[talaniman]

Nobody says it was great, but so far detractors or not its better for the many than it was before the law. Without the ACA you would be hollering about how the insurance company is taking more of your money. If you quit hollering and ask specific questions, you can get answers.

Not from ideologically driven blogs either.

[speechlesstx]

You can just keep pretending it's a good thing if you want but we know we got screwed and Dems know we got screwed. Why do you think no one wants Obama to campaign for him this year?

[talaniman]

You mean dems in red states? Kind of obvious isn't it? They need conservative votes to keep there jobs. It's always been that way.

[tomder55]

remember when Sebillius said there would be no delays ?
Sebelius: Obamacare "delay is not an option" - CBS News

[talaniman]

LOL, she obviously meant delay tactics from the right.

[speechlesstx]

So the regime that has freed us from the tyranny of the law has made more stuff up with no statutory authority to do so.

I am not just talking about the president’s (latest) illegal waiver of the employer mandate, which yet again delays (this time, to 2016) the requirement that businesses with 50 to 99 employees must provide Obama-certified coverage or pay crushing fines – a desperate political calculation to accommodate Democrats who face angry voters this November. I am talking about the other bomb administration officials dropped in announcing this unconstitutional edict.

Obama’s central command policies are inevitably crashing into each other. The waiver may provide some relief to endangered Democrats, but it also gives employers an incentive to lay off employees in order to get under 100 and qualify for the illegal waiver. So Obama has unilaterally legislated illegal conditions on the illegal waiver. To wit, employers will be required to certify to the IRS, under penalty of perjury, that the waiver was not a motivating factor in the company’s hiring and firing decisions. As Fox News’s Chris Stirewalt quips, “To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs.”



So now Obama, like a standard-issue leftist dictator, is complementing lawlessness with socialist irrationality.



Think about how lunatic this is. There is nothing even faintly illegal about businesses’ – indeed, all economic actors’ – making financial decisions based on tax consequences. (And remember, notwithstanding Obama’s misrepresentations to the contrary, Obamacare mandates are taxes – as Obama’s Justice Department argued and as Chief Justice Roberts & Co. concluded.) The tax consequences of Obamacare are profound – that is precisely the reason that Obama is “waiving” them. No responsible officers in a corporation of relevant size would fail to take them into account in making the decision to staff at over or under 100 employees; in determining whether some full-time employees should be terminated or shifted to part-time; or in making any number of the decisions Obamacare’s mind-numbing complexity requires.



The officers’ responsibility is to the owners of the company, the shareholders. The business exists to create value, not to provide employment – employing workers is a function of the value added to the enterprise, not the need to create a more favorable election environment for the statist political party. Corporate officers who overlooked material tax consequences would be unfit to be corporate officers.


What is illegal and irrational is not a company’s commonsense deliberation over its costs, it is Obama’s edict. And look what attends this one: criminal prosecution if Obama’s Justice Department decides the business has falsely certified that its staffing decision was not motivated by Obamacare.



Think about that for a second. The waiver is illegal. It flouts the language of the Obamacare statute, under which the employer mandate is required already to have been implemented by now. There is nothing in the law that empowers Obama to waive the mandate, much less to attach lawless conditions to such a lawless waiver. A business that seeks the waiver and fails to pay the mandated tax (in lieu of providing the required coverage) is in violation of federal statutory law, regardless of its compliance with Obama’s outlaw edict. The payments required by the statute, after all, are owed to the public, not to Obama – he’s got no authority to deprive the government of these funds just because it would harm Democrats to collect them.


Yet, Obama proclaims his illegal waiver with impunity – Congress apparently unwilling to stop him. You, on the other hand, will be prosecuted for breaking the “law” if you do not comply to Obama’s satisfaction with the illegal and irrational condition he has unilaterally placed on his illegal waiver.

So not only has he illegally granted these waivers he's giving businessmen incentives to perjure themselves - so he can blather on about how Obamacare is not costing jobs. Are none of you people disturbed by this man yet? Are you anxious to see what a TP president might do with this type of abuse of power?

[speechlesstx]

This is what your Democrats are going to be facing this election (if they show up). If they get in Minnesota you can count on them getting it elsewhere.

The lawmakers fielded other questions as well, talking debt and immigration reform, but it was the question about the struggling health care law that everyone in the audience wanted to see answered, and two out of the three Democrats on the dais seemed hesitant to tackle.


The question: "I thought the Affordable Care Act would save $2500 per family. What happened?"


After Sen. Klobuchar and Rep. Walz looked at each other, laughter broke out in the room.


Rep. Peterson quickly picked up the microphone to say, "I voted 'no', so I'll let these guys handle that," to the applause of the crowd.


Both Klobuchar and Walz said they were aware of the problems, and wanted to find ways to fix it.

Walz says, "This health discussion has got to be broader, it's got to point out where there are weaknesses and failures, it's got to make sure we're not leaving people behind or distorting the system. But don't pretend there was some type of safe harbor before this where everything was just peachy keen."

I'm surprised Walz didn't tout the opportunity to escape "job lock."

[speechlesstx]

Senate Dems are asking Why Didn’t Someone Tell Us Obamacare Would Cut Medicare? You can't make this stuff up.

Meanwhile, "Covered" Californians are asking why we can't see a doctor? I'd say it's because those Dems who didn't bother to read the law and lied about it's greatness screwed you over.

[speechlesstx]

And now we have at least one desperate Dem who would vote to repeal.

A first Democratic senator has indicated he thinks it might be time to scrap Obamacare. While legislators should work to fix the law in the meantime, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia told Beckley’s Register Herald that he would support getting rid of the law entirely.


“I will vote tomorrow to repeal [the Affordable Care Act], but I want to fix the problems in it,” Manchin told an audience.

Who'll join him?

[talaniman]

Not me or anybody else who NEEDS the law. So be like Manchin and start fixing it to fit more peoples NEEDS. You don't have the votes to repeal, and you lost in court, so start fixing already.

[speechlesstx]

Not me or anybody else who NEEDS the law. So be like Manchin and start fixing it to fit more peoples NEEDS. You don't have the votes to repeal, and you lost in court, so start fixing already.

You guys are in charge, dude, what have you done to fix it?

[talaniman]

Keep you guys from repealing it.

[speechlesstx]

Keep you guys from repealing it.

Wow, that's an impressive "fix," what exactly has that fixed?

[talaniman]

A lot of people signing up and exploring their options. Options for good health they never had before.

[speechlesstx]

I believe you're in the denial stage of grief.

[speechlesstx]

Sebelius wants you to know Obamacare is not costing jobs, so in honor of her helpful remarks...

ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs - Investors.com

[tomder55]

Dan Henninger: The Rube Goldberg Democrats - WSJ.com

[speechlesstx]

Dan Henninger: The Rube Goldberg Democrats - WSJ.com

Precisely.

The Rube Goldberg Democrats means that whether from laziness or arrogance, the party is now producing political contraptions that are monuments to inefficiency, incomprehension and unworkability. Before ObamaCare, it often went unnoticed. But the health-care law sits out in plain view, letting every voter connect the dots between political promise and nonperformance.

First they lie about how fantastic it will be then they lie about how fantastic it is. Obama gets the maximum 4 Pinocchios for his Medicaid claim.

Obama’s claim that 7 million got ‘access to health care for the first time’ because of his Medicaid expansion


After the lie of the year his nose is getting remarkably long.

[talaniman]

Like that's the only lie in town,

Issa's 'suspicions' that Hillary Clinton told Panetta to 'stand down' on Benghazi

[speechlesstx]

Like that's the only lie in town,

Issa’s ‘suspicions’ that Hillary Clinton told Panetta to ‘stand down’ on Benghazi

Wrong thread, this is about the crap sandwich called (less and less) Obamacare.