jordan179 - Obama's Discretionary Enforcement of Obamacare Plan Has a Fatal Flaw -- But Don't Worry! He's OK!
[Recent Entries][Archive][Friends][User Info]
Obama's Discretionary Enforcement of Obamacare Plan Has a Fatal Flaw -- But Don't Worry! He's OK!|
maxgoof points out in "Discretionary Enforcement" that
Obama is claiming he can delay the enforcement of the Individual Mandate as well as the Employer Mandate through discretionary enforcement, basically saying, oh, we simply won't enforce that part of the law.
Okay, fine. But how then could you enforce the provision that required insurers to ignore existing conditions back in 2010 when the law itself said it would not be enforced until 2014?
Obama is correct: he can indeed as a PRACTICAL matter openly refuse to enforce a law. And he can even enforce an unconstitutional executive order, because the executive-branch agencies will obey his commands, even when they are blatantly unconstitutional (as we've seen in the IRS scandal). Yes, the courts may later strike down his decrees, but that will be after months to years of litigation, and in the meantime the insurance companies have to continue operating.
The real Constitutional remedy is for the Congress to impeach and convict him. The Congress is not yet exercised enough about his defiance of their authority to do any such thing. Right now, the Democrats would vote along strict party lines, and far too many Republicans just don't care enough about defending our Constitution to even make the effort, if it looks unlikely of success.
If anger over Obamacare continues to grow, the Congressmen may change their mind. If it grows enough, the <i>composition</i> of Congress may be changed after 2014 to one which will impeach him.
What Obama is not considering -- probably because it doesn't affect him, only those people unfortunate enough to have to live under Obamacare, is that the courts have to enforce the written version of Obamacare, not the version which Obama is making up as he goes along. The insurance companies know this, and they know that the courts cannot be counted on to enforce illegal contracts, and so what's going to happen is that a lot of people are going to be unable to find health care.
(It is possible that the courts will, for reasons of "public policy," enforce Obama's made-up version. It is possible that some courts will enforce the actual law and some courts enforce Obama's airy decrees. The problem is that an insurance company has no way of predicting which version will be enforced in any particular case. If they want to be responsible with their investors' money, the safest thing for any given insurance company to do is to pull out of any section of the market in which enforcement is unpredictable. This means that people who have been losing their policies won't be getting them back).
And a lot of people may well die while all this is being sorted out. Because, no matter what a law says, diseases don't wait until the courts have sorted things out, and Death isn't reversible by subsequent court order.
But don't worry! Obama and his family and his political cronies are all covered under other and better health care programs! So they'll be ok!
Aren't you happy?
Not happy? I can't imagine why, because I just said that our glorious Obamessiah and his family and those Very Important People heading all branches of government -- the Much Less Than One Percent -- will be ok. The people who will be ill without assistance, who may be dying, will only be unimportant people such as you and I. And it will serve the greater cause of making sure that Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of the United States and Divinely-Chosen God-King of the World in His Own Mind, gets his way without any tiresome interference by the ghosts of Jefferson and Madison, which is after all the most important thing in the world, isn't it?
But if you really aren't happy, there's a simple solution. Vote Republican in 2014. If enough of you vote Republican, we can elect a Congress which will actually hold Obama responsible for the monstrous crime he's committing against both our Constitutional Republic and the people who are unfortunate enough to be seriously ill at a time when it becomes inconvenient to this grossly self-inflated creature that currently occupies the Oval Office. Elect a Congress who will impeach Obama, and convict Obama, and put Obama and his cronies where they belong -- in Federal prison, paying for their vile and destructive deeds.
Or -- perhaps more realistically because our Republic is almost dead and too many people in their heart of hearts do see Obama as sacrosanct -- at least removed from office so that he can't hurt any more people, and we can go about electing a new President in 2016 who can begin the process of national recovery from the disaster that is Obama.
And we deeply do not need any crap about whether or not we are voting in libertarians or religious rightists or big business conservatives or defense conservatives. Because if we get hung up on finding the perfect Republicans to vote into office, we are going to ensure that the Democrats keep getting elected. And if the Democrats keep getting elected, after screwing up THIS badly both from a Constitutional and policy viewpoint, then there will be no meaningful Constitutional checks on their actions.
Why should the Congress listen to us if we aren't prepared to put our votes where our mouths are? They want power, not favorable mention in the history books, and in any case if they can get enough power they'll get the favorable mention in the history books. Or so they imagine -- and who knows? They might be right. The Senators of the last few decades of the Roman Republic are still remembered by history -- for wrecking the Republic, 'tis true, but at least they're remembered. The Senators of the long centuries of the Republic's success have mostly been forgotten.
If we refuse to vote out the Democrats, then in 2014 the new Congress will be at least as compliant with Obama's wishes as is the current one, and in 2016 we will vote in another Democratic President (no, not Obama, his rival Democrats are too power-hungry to permit this -- they want their turns), and by 2020 or 2024 they'll have enough of a lock on the voting system that the people to watch won't be men who can attract votes, they'll be men who can command the loyalties of assassins and military forces, in the game of Coup vs. Coup that will start to relieve the by then viciously bottled-up frustrations of the American people. And the Republic will die.
But it doesn't have to be that way. We can still save the Republic -- preserve what most people call simply our democracy. But to do this, we have to start pulling together.
Otherwise, we'll have bought the right of our smarter descendants to be like Suetonius and Tacitus, mourning what is irretrivably lost, generations after the time when it actually could have been saved.
Tags: america, barack hussein obama, constitutional, legal, obamacare, politics
|Date:||November 18th, 2013 04:10 pm (UTC)|| |
I signed up for it on day 4, no issues. Though my state has its own exchange so I suspect I had it easier than most. It is distressing to see the huge cluster it's become though unsurprising, something like 94% of government IT projects fail on launch.
And this is why the law will fail. As will the system. Because only those that need the most will sign up. The rest will pay the $95 per year "penalty", which will result in a "death-spiral".
For the next year though, until the whole thing fails catastrophically, congratulations. I hope it helps. I hope *someone* benefits from the catastrophe that this will be.
|Date:||November 19th, 2013 03:24 am (UTC)|| |
It already has helped. All I can do is hope when it collapses they replace it with something I can still use.
Sadly, I doubt that will be the case. It'll be replaced with *nothing*. Get while the gettin's good, and stockpile whatever it is you need, because the failure of this will be quite ugly.
|Date:||November 19th, 2013 06:22 am (UTC)|| |
My doctors are understanding, seeing the doctors generally hasn't been an issue, they usually will do a sliding scale. It's the prices of the drugs they prescribe that bankrupt me and shocker those companies got a free pass in this law. Pharmacists have no leeway like doctors do, if they cut corners or prices they'd end up in prison.
|Date:||November 18th, 2013 07:07 pm (UTC)|| |
One major point:
Recently, the supreme court said that Arizona could not enforce Federal Law, since Obama, by executive action, was not enforcing it.
In other words, the SCOTUS held that an executive action that resulted in the law not being enforced WAS THE SAME AS LAW!!
That scares me.
|Date:||November 19th, 2013 01:11 am (UTC)|| |
The part in question is paragraph nine: "The majority held field preemption invalidates the provision making it a state crime for noncitizens not to carry federally-required documents showing they’re allowed in the country."
In other words, because federal agents have been instructed not to check for federally-required documents, a state could not check for them, either. Thus making an executive action the same as revoking a law.
Not precisely. because anything that's done by executive action can be undone by executive action.
It is an absurdly, incredibly major increase of presidential powers, and in a functioning constitutional republic, would result in an impeachment proceeding, complete with imprisonment, but hey, obamaphone!
What the elevation of executive order to de facto law does is create a highly-unstable legal system where one President can simply reverse the executive orders of the last President. The long-term solution, of course, if we don't eliminate such a system of executive-order legislation, is to move to an Imperial system, under which Presidents rule for life.
The biggest problem, other than the destruction of the constitutional law, is that uncertainty is the *worst* possible business climate. If changes to law involve going through congress, public input, and the actual *process*, then business will have pretty good certainty that things won't change on a dime. If the president can just make dictatorial orders and nullify everything, then there is no certainty, ANYTHING can change. No business will work under those conditions, except the very most immediate paybacks, because the rule of law has been replaced by the rule of men.
Exactly. No one wants to invest large sums of money into an enterprise in which the governing laws are uncertain. This is why the Third World is poor, and it is why we will be poor as well if we emulate Third World policies.
|Date:||November 21st, 2013 08:06 pm (UTC)|| |
And anything done by executive action can also be undone by a new law, just as any law can be undone the same way.
The point is the SCOTUS has invalidated a STATE law because of an executive action, AS IF IT WERE LAW.
... which would seem to me to indicate that the current SCOTUS has a particularly-strong interpretation of Executive Powers and a particularly-weak interpretation of the Tenth Amendment. This is bad, given that we currently have a megalomaniac President.
|Date:||November 18th, 2013 07:41 pm (UTC)|| |
The hour is very late indeed. The O should never have gotten a second term in the first place. Driving Dems out of Congress, taking the Senate, is just the first step. We'll still have to keep their feet to the fire to make certain repeal of this monstrosity goes forward.
I have my doubts, however.
Nixon was driven out by Watergate. The big difference: no one died as a result of Watergate. Benghazi, Fast 'n' Furious have gotten people killed. Still, nothing has come of it, and they used to accuse Reagan of being a Teflon president. Nothing sticks to the O-ster. Ever. Regardless of what outrages he commits, he can always count on the lap dog press to cover for him.
Japan faced a "lost decade"; America may be looking at a lost century: it may take that long to clean up the messes The One has made.
|Date:||November 18th, 2013 11:12 pm (UTC)|| |
An excellent argument. Save for one glaring flaw.
I have no confidence that most of the Republicans we'll be offered will be distinguishable from the Democrats. Certainly if the GOP elite get their way, that will be the case. In which case, while in theory voting Republican will make a difference, in practice it may not.
The Republicans aren't perfect, but they aren't as bad as the Democrats. Would the Republicans have elected a President as bad as Obama's? Would they have, had they controlled the Congress, passed a bill as bad as Obamacare? Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the better. We aren't going to get a perfect President or Congress: we can get better ones.
|Date:||November 19th, 2013 04:35 am (UTC)|| |
Would the Republicans have elected a President as bad as Obama? I doubt that was possible given the candidate field, but theoretically? I wouldn't put it past them.
Would they have, had they controlled the Congress, passed a bill as bad as Obamacare? Pretty clearly not, given that not a single Republican voted for it. But that's not the question.
The question is: given control of both House and Senate, would the Republicans repeal Obamacare? I think the answer is no. There's always some excuse why they can't or won't. We only have the House. We only have the Senate. We only have the House and Senate, but not the Presidency. We have the House, Senate and White House, but the Democrats and the media are really, really mean and would call us bad names.
I'm not looking for perfect. I already know I'm not going to get a perfect President or Congress. I already know I'm not even going to get a single perfect candidate or legislator. Trouble is, I'm not sure any Republican candidate I'm offered will be, as I said, distinguishable from a Democrat.
The Republicans don't have to be as bad as the Democrats. They only have to drag their feet enough to let the Democrats get what they want, and the more I see of the beltway GOP, the more I think that's exactly what they're doing because deep in their black, shriveled little hearts, they want the same unchecked political power (and the all the perks that go with it) that the Democrats do. Not all of them, of course, but too many. And they're all to willing to be "bipartisan" with the Democrats, but those damned teabaggers are beyond the pale.
First of all, the reason why the Democrats ran a candidate as horribly-flawed as Obama and perceived the many deep and disabling problems he possesses (lack of skills, dubious national and religious loyalties, association with radicals) as no more than potential PR problems which could be avoided by assiduous spin management is that the Democrats are mesmerized by a false vision of the left-wing radicals of 1968-74 as bold heroes trying to bring about a reformed and better America, rather than the half-crazed wannabe-traitors they were really. Because the Republicans don't have this romanticized view of the Old Counterculture, the Republicans would be very unlikely to nominate anyone to be President who had virtually no administrative, business, diplomatic, legal, military or political experience, and who displayed disloyalty to the United States of America. If Obama is perceived as a success, we will see the Democrats nominate someone else who may well be every bit as bad as him, and for the same reasons: "success," after all, is reinforced.
Secondly, you are assuming that Obamacare is the worst of what a Democratic Congress can inflict on America, and that -- the damage inflicted -- we can rest easy. If the Democrats retain control of the Senate after the elections of 2014 and 2016, or (worse) regain control of the House, we will see the passage of many more equally-destructive bills, which Obama and his (Democratic) successor will happily-sign into law.
Thirdly, we don't know that a Republican-controlled House and Senate would refuse to repeal Obamacare. (Remember that with Obama as President, the control has to be at least a 2/3 majority not merely of Republicans but of non-RINO's in order to override Obama's vetoes). You are assuming that the Republicans will refuse to try to reverse Democratic measures no matter what degree of majority or which government branches they have. This is purely defeatist: you are assuming that the Democrats win and Republicans lose no matter what anyone does. If you really believe that, then why are you staying in America? Based on your assumptions, the country would be doomed to economic and diplomatic decline and the fall of the Republic.
Trouble is, I'm not sure any Republican candidate I'm offered will be, as I said, distinguishable from a Democrat.
You've just admitted that the Republicans wouldn't have passed Obamacare in the first place. Congratulations, you've found a way to distinguish Republicans from Democrats. The Republicans won't make matters WORSE. The Democrats will. That's a big difference right there.
The Republicans don't have to be as bad as the Democrats. They only have to drag their feet enough to let the Democrats get what they want, and the more I see of the beltway GOP, the more I think that's exactly what they're doing because deep in their black, shriveled little hearts, they want the same unchecked political power (and the all the perks that go with it) that the Democrats do.
But the Republicans wouldn't get this unchecked political power by cooperating with Democrat victories. They would merely get to watch as the Democrats attained such power.
And they're all to willing to be "bipartisan" with the Democrats, but those damned teabaggers are beyond the pale.
Some mainstream Republicans are like that. Not all. And I'm in favor of as much Republican cooperation with other Republicans -- mainstream, religious, libertarian or neo-conservative -- as possible.
We may lose by fighting the Democrats and failing. We will assuredly lose by refusing to even fight the Democrats. And if we devote most of our energies to fighting our fellow Republicans, then we are EFFECTIVELY refusing to fight the Democrats, no matter what comforting or vindictive stories we tell ourselves to excuse our inaction.
|Date:||November 20th, 2013 01:47 am (UTC)|| |
I sort'a agree with this.
Republicans are very vested in politics as usual, no doubt about that. However, look at the track record. The most embarrassing Republican president would be Richard Nixon. Watergate was a mess, but, at least, nobody died.
We have had unremarkable Republican presidents and politicians, but none so destructive as Dem presidents. Look at Woodrow Wilson (income tax, Federal Reserve, domestic spying the likes of which the O can only dream, false promises of keeping the US out of the "Great War" that led to an even Greater War, and the Cold War) or FDR (prolonged the Great Depression and made it an even greater depression, first establishment of the welfare state) or LBJ, or Carter, and now the O.
Dems have been orders of magnitude worse for the country than Republicans.
Secondly, this points out the fact that our jobs do not end the day after election day. It's up to us to keep riding these Republicans we send to Congress to make sure they do what we sent them there to do. It does no good to congratulate ourselves on a job well done only to go back to sleep the day after election day.
"There's always some excuse why they can't or won't. We only have the House. We only have the Senate. We only have the House and Senate, but not the Presidency. We have the House, Senate and White House, but the Democrats and the media are really, really mean and would call us bad names."
That hasn't stopped the House from passing bills to defund, repeal, repeal-and-replace, and disassemble-by-pieces Obamacare. Their criticism that they can't because they only have the House is valid, as Reid has continued to refuse to bring any of these bills up for consideration, even though Boehner tried to force him to do so as a concession in last year's budget fight.
And then people like you have said over and over again that the Republicans would never shut down the government over the budget fight. They did! They did it... and the press slammed them... and now The People are blaming them for it... the exact situation that you claim they will use to avoid removing Obamacare!
Funniest and saddest thing is, the Tea Party newcomers are the ones driving these actions, and the result is, so far, exactly what the establishment folk said it would be!
So the question is, are you going to fight the media and the Democrats who are hurting us? Or are you going to make non-Tea Party Republicans the enemy and fight them to the death as the Democrats continue laughing their way through the next election... and the next... and the next?
I am darn near Tea Party in my political stance, but I am more interested in utility than idealism. The Tea Party response would work beautifully in a world with no Democrats. The Tea Party principles could be worked out if people didn't keep voting in Democrats. Even the worst RINOs would follow along if the Tea Party folk showed any sign of making a dent against the Democrats.
Until then, what do you expect? Whenever you make enemies out of the only people whose alliance could get you closer to your goal, you will only be enabling the exact behavior you abhor.
"...because deep in their black, shriveled little hearts, they want the same unchecked political power (and the all the perks that go with it) that the Democrats do."
I would argue that the Democrat decision to take the Nuclear Option invalidates this assumption of yours. If you equate someone who thinks about doing something and then doesn't do it with someone who thinks about doing something and then does it, then how many of us are not murderers, rapists, or thieves?
This is exactly my point. Each of us would like people who think exactly like himself or herself to lead the nation to victory over Obama, thus utterly-validating and popularizing our own political philosophies. But this is not going to happen -- people who think exactly like me (or you, or the other guy or girl, and all these are different) will always be in the minority. Not because our beliefs are unpopular, but because the chance of making a majority of people who think exactly like any particular person on all the relevant issues is close to nil, given that we are all individuals.
The task of politics -- real politics, not the posturing that passes for it among the "personal is political" people -- is always to assemble a majority of people who think sufficiently like oneself on the most important issues, and then lead that majority to victory in the polls. (This is also true in dictatorships, the difference being that in dictatorships the "polls" are a head count for civil war or threatened civil war, rather than election).
The Democrats know this, which is why their coalition contains such contradictions (such as Islam-appeasers and homosexuals, whose interests are diametrically-opposed if they bother to think things through). This is why the Democrats are able to win victories.
When Reagan headed the Republicans, he saw no problem with assembling a coalition out of Libertarians and Big Business Republicans (who wanted almost opposite economic policies on everything save tax reduction) or Neo-Conservative and Religious Republicans (who both wanted to win the Cold War, but had very different opinions on social issues). And back then we won elections.
We can win elections again, if we stop constantly vetting each other for ideological purity and instead concentrate on beating the Democrats.
20% less awful. That's the only thing to play for here. And IMO, the republicans are that.
That sounds like the motto of the anti-Rainbow Dash ;-)
LOL! Well, "less awful" and "cooler" are functionally synonymous!
True, but "less awful" sounds so much more pessimistic :)
There is one way in which RINO Republicans are distinguishable from Democrats.
If conservative Republicans make a move, the RINOs are significantly more likely to back them.
The Democrats are significantly less likely to back them, even if they agree, due to spite.
|Date:||November 19th, 2013 11:25 pm (UTC)|| |
How are we supposed to pull together when it seems like government's only purpose anymore is to pull us apart in the name of ethnic spoils....
|Date:||November 20th, 2013 01:18 am (UTC)|| |
Re: pulling together?
When we get to the time of the Emperors, they will only care about providing ethnic spoils to groups whose armed support they need. So the unpopular ethnic minorities will get cut out of everything save for the dole anyway. Better to stay with a free society: more social mobility in the long run.
|Date:||November 20th, 2013 05:47 am (UTC)|| |
Re: pulling together?
Aaand... even you are not thinking it all the way through, Jordan. Once those "unpopular ethnic minorities" are sufficiently disenfranchised and disarmed, why would the Emperors bother paying to keep them on the dole? That's what most people fail to understand about this mindset: it doesn't end at a massive, government-subsidized underclass - it is aimed, eventually, at a return to serfdom. With the would-be "Emperors" as the self-selected nobility, of course.
|Date:||November 20th, 2013 07:57 am (UTC)|| |
Re: pulling together?
Oh, sometimes it's worth it to avoid strong political demands for greater economic and social mobility. Emperors are not in practice omnipotent no matter how many powers they have under law. But yes, a class permanently on the dole is more a feature of the transition from Republic to Empire than it is of a mature Empire.
I'll line up behind the Republican presidential nominee, whoever that may turn out to be, for all the reasons you mentioned. I'm not quite ready to go quietly into that night.
BUT: the next primary battle will be a massively important indicator of whether or not the republic can be saved at all. So far Christie's big pitch is, "I can win." That remains to be seen, but as far as primary pitches go, it's not exactly a battle hymn for a revolution (in the old fashioned meaning of that word, meaning an entire spin of the wheel).
He's going to have to expand on that quite a bit to get my vote. Politically, even if he emerges as the frontrunner, I want Paul and Cruz give him a good libertarian/originalist bruising before the convention. As far as conservative administrators of blue-to-purple states go, I'd MUCH prefer Scott Walker to Christie. Both have shown the ability to go after the public service unions, but Walker showed the courage to do it under heavy, persistent fire, with little whiff of higher ambition -- or even concern with reelection. Best of all, he did it without all the bluster and bombast.
Paul or Cruz can't win a general election -- and frankly I'm not sure I'd want them to. A competent, experienced administrator would be best for that office, and I like those two ideologues where they are -- in the Legislative branch, proposing constitutional amendments and maybe (hopefully) even getting some passed with a Republican Congress behind them. Unfortunately, the super-powered executive/king has reduced the legislature to little more then a rubber stamp these days, which is exactly how much of the parasitic D.C. class likes it (less accountability always helps incumbents), so the first order of business needs to be de-fanging the next president, whoever that might turn out to be.
All that said, I don't see much hope from politics or politicians these days. It's the culture that must ultimately win the fight. A guy like James O'Keefe is worth twenty inside-the-beltline bozos, as is a Matt Drudge, as is a Mark Steyn, as was an Andrew Breitbart. That said, there is some crossover; if Steyn actually runs and wins the New Hampshire Senate seat, the GOP will add an awesomely powerful rhetorical weapon to their arsenal, and C-Span will officially become my new favorite channel.
Edited at 2013-11-24 03:09 pm (UTC)