Chuck Todd: C’mon, Obama has no power to make this ObamaCare fix

posted at 11:25 am on November 15, 2013 by Allahpundit

True or false? When Greg Sargent asked the White House what authority they have to waive the consumer protections required by ObamaCare, they pointed him to a Supreme Court case from the mid-80s that says a federal agency usually can’t be compelled to apply a federal law in a particular circumstance. Specifically, if I’m understanding the case correctly, a bunch of states were using drugs for lethal injections that had been approved by the FDA for medical purposes but not for the purpose of execution; a bunch of prisoners asked the FDA to investigate the suitability of those drugs for lethal applications. When the FDA refused, the prisoners sued to try to force them. The Supreme Court sided with the FDA, reasoning that citizens can’t force a federal agency to apply a law in each and every circumstance. There has to be some discretion for an agency to say no. If there isn’t, the courts will be filled with lawsuits by aggrieved people trying to force the feds to act on whatever their particular grievance happens to be. Essentially, judges would find themselves being asked to set an agency’s priorities case-by-case.

That’s how I read (and by “read,” I of course mean “quickly skimmed”) the case. There’s a difference, though, between the FDA refusing to apply a statute in a particular circumstance and HHS refusing to enforce ObamaCare in every circumstance, as a matter of policy, which is effectively what O’s “fix” does. He’s telling every insurer everywhere that, for the next year, there’ll be no federal action against plans that fail to comply with the consumer protections required by ObamaCare — which is not unlike what he told DREAMers last year in declaring that there’ll be no deportation actions taken against anyone who meets certain criteria. Is that executive “discretion” in enforcing a statute, or is it effectively re-writing the statute by imposing a blanket policy on when it’ll be enforced? Jonathan Adler:

In other words, the Administration is not changing the law. It’s just announcing it will not enforce federal law (while simultaneously threatening to veto legislation that would authorize the step the President has decided to take).

Does this make the renewal of non-compliant policies legal? No. The legal requirement remains on the books so the relevant health insurance plans remain illegal under federal law. The President’s decision does not change relevant state laws either. So insurers will still need to obtain approval from state insurance commissioners. This typically requires submitting rates and plan specifications for approval. This can take some time, and is disruptive because most insurance companies have already set their offerings for the next year. It’s no wonder that some insurance commissioners have already indicated they have no plans to approve non-compliant plans.

Yet even if state commissioners approve the plans, they will still be illegal under federal law. Given this fact, why would any insurance company agree to renew such a plan? It’s nice that regulators may forbear enforcing the relevant regulatory requirements, but this is not the only source of potential legal jeopardy. So, for instance, what happens when there’s a legal dispute under one of these policies? Say, for instance, an insurance company denies payment for something that is not covered under the policy but that would have been covered under the PPACA and the insured sues? Would an insurance company really want to have to defend this decision in court? After all, this would place the insurance company in the position of seeking judicial enforcement of an illegal insurance policy.

If a private citizen sued HHS for failing to act against a particular plan offered by a particular insurer that didn’t comply with ObamaCare, that would be similar to the Supreme Court case that the White House is banking on. But what happens when they categorically refuse to act against any insurer for failing to comply with the act? What the White House is really banking on here, I think, isn’t that their action is “legal” so much as it is nonjusticiable. They’re hoping/expecting that the Supremes will turn around and find either that no one has standing to sue (which is what Mike Lee seems to think might happen) or that the Court will agree with the precedent that the White House is touting by finding the lack of enforcement effectively unreviewable as an administrative matter. It’s not that it’s “legal,” exactly, just that there’s … nothing you can really do about it.

Exit question: In the mid-80s case mentioned above, the Court said “In so holding, we essentially leave to Congress, and not to the courts, the decision as to whether an agency’s refusal to institute proceedings should be judicially reviewable.” That is, if Congress inserts language into a statute that says courts should be allowed to hear lawsuits aimed at forcing an agency to enforce the law, then the suit can proceed. Is there any language to that effect in the ObamaCare statute? I’m asking earnestly.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

OT – Andy Parks played the “Ed Scream” on his show and compared it to Dr. Yeargh!

What’s the new adage. It’s not over until the unhinged liberal screams?

22044 on November 15, 2013 at 11:31 AM

King Barack.

LASue on November 15, 2013 at 11:31 AM

What a complete joke our nation is. Just a laughable joke. Democrat. GOP. Congress. Presidency. Supreme Court. Just a pathetic joke.

oldroy on November 15, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Magna Carta? Never heard of it.

/Obama

gwelf on November 15, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Bank robbery is a federal crime. Imagine if Dear Liar said that for 2014 he would not enforce the federal bank robbery statute.

well, it would still be a state crime, not to mention that there is no guarantee that The Whine wouldn’t then retroactively enforce the law in 2015.

Unless Congress passes a law, even overriding a veto, if I’m an insurance company, I’m not offering any of my “junk” plans. President Petulant has no credibility left.

rbj on November 15, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Law? We don’t need no stinking law! This administration is the biggest bunch of weasels ever.

major dad on November 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Essentially, judges would find themselves being asked to set an agency’s priorities case-by-case.

After about 6 months of that process, Congresscritters would have a much better understanding of what is, and is not, Constitutional.

I say lets go for it.

The lesson here is simply “don’t make laws that you don’t understand”

BobMbx on November 15, 2013 at 11:36 AM

The next Republican president is going to have SO MUCH fun with all the REB’s precedents.

slickwillie2001 on November 15, 2013 at 11:36 AM

HE really does expect everyone to acquiesce to HIS commands and/or suggestions. This guy is really creepy!

ORrighty on November 15, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Bank robbery Entering this country without permission is a federal crime. Imagine if Dear Liar said that for 2014 he would not enforce the federal bank robbery statute borders.

rbj on November 15, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Whoa…….

BobMbx on November 15, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Yeah! Send it to John Roberts instead!

WryTrvllr on November 15, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Todd’s right, he fixed nothing. He simply delayed the enforcement of a valid law, totally confused the issue and left the populace to worry about their health insurance when the year has ended. This country and its government are a sad, painful joke.

rplat on November 15, 2013 at 11:40 AM

He doesn’t and he is a hypocritical charlatanic thug.

He will veto the very bill he yacked around the edges about, yesterday.

He is a Fraud in Chief, a laughing stock.

It’s schadenfreudig to watch the self-appointed god drop to earth like a big turkey, and to be allowed to live, to watch the aftermath. His arrogance and narcissism are exposed for the whole world to watch. It’s the ultimate punishment, well deserved, self-made.

The children stand to learn a lot from his example.

Schadenfreude on November 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM

This low-rent dimwit thug has done irreparable harm to the office of the President. If he is not impeached the descent into tyranny will be complete. No one elected president will be able to resist the raw power that Oblama’s precedent has established. We the People must reign in our public servants before it is too late.

Repeal, impeach, convict!

cornbred on November 15, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Obama’s CFPB is doing the same thing with the draconian new Dodd-Frank mortgage rules that go into effect in January. Nobody is ready to comply with these rules (some of them were just changed in July) and the entire industry has been begging for months for a regulatory extension. More than half the Congress has written to request an extension. The Administration has refused, and instead tries to reassure the banks privately that it won’t enforce the regs for a while until everyone can get into compliance.

Why should any private business believe this Administration on this sort of thing? Business is getting whipsawed here, the Justice Department and other regulators continue to hyper-enforce some laws and regs and extract huge fines and settlements, but then they expect business to operate in violation of the law because the President or an agency head says “trust us, we won’t come after you?”

Come on. As my Granny used to say, I was born at night, but not last night.

rockmom on November 15, 2013 at 11:43 AM

This is just like the 100 light bulb ban thing….they passed a bill saying that they would not enforce the law outlawing them. What moron would import illegal bulbs with the assurance that we wont do anything to you.

Im dumbfounded why the drumbeat or repeal..repeal ..repeal is not going . Present the free market approach…across state lines….maybe come up with something for pre-existing stuff. But if we cant get rid of this thing now we are finished.

lostinjrz on November 15, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Best article of them all

Schadenfreude on November 15, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Yeah he won’t enforce the law… and if you believe him, then you deserve the pain you will get.

For this President could still have Holder record the companies and individuals who didn’t abide by the law and then, in say 2015, start selectively prosecuting them. Really, what is this man’s promise worth?

ajacksonian on November 15, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Our legal system has become a hollow shell where lawyers betray the Constitution over nuance in language.

Panther on November 15, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Can the President of the United States tell states to ignore federal law?

“This is a staggering display of a reckless president cavalierly instructing states to ignore federal law. President Obama is shifting the blame by saying it’s up to states and state insurance commissioners to fix the massive problem his signature law has created for millions of Americans who are losing their health insurance…”

Gov. Rick Perry (TX)

workingclass artist on November 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM

This really is the keystone cops. The “fix” isn’t going to fix anything, just give dems political cover – until, wait for it: Next October when exactly the same thing (only on a much larger scale because employer plans will be involved) happens! What happens early in November 2014? Midterm elections. Great timing, guys!

jdp629 on November 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM

“I’m an utter dummy, but trust me”

Schadenfreude on November 15, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Make Obama and the Democrats own this disaster every day until election day 2014.
And then every day after that.

They screwed with people’s money.
They screwed with people’s families.
They screwed with people’s health.

22044 on November 15, 2013 at 11:53 AM

As long as we have a corrupt President controlling a corrupt Justice Department we will be lawless except at the discretion of the corrupt. That pretty much means that we now have a totalitarian government and impeachment is the only option to fix it.

cajunpatriot on November 15, 2013 at 11:53 AM

The next moron in charge of health…the future of h/c in America, same 3rd world as all the rest of the stupid Western world.

Good luck America

Schadenfreude on November 15, 2013 at 11:55 AM

While the case from the 80s may give the Executive broad discretionary enforcement powers, it doesn’t give cover to companies that are not complying with a federal statute.

In my limited legal mind, I would think that’s enough grounds for another suit and potentially a different outcome. Are there other instances of companies flagrantly disobeying a federal “law” that’s not being enforced? Because I would think you’d need to file some form of disclosure for that.

Bet some poor SEC Reporting groups in health insurance companies are freaking out right now.

John_Locke on November 15, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Unfortunately, the GOP Congressional Leadership has basically done nothing to contest all of the previous examples of constitutional overreach by the President to unilaterally change the laws of the land.

Not doing so in the past was / is a major mistake, and one of the reasons why I hold that leadership in such contempt.

This is yet another case where the GOP Congressional Leadership can make a constitutional stand on this and directly challenge the President’s authority. They have to take that step.

One of the side benefits of making this the hill to charge up is the fact, as noted by Chuck Todd, and a growing number of the lapdog media, is that they believe that the President has also overreached his authority in this matter. Combine this with a dozen or so Senate Democrats who see Obamacare as a real and direct threat to their reelection in Nov 2014, and this is a hill the GOP doesn’t have to charge up alone.

Athos on November 15, 2013 at 11:56 AM

“There is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate”

Charlatanic Fraud in Chief.

obama is not legitimate after the 2012 election.

Schadenfreude on November 15, 2013 at 11:57 AM

The liability for insurance companies you highlight, in trying to enforce the provisions of a plan illegal under federal law (even if approved under state law) might be addressable with a choice of venue and law provision. But the complexity and potential for financial disaster is so overwhelming that I can’t imagine a company being willing to ignore three years of regulatory change, not to mention the ACA itself, to help out the President with a short term cosmetic fix. It’s one year, after all, and today’s problem (5 or 6 million people) is going to be 15x bigger at this time next fall, when the employer plans go into the grinder.

What happens then? Another panic attack?

Repeal is the only way out, followed by day and night activity among insurers and state regulators to get people covered temporarily while a more permanent resolution is developed. Ultimately, Congress will have to write a giant check to the industry to get out from under this problem.

There is a good reason why the Feds should not be involved in state affairs (regulating insurance policies sold in the states) or private industry, and this debacle is a great illustration of why.

MTF on November 15, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Furthermore, as I posted in another thread, Megan McArdle raises another interesting aspect of this that makes the 80′s SCOTUS ruling mute….

The administration is not changing the rules, just declining to enforce them against the insurers. This is becoming a pattern: Obama’s position on the law seems to be that it’s his law, and therefore the law is whatever he and his appointees say it is. That’s dangerous for all sorts of reasons, not least because it makes them vulnerable to court action.

Presumably they will also not enforce the mandate against people who have grandfathered plans. But that raises an interesting legal issue. Remember that in 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the mandate was a tax. And as a lawyer of my acquaintance points out, taxes have to be enforced uniformly; the Internal Revenue Service can pick and choose who it audits, but it cannot pick and choose who has to obey the law. If it declines to enforce the mandate against grandfathered consumers, it’s conceivably opening itself up to a bunch of legal challenges.

What we might have brewing here is a political ‘perfect storm’ that has the possibility of turning the direction of this country around faster and more decisively than the 2008 election did.

Athos on November 15, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Obama is at the point where he is the dutch boy sticking his finger in the dike…..

Eventually – Obama will drown when the dike bursts.

In the meantime – millions are without health insurance and their health problems are still here.

redguy on November 15, 2013 at 11:59 AM

It’s not that it’s “legal,” exactly, just that there’s … nothing you can really do about it.

This is f**king insanity! This bastard needs to be impeached, like last year!

jawkneemusic on November 15, 2013 at 11:59 AM

I’m thoroughly enjoying this. Is that wrong? He’s damned if they renew the old policies b/c Ocare will implode and he damned if he doesn’t b/c Dems are freaking out and Ocare will still implode. This is just so much fun to watch.

JAM on November 15, 2013 at 11:59 AM

When in doubt, consult Alinsky to decode the Obama Mystery

The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted

- a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse

- to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed.

As Alinsky put it: “A reformation means that the masses of our people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values. They don’t know what will work but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating, and hopeless. They won’t act for change but won’t strongly oppose those who do. The time is then ripe for revolution.

Obama is not concerned about his current predicament. He is near victory.

faraway on November 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM

This is yet another case where the GOP Congressional Leadership can make a constitutional stand on this and directly challenge the President’s authority. They have to take that step.

Challenge the “Historic Presidency”? Forget it.

HB3 on November 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Politico comment

dontlivehereanymore
• 16 hours ago

One of the real tragedies of all of this : for decades decent minorities fought for civil right and equalities – and the moment they get their first black president he turns out to be a dictator – liar – a complete fraud !

Schadenfreude on November 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM

It’s not that it’s “legal,” exactly, just that there’s … nothing you can really do about it.

This is f**king insanity! This bastard needs to be impeached, like last year!

jawkneemusic on November 15, 2013 at 11:59 AM

We may have to wait until after the 2014 elections before there is enough critical mass to impeach and convict….

How many dems left will support Obamas insanity after 2014??

redguy on November 15, 2013 at 12:01 PM

One of the real tragedies of all of this : for decades decent minorities fought for civil right and equalities – and the moment they get their first black president he turns out to be a dictator – liar – a complete fraud !

Not a tragedy – many, many people saw Obama for what he was. The dems supported him because he was (half) balck and knew they could play the race card. In this case they had a losing hand.

redguy on November 15, 2013 at 12:02 PM

I would like impeachment next year, but the momentum might not be there.

Not yet, anyway.

22044 on November 15, 2013 at 12:03 PM

“All during the debate, Democratic officeholders, aides, policy wonks, advocates and sympathetic journalists all knew coverage cancellations would be coming as part of Obamacare. Of course, the president knew, too. When Obama made the keep-your-coverage promise, over and over, those Washington insiders accepted the untruth as a necessary part of the process, something Democrats had to do to pass their bill.

But millions of Americans didn’t get the memo and took Obama at his word. And now that the promise has been proven false, the president is trying to recover his credibility — his desire to do so was painfully evident at his long and sometimes rambling news conference Thursday — and his party is searching for cover.

And the media cover up continues. Today, Obama and Democrats have merely traded one lie in for another. The new lie is that only 5% of the public will be affected by insurance cancellations:

The situation could become infinitely worse if problems now plaguing the individual insurance market begin to infect employer-based insurance, which covers by far the largest number of Americans.

Once ObamaCare hits the employer-market, what is happening today will look like the good old days. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that tens of millions will lose their insurance. Other estimates go as high as 93 million.

But the media is covering that fact up…”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/11/15/york-sympathetic-journalists-knew-cancellations-coming

workingclass artist on November 15, 2013 at 12:06 PM

The rule of law boils down to whatever you can get away with.

tommyboy on November 15, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Dozens of times (that we know of) over his campaign to pass ObamaCare and to win re-election, President Obama lied to the American people about being able to keep the health insurance they like. But that lie has only been replaced with another: the lie that these cancellations will be limited to the 5% of Americans in the individual marketplace — when the truth is that these cancellations have only just begun.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/14/insurance-cancellations-just-beginning

Only last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a Senate panel she doubted that retroactively permitting insurers to sell canceled policies “can work very well since companies are now in the market with an array of new plans. Many have actually added consumer protections in the last three-and-a-half years.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/14/obama-sell-canceled-policies

davidk on November 15, 2013 at 12:08 PM

It’s all rather simple. “The law” is what King Barack says it is at any given moment in time. All Hail The Obamassiah!

GarandFan on November 15, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Yet even if state commissioners approve the plans, they will still be illegal under federal law. Given this fact, why would any insurance company agree to renew such a plan?

This is an excellent point, and it just might be exactly what the insurance companies need to do to beat back the president’s buck-passing attempt.

“Mr, president, you are asking us to violate the law based solely on your word that you will not enforce it later on. This is impossible. Putting aside the fact that such an action would require a great deal of trust that, quite frankly, isn’t there, you are asking us and our shareholders to risk setting our rates with no assurance that when the political environment changes, you will rescind them.

On the advice of both our attorneys, as well as those representing our investors (which include many mutual funds managing many people’s personal savings), we must wait until congress passes a law. Even then, the logistics alone will likely make this difficult if not impossible.

RINO in Name Only on November 15, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Obama is not concerned about his current predicament. He is near victory.
 
faraway on November 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM

 
+1. It’s happening too fast, though. People can still easily remember what pre-Obamacare life was like.

rogerb on November 15, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Chief Justice Roberts just CAN’T WAIT to rule in Obama’s favor on this.

portlandon on November 15, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Once you have everyone breaking the law, it’s pretty easy for the government to stifle any dissent. If you support the regime, your crimes are ignored. If you dissent, your crimes are prosecuted. Simple as that.

besser tot als rot on November 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM

What a cluster

gophergirl on November 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM

The Scorpion and the Frog.

I won’t enforce the law and cripple your business if you don’t follow it. It’s not like that behavior is in my nature. You can trust me.

njrob on November 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Poor Chucky … left at the altar by President Boyfriend … again.

Pork-Chop on November 15, 2013 at 12:12 PM

The whole “standing” issue is ridiculous. Any citizen of the United States should have standing to initiate a lawsuit over the constitutionality of any law or any executive action. We are all inherently damaged when an administration, or a Congress, acts unconstitutionally. The idea that no action of our government can be challenged unless you can show some direct financial damage is ludicrous.

Shump on November 15, 2013 at 12:12 PM

I would like impeachment next year, but the momentum might not be there.

Not yet, anyway.

22044 on November 15, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Dem bumpersticker: “GOP impeached the Black President”

If you like Socialism, go for it.

faraway on November 15, 2013 at 12:12 PM

It’s not that it’s “legal,” exactly, just that there’s … nothing you can really do about it.

This is f**king insanity! This bastard needs to be impeached, like last year!

jawkneemusic on November 15, 2013 at 11:59 AM

We may have to wait until after the 2014 elections before there is enough critical mass to impeach and convict….

How many dems left will support Obamas insanity after 2014??

redguy on November 15, 2013 at 12:01 PM

This underscores the necessity of taking back the Senate next year. If Senate dhimmicRATs hang onto their seats they may go into lame duck mode when it comes to an impeachment trial.

We need to send a clear message to dims and the GOPe that we will no longer tolerate politicians who ignore the rule of law.

davidk on November 15, 2013 at 12:12 PM

I’m elated about the death of OCare. But it’s still too slow for me. Those weasels in Washington are crafty sobs and if there is a way to keep this beast alive they’ll figure it out. NO DEALS ON OCARE , you GOPE SISSIES! It’s time to do something productive for once in your miserable scheming lives. Stand up to the dems chicanery(and that they’ve got a lot of chicans left in the coop). Do your job GOP!

BoxHead1 on November 15, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Dem bumpersticker: “GOP impeached the Black President”

If you like Socialism, go for it.

faraway on November 15, 2013 at 12:12 PM

We’d have to get Dems on board. They wouldn’t because they have any cojones, but they might if they have to do so to save their political hides.

22044 on November 15, 2013 at 12:15 PM

A decision not to enforce a law does not excuse the requirement to comply with it. Moreover, if an identified person can demonstrate s/he has suffered harm from violation of a statute meant to protect him/her, s/he would have standing to sue individually — or in a class action, more likely. So the insurers would still be exposed to enormous legal risk from civil suits if they continued non-compliant policies, even if not criminal prosecutions. It’s also fully conceivable that in 2015, Eric Holder will sue insurance companies for their non-compliant 2014 policies. The policies still did not comply with the law, and the Obamaniacs are not at all averse to changing their minds, turning on their allies, screwing over whoever they want.

Zumkopf on November 15, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Can you imagine the Democrat loud and indeed justified demands for impeachment if a President Romney ruled by decree that portions of Congress’ Obamacare law were not enforceable?

Why then aren’t the Republicans demeaning impeachment of Mr. Obama for his long and egregious record of refusing to enforce the law?

Bart DePalma on November 15, 2013 at 12:19 PM

WTF… all O A Sudden Barry is limited by the constitution…..

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahh

roflmmfao

donabernathy on November 15, 2013 at 12:23 PM

This is just like the 100 light bulb ban thing….they passed a bill saying that they would not enforce the law outlawing them. What moron would import illegal bulbs with the assurance that we wont do anything to you.Im dumbfounded why the drumbeat or repeal..repeal ..repeal is not going . Present the free market approach…across state lines….maybe come up with something for pre-existing stuff. But if we cant get rid of this thing now we are finished.
lostinjrz on November 15, 2013 at 11:44 AM

He likes arbitrary rules like this so he has room to punish enemies and reward friends. If any of these insurance companies donate to the GOP next year, they will be punished for pushing substandard policies. Those that don’t will be rewarded with a wink on their policies. All part of the Alinsky rules.

AH_C on November 15, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Can you imagine the Democrat loud and indeed justified demands for impeachment if a President Romney ruled by decree that portions of Congress’ Obamacare law were not enforceable?

Why then aren’t the Republicans demeaning impeachment of Mr. Obama for his long and egregious record of refusing to enforce the law?

Bart DePalma on November 15, 2013 at 12:19 PM

They should but like faraway wrote it’s not easy to impeach the historic guy.

I’ll be happy if they fight for repeal or de-funding. Anything else will guarantee socialized medicine. You can’t contain this big(1/6th of the economy) a monster. It needs to be killed. The quicker the better.

BoxHead1 on November 15, 2013 at 12:25 PM

I’m elated about the death of OCare. But it’s still too slow for me. Those weasels in Washington are crafty sobs and if there is a way to keep this beast alive they’ll figure it out. NO DEALS ON OCARE , you GOPE SISSIES! It’s time to do something productive for once in your miserable scheming lives. Stand up to the dems chicanery(and that they’ve got a lot of chicans left in the coop). Do your job GOP!

BoxHead1 on November 15, 2013 at 12:15 PM

I want a slow painful death so it negatively effects dhimmicRATs in 2014 races.

NO DEALS ON OCARE , you GOPE SISSIES! It’s time to do something productive for once in your miserable scheming lives.

We can only hope:

Republicans were unimpressed with the changes.

House Speaker John Boehner, speaking in advance of the president’s announcement, insisted it was time to “scrap this law once and for all.”

“You can’t fix this government-run health care plan called Obamacare ,” he said. “It’s just not fixable.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/14/obama-sell-canceled-policies

davidk on November 15, 2013 at 12:29 PM

If Obama decides to not enforce the regulations Sebelius wrote on individual health insurance policies, that might prevent insurers from cancelling policies between now and December 31, but it doesn’t force insurers to reinstate previously cancelled policies, because the ACA law hasn’t been changed by Congress, and those 5 million people who have lost their health insurance are still uninsured.

Democrats in Congress up for re-election in 2014 know this, and they might join Republicans in changing the ACA in order to help the 5 million people find insurance, if not by January 1, sometime in 2014. Only Congress has the power to change a law.

While Democrats in Congress are trying to save their sorry butts, Republicans should push for a permanent repeal of the employer mandate for next year…with all the panic the individual mandate is causing now, Democrats might just vote with them!

Steve Z on November 15, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Unless Congress passes a law, even overriding a veto, if I’m an insurance company, I’m not offering any of my “junk” plans. President Petulant has no credibility left.

rbj on November 15, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Not only that, the insurance company would naturally have to worry about Obama, the Liar in Chief, changing his mind and deciding to enforce the law or, worse, selective enforcement as to that individual company, say for instance, if there was a dispute between the company and HHS on an unrelated matter or for mere revenge because the company was supporting too many Republicans in the 2014 races.

So, none of these companies are going to offer such plans unless Congress acts to require them to. They certainly aren’t going to offer them voluntarily for a whole host of reasons, the one above and the very impossibility of getting them re-approved before January 1 by the state commissions.

TXUS on November 15, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Obama’s position on the law seems to be that it’s his law, and therefore the law is whatever he and his appointees say it is. That’s dangerous for all sorts of reasons, not least because it makes them vulnerable to court action.

It’s Parliament’s behavior like that which founders like Madison wanted to avoid in setting up a Supreme Court so the authors could split up the powers of writing and interpreting laws.

Parliament would vote once to pass a law, and then several times again and again to define what previous sessions meant by the established law. Of course, Parliament was many elected representatives not a singularly elected leader and his appointed cronies. But it is the very reason that we suffer through a not-fully-conceived Supreme Court’s effective oligarchy and paternalism that the founders did not want a larger, elected body doing precisely this. Thus how much more in keeping with the separation of powers is one man doing the same thing.

Axeman on November 15, 2013 at 12:44 PM

So, how do dictatorships get started anyway?

Akzed on November 15, 2013 at 12:46 PM

“There is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate”

Schadenfreude on November 15, 2013 at 11:57 AM

If only the IRS would take that explanation….

“There is no doubt that the way I represented my income ended up not being accurate.”

Axeman on November 15, 2013 at 12:47 PM

If there isn’t, the courts will be filled with lawsuits by aggrieved people trying to force the feds to act on whatever their particular grievance happens to be. Essentially, judges would find themselves being asked to set an agency’s priorities case-by-case.

Crazy thought, if we get rid of the agencies there’s no one to then sue.

cadams on November 15, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Dem bumpersticker: “GOP impeached the Black President”

faraway on November 15, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Repub bumpersticker reply… “Dems still judging by the color of your skin, instead of the content of your character”

dominigan on November 15, 2013 at 12:57 PM

So, how do dictatorships get started anyway?

Akzed on November 15, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Toilet paper shortages.

oldroy on November 15, 2013 at 1:03 PM

What health insurance company CEO is going to blatantly break the law? And 0b00ba expects them ALL to do it on his say-so?

I mean, if you want to lure these CEO’s into a massive trap, maybe this is the kind of thing you’d do. Is 0b00ba gonna be on the hook for it? If they ended up in hot water, would he be under any obligation to… to what?

Akzed on November 15, 2013 at 1:08 PM

“All during the debate, Democratic officeholders, aides, policy wonks, advocates and sympathetic journalists all knew coverage cancellations would be coming as part of Obamacare. Of course, the president knew, too. When Obama made the keep-your-coverage promise, over and over, those Washington insiders accepted the untruth as a necessary part of the process, something Democrats had to do to pass their bill.

But millions of Americans didn’t get the memo and took Obama at his word.

workingclass artist on November 15, 2013 at 12:06 PM

That’s because not even the lofos are the lib true-believers that the press is.

If this is true, I defy anyone to dispute the moniker “liberal media”, anymore. It is the commitment of the party operative that says some details are going to have to be hidden for “advancement” of the agenda. It is the job of the reporter to report all the details. If they implicitly knew and did not tell, they are party operatives and not journalists . They are compromised!

I am not a “dyed-in-the-wool conservative” nor a “rock-ribbed Republican”, I’m not even totally averse to the liberal agenda, but the Slam/smear/lie-at-all-costs zeal of the left and the volunteer propagandists in the media–as much as I’ve tried to stay neutral observer–make me very, very anti-liberal.

The sympathetic “hand up” causes of modern liberalism, I can understand. But I cannot understand the anti-naturalism in compensating for all of “Nature’s Lottery” in proponents of militant devotees to all advancement due to unguided Natural Selection. And I can’t understand how a stable, trustworthy, aegis of law is ever going to come from people of such low and dishonest character and hodge-podge–ultimately nihilistic–worldviews, where much posturing is done, but very little care is actually given to fellow citizens and our children’s children.

Axeman on November 15, 2013 at 1:15 PM

There was no ‘wide-spread panic’ for the American people when this abomination was being shoved down our throats in order to please the shiny new president who has lied about his ‘signature achievement’ from the beginning.
But there is definitely ‘wide-spread panic’ now, among these representatives who are scared to death that they may not be able to suckle the American teat for the rest of their lives.
Tell me now, who do these slimy cretins stand up for? Why, themselves, of course.
And let me add, ‘signature achievement’ indeed. Obama has so much in common with the healthcare.gov website and the ACA.

maryo on November 15, 2013 at 1:55 PM

So, Obama is basically inviting the medical insurance industry (which Democrats and Obama have repeatedly castigated as evil robber-barons who would throw cancer patients in the street rather than pay off on claims) to join him in breaking the law with the promise that they will not be prosecuted for it.

How is this not a conspiracy to violate federal laws?

And if those insurance companies decline his invitation and declare as their policy to obey the ACA as written, will he then attack them publicly for not choosing to become criminals?

Socratease on November 15, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Yesterday, I heard one of my most liberal friends say ‘I wish someone would impeach this man.’
It’s getting really bad for the man who still thinks he is the one we had been waiting for. I fear upcoming desperates moves from a desperate man.

maryo on November 15, 2013 at 2:07 PM

As God is my witness, I thought Obama could fly.

-Arthur Carlson

Meremortal on November 15, 2013 at 2:47 PM

What health insurance company CEO is going to blatantly break the law? And 0b00ba expects them ALL to do it on his say-so?

I mean, if you want to lure these CEO’s into a massive trap, maybe this is the kind of thing you’d do. Is 0b00ba gonna be on the hook for it? If they ended up in hot water, would he be under any obligation to… to what?

Akzed on November 15, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Rush Limbaugh pointed out today that health insurers and providers regularly end up in court over what is covered and what is not. If rather than the law, the defendant has to fall back on “back in November, Obama said…” then our legal system is seriously screwed up.

slickwillie2001 on November 15, 2013 at 2:49 PM

So the next Republican President could have a flat tax without going to Congress by simply telling the IRS not to enforce the current tax code?

They could also cut programs by simply ordering agencies not to send checks?

Who needs Congress anymore?

Slippery slope? nah, that’s racist.

BradTank on November 15, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Is there any language to that effect in the ObamaCare statute? I’m asking earnestly.

The answer is NO: there is no such language in the ACA.

The ACA is specifically written to exclude judicial review of any kind and to empower the Secretary of HHS. It is liberally peppered with “as the Secretary shall decide” clauses in an attempt to make every aspect of your life subject to the arbitrary whims of a non-elected bureaucrat.

This is one of the many reasons the entire ACA must be completely repealed.

(Unlike most of Congress, I’ve downloaded and read the entire law.)

landlines on November 16, 2013 at 12:34 PM

What health insurance company CEO is going to blatantly break the law? And 0b00ba expects them ALL to do it on his say-so?

Any corporation which deliberately acts to break a law is in immediate danger of losing its corporate charter. Both state and federal laws would demand this result.

landlines on November 16, 2013 at 12:37 PM