest mistake a lot of the time the IRS will not apply the penalty.

I'm really not sure why you think this is some outlandish new thing. Since the Treasury wont have the infrastructure in place to show who is in compliance with the mandate, or not in compliance, there wont be any enforcement to do.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Congress has discretion over spending, yes. They can change that spending by passing appropriate legislation. (which is unlikely to pass the Senate or be signed by the president)

Enforcement is executive, not legislative. The government chooses not to collect revenue they are technically owed all the time. For example, an error on my tax return might come with a penalty, but if it was a one-time, honest mistake a lot of the time the IRS will not apply the penalty.

I'm really not sure why you think this is some outlandish new thing. Since the Treasury wont have the infrastructure in place to show who is in compliance with the mandate, or not in compliance, there wont be any enforcement to do.

Again you waffle only because you like Obama and some of PPACA. You would go nuts if a GOP administration said that they decided not to enforce law X because they "lack resources" or "do not have the infrastructure in place". You accept "dreamy" enforcement of immigration laws on the same basis. What sense is it to even have a legislative branch if the executive is free to pick and choose which parts of a law get enforced? Admit that PPACA was a super complex, poorly written/understood mess that is not ever going to be implemented as written, but is constantly "evolving". It would cause political pain to enforce the PPACA law as written, so Obama simply decided to skip implementing some of the "bad parts" until after the 2014 elections.

 

[blackjack50]

And this is why you can't trust liberals. I bet he also wants to blame the next president for the problems obamacare will cause.

 

[Deuce]

Again you waffle only because you like Obama and some of PPACA. You would go nuts if a GOP administration said that they decided not to enforce law X because they "lack resources" or "do not have the infrastructure in place". You accept "dreamy" enforcement of immigration laws on the same basis. What sense is it to even have a legislative branch if the executive is free to pick and choose which parts of a law get enforced? Admit that PPACA was a super complex, poorly written/understood mess that is not ever going to be implemented as written, but is constantly "evolving". It would cause political pain to enforce the PPACA law as written, so Obama simply decided to skip implementing some of the "bad parts" until after the 2014 elections.

You are only mad about this because it's Obama. Also you hate puppies. Assigning people motivations is fun.

 

[wbcoleman]

Congress has discretion over spending, yes. They can change that spending by passing appropriate legislation. (which is unlikely to pass the Senate or be signed by the president)

Enforcement is executive, not legislative. The government chooses not to collect revenue they are technically owed all the time. For example, an error on my tax return might come with a penalty, but if it was a one-time, honest mistake a lot of the time the IRS will not apply the penalty.

I'm really not sure why you think this is some outlandish new thing. Since the Treasury wont have the infrastructure in place to show who is in compliance with the mandate, or not in compliance, there wont be any enforcement to do.

The only difference between this and George Bush's signing statements is that Bush NEVAH went this far!