Affordable Care Act A Train Wreck?

[esmith]

Well, it appears that the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare is having more problems.
1. Obamacare's employer mandate delayed to 2015 - Washington Times
1A. Is this legal? As much as I am against the ACA would like to know how the President can change a law by just a stroke of a pen. It also appears that this was done for political reasons. After the 2014 elections?????

2. http://www.tennessean.com/article/2...nce-exchanges-may-not-ready-by-Oct-1-deadline
2A. How will item 1A affect item 2? Doesn't look good. How will you know if will be covered by your employer since they don't have to do anything until 2015.

3. Obamacare leaves millions uninsured. Here’s who they are.
3A. Wasn't the ACA supposed to cover everyone?

4. List of Obamacare Exempt Companies
4A. Why the waivers? Maybe this answers the question... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-dont-have-comply-obamacare-says-crossroads-/

This is a Train Wreck that is going to hit the American public where it hurts. Hold on to your wallet or pocket book. If you pay taxes you are going to get slammed.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

You forgot to mention the sky is falling and the Devil went down to Georgia.

 

[Tarheeler]

Well, it appears that the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare is having more problems.
1. Obamacare's employer mandate delayed to 2015 - Washington Times
1A. Is this legal? As much as I am against the ACA would like to know how the President can change a law by just a stroke of a pen. It also appears that this was done for political reasons. After the 2014 elections?????

Yes, it's legal. Remember the "signing statements" Bush used to ignore bills he signed into law? Same thing. As head of the executive branch, the president has a say in if, when, and how agency directives are implemented.

2. Health insurance exchanges may not be ready by Oct. 1 deadline | The Tennessean | tennessean.com
2A. How will item 1A affect item 2? Doesn't look good. How will you know if will be covered by your employer since they don't have to do anything until 2015.

No clue.

3. Obamacare leaves millions uninsured. Here’s who they are.
3A. Wasn't the ACA supposed to cover everyone?

No, it wasn't.

4. List of Obamacare Exempt Companies
4A. Why the waivers? Maybe this answers the question... PolitiFact | Unions don't have to comply with Obamacare, says Crossroads GPS

Because it's politics as usual.

This is a Train Wreck that is going to hit the American public where it hurts. Hold on to your wallet or pocket book. If you pay taxes you are going to get slammed.

Gee, that describes just about every action our government has taken in the last 5 decades.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I have no faith in the American political system, for a variety of reasons. Politicians act out of their own greed, for wealth and power, nothing more. Obama is no different than Bush, Reagan, etc., etc. This doesn't excuse their actions, or our place in how the system is run, but it is what it is.

With that being said, I'm all for universal healthcare. However, Obama's bill is just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, that has no practical value at all. It would have been much easier to just extend Medicaid.

If you pay taxes you are going to get slammed.

This isn't what bothers me. I have no issue in paying a little more in taxes if it's going to benefit as many people as possible. What bothers me is that our taxes, both from the ACA, and in general, benefits no one except the politicians.

Politics in the US isn't a Republican vs. Democrat thing, as both parties are basically the same. It's not even a conservative vs. liberal thing; I'm one who considers himself quite liberal, but I understand that there are not only different points of view, but value in differing points of view. This is a fight against greed and ignorance, and takes place in each and ever person. Only when we understand the reasons why the current system has failed, can we even begin to see change for the positive. And it goes deeper, much deeper, than differing points of view of political philosophy; it comes down to intent, motive, and morality.

 

[Sea Monkey]

Of course you will not get slammed if your rich...

 

[esmith]

Yes, it's legal. Remember the "signing statements" Bush used to ignore bills he signed into law? Same thing. As head of the executive branch, the president has a say in if, when, and how agency directives are implemented.

I think you might be wrong about a "signing statement" being able to stop a law that has already been passed and signed into law by the President. I direct your attention to the following from Signing Statements
Unlike vetoes, signing statements are not part of the legislative process as set forth in the Constitution, and have no legal effect. A signed law is still a law regardless of what the President says in an accompanying signing statement. In 1972, after President Nixon in a signing statement indicated that a provision in a bill submitted to him did not "represent the policies of this Administration" and was "without binding force or effect," a federal district court held that no executive statement, even by a President, "denying efficacy to the legislation could have either validity or effect." DaCosta v. Nixon, 55 F.R.D. 145, 146 (E.D.N.Y. 1972).

Also from Additional information
The President of the United States has awesome power, but the Constitution does not give the occupant of that office the authority to “eliminate” a law that has been passed by Congress, whatever the voters may think of that law. It is a fairly common rhetorical flourish for presidential candidates to say something like “when elected, I will repeal” a law. But they can’t.
Therefor whatever a former President has or has not done has no bearing on the Constitution. I have no idea who will challenge the legality of his actions. I do not suspect that the Republicans will do so, but I am sure they will use it as a political point against the entire ACA.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think that "ObamaCare" merely starts the conversation. It's a flawed reform becayse the Republicans were determined to undermine it. There's so much resistance to socialized healthcare in the United States that it will take 30+ years at least to completely overhaul the system.

Then - maybe - the United States can join the rest of Western civilization.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think that "ObamaCare" merely starts the conversation. It's a flawed reform becayse the Republicans were determined to undermine it. There's so much resistance to socialized healthcare in the United States that it will take 30+ years at least to completely overhaul the system.

Then - maybe - the United States can join the rest of Western civilization.

Amen!!

 

[esmith]

I think that "ObamaCare" merely starts the conversation. It's a flawed reform becayse the Republicans were determined to undermine it. There's so much resistance to socialized healthcare in the United States that it will take 30+ years at least to completely overhaul the system.

Then - maybe - the United States can join the rest of Western civilization.

Why do you say it is the Republicans fault that the implementation of the ACA is having serious problems? If I remember correctly it the ACA was basically written and passed along party lines by the majority party that held both the Presidency, Senate, and the House which were the Democrats. If the bill is so poorly written that it can not be implemented I would have to say it is the Democrats that are at fault. As far as socialized healthcare that is your opinion and from the current feeling of the American public a minority opinion.

 

[Mister_T]

Why do you say it is the Republicans fault that the implementation of the ACA is having serious problems?

Because the majority of them and some "Blue Dog" Democrats cried about how a public option would put the poor, poor insurance companies out of business because they couldn't compete with a public option. This Frankenstein-bill is the result of so-called compromise, much of which the compromise was in favor of what Republicans and Blue Dogs were screaming for.

As far as socialized healthcare that is your opinion and from the current feeling of the American public a minority opinion.

Pretty sure having a public option is not a minority opinion in America.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

As far as socialized healthcare that is your opinion and from the current feeling of the American public a minority opinion.

From what I've seen, a small majority are in favor of some sort of universal healthcare. But this is the same as a majority being in favor of homosexual marriage, yet those who decry it are saying that the majority of Americans still favor "traditional" marriage. Certain ideas generally associated with conservatives are falling out of favor, and the US is starting to turn toward what passes as liberalism here. This isn't a bad thing, this is the nature of progress. There's nothing wrong with wanting to make sure that as many people as possible have at least the basic necessities.

I said earlier that I consider myself a liberal, and here's the reason: liberalism, in my opinion, is the more spiritual of the two competing philosophies. Liberalism favors the best possible for the greatest amount of people, while conservatism focuses on the individual. Being a Buddhist, my political philosophies are tempered by my Buddhist beliefs, and the majority of scholars are in agreement that the Buddha was quite the liberal. He said that there were four things necessary for life: food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. He also taught that one should have compassion and loving-kindness for all sentient beings. To me, this is what liberalism is attempting to achieve, on some level or another. It's not perfect, so human system of politics is going to be. But, to me, it's better than the alternative. This isn't to say that conservatism is necessarily bad or wrong, just the less admirable of the two options, in my opinion.

 

[idea]

...Obama's bill is just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, that has no practical value at all. It would have been much easier to just extend Medicaid.

Exactly, what was needed was to fix Medicaid/Medicare. If people are poor and need some help with their healthcare - then I'm all for helping poor people... But the gov does not need to dictate healthcare regulations to middle class / rich people.

 

[Tarheeler]

I think you might be wrong about a "signing statement" being able to stop a law that has already been passed and signed into law by the President. I direct your attention to the following from Signing Statements
Unlike vetoes, signing statements are not part of the legislative process as set forth in the Constitution, and have no legal effect. A signed law is still a law regardless of what the President says in an accompanying signing statement. In 1972, after President Nixon in a signing statement indicated that a provision in a bill submitted to him did not "represent the policies of this Administration" and was "without binding force or effect," a federal district court held that no executive statement, even by a President, "denying efficacy to the legislation could have either validity or effect." DaCosta v. Nixon, 55 F.R.D. 145, 146 (E.D.N.Y. 1972).

Also from Additional information
The President of the United States has awesome power, but the Constitution does not give the occupant of that office the authority to “eliminate” a law that has been passed by Congress, whatever the voters may think of that law. It is a fairly common rhetorical flourish for presidential candidates to say something like “when elected, I will repeal” a law. But they can’t.
Therefor whatever a former President has or has not done has no bearing on the Constitution. I have no idea who will challenge the legality of his actions. I do not suspect that the Republicans will do so, but I am sure they will use it as a political point against the entire ACA.

I never said that the signing statements "stopped" the law, or that the president could eliminate it.

Bush (and those before him) used them to show his displeasure with a law, and then used his authority as head of the executive branch to not implement them. Obama has used them in the same way.

But the allusion to them was only to show the correlation between this administration and those that preceded it.

While Congress drafts laws, and the Supreme Court can find them constitutional, only the executive branch can put them into action and enforce them. The president, as head of his branch, makes the ultimate decision of what the agencies under his control will, or won't, do. The Unitary Executive Theory has been a favorite of presidents for quite awhile.

 

[esmith]

Why do you say it is the Republicans fault that the implementation of the ACA is having serious problems? If I remember correctly it the ACA was basically written and passed along party lines by the majority party that held both the Presidency, Senate, and the House which were the Democrats. If the bill is so poorly written that it can not be implemented I would have to say it is the Democrats that are at fault. .

Because the majority of them and some "Blue Dog" Democrats cried about how a public option would put the poor, poor insurance companies out of business because they couldn't compete with a public option. This Frankenstein-bill is the result of so-called compromise, much of which the compromise was in favor of what Republicans and Blue Dogs were screaming for.

Are you trying to tell me that because the minority party and a few Democrats (who were "bought off") had any influence on what Nancy Pelosi wanted. You do realize don't you that this plan was formulated by Democrats and rammed through Congress without anyone really understanding what the ACA actually said.
Remember Pelosi saying "We have to pass the Bill so that you can find out what is in it" Well it appears that what is in it isn't what was promised.

 

[esmith]

I never said that the signing statements "stopped" the law, or that the president could eliminate it.

Bush (and those before him) used them to show his displeasure with a law, and then used his authority as head of the executive branch to not implement them. Obama has used them in the same way.

But the allusion to them was only to show the correlation between this administration and those that preceded it.

While Congress drafts laws, and the Supreme Court can find them constitutional, only the executive branch can put them into action and enforce them. The president, as head of his branch, makes the ultimate decision of what the agencies under his control will, or won't, do. The Unitary Executive Theory has been a favorite of presidents for quite awhile.

I do not think that Obama's current decision to not implement one section of the ACA will be challenged in court, but it would be an interesting case that would eventually wind up in the Supreme Court. A simple read:
Can the President Refuse to Enforce or Defend a Law? | RedState

 

[Tarheeler]

I do not think that Obama's current decision to not implement one section of the ACA will be challenged in court, but it would be an interesting case that would eventually wind up in the Supreme Court. A simple read:
Can the President Refuse to Enforce or Defend a Law? | RedState

I wonder why the author of the article chooses to ignore the actions of every president to serve since at least the end of Great Depression (and most likely much earlier). Obama has done nothing but follow in the foot steps of those who have before him (and doing with such precision, at that). Simply put, as the head of the executive branch, it is at the presidents discretion to choose when and how to implement laws and whether or not to defend them in court. And this discretion has already been addressed in both Congress (they have never been able to successfully pass a bill which would curb it) and the Supreme Court (which, while curtailing some actions, has protected others).

If you're really interested in the topic, The Imperial Presidency is a good read, and both Clinton and G.W. Bush are fine examples of "imperial" presidents.

ETA: esmith, could you link a few Supreme Court cases where the act of a president not defending a law in court or not implementing a law has been found unconstitutional? Thanks.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's an old article, but the interesting parts are the clear separation of current healthcare model between the USA and the rest of the developed world, and the current spend per capita on health-care.

I'm not convinced a universal healthcare model equates to greater long-term spending.

To be honest, though, I'm confused by some of the arguments against universal healthcare in the USA. I can understand arguments over details. Arguing over the concept is confusing to me though.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why do you say it is the Republicans fault

Because it is their fault. They fought tooth and nail against every tiny item in "ObamaCare," forcing the legislation to go through with the least amount of effectiveness as possible. Then they criticize Obama for not being able to do it right.

Republicans are the only hurtle to affordable healthcare in the United States of America. If the opposite were true in the slightest, there would have been and would be enthusiastic Republican support for healthcare reform.

 

[ZooGirl02]

I have heard from several online sources and a few people in real life who say that Obamacare is a "train wreck" and that it will cause more problems than it will solve. I am not sure as to whether I can personally agree with that.

That said, I honestly wish we had a system like what Canada has where healthcare is completely covered by the government and is free for all. That's my own opinion on health care. But anyway, if I am misunderstanding Canada's health care system, please let me know.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have heard from several online sources and a few people in real life who say that Obamacare is a "train wreck" and that it will cause more problems than it will solve. I am not sure as to whether I can personally agree with that.

That said, I honestly wish we had a system like what Canada has where healthcare is completely covered by the government and is free for all. That's my own opinion on health care. But anyway, if I am misunderstanding Canada's health care system, please let me know.

I agree. Too many people have their hand in the cookie jar for this to happen in the United States.

I must give Obama an E for effort, but something has to be done that distracts the Republicans long enough for action to be taken. I've suggested many times to give them a sandbox to govern so they don't do any real damage. Or stipulate than Republicans can only vote on legislation for ants.

Unfortunately, and to the detriment of our country, the Republicans are unified and mobilized on the basis of fear of X. They've been crying wolf so many times that it's impossible to trust them when they are concerned about anything -- and there's not much they are concerned about that can't be taken care of with an anthill rather than a country.

Anyway, I wish that weren't relevant but it's the hand we're dealt. Unfortunately. I wish Republicans had something to contribute to the conversation.

I've been scratching my head wondering why on earth Obama (and co.) chose to reform the health care system by using the insurance model --- a model which has a death grip on American healthcare. I get reforming the insurance system itself, but the insurance companies were so involved that it was basically self-regulation. Sure, they cry and moan and they lose some money, but they will profit from this - perhaps greatly.

Unfortunately, I don't think that the Republican machine is going to change its ways. If they didn't change after the Iraq debacle and especially after destroying the financial system in the country and resisting any effort to correct it, and then resisting every aspect of healthcare reform, it's not going to happen any time soon because too many people in the party are convinced that what they've done is right -- and that is very disturbing.

It will take a massive paradigm shift -- more than losing a war or two, losing all credibility with the international community, losing an economy, and losing elections. I'm thinking invasion by aliens or a nuclear or zombie holocaust. But then all these reforms won't matter.