Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 40261 - 40280 of total 44761 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:25pm PT
No, we're not saying that. We said what we said - pretty clearly, in fact.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:29pm PT
Tvash

climber
Seattle

Mar 7, 2014 - 12:22pm PT
I'd say you're being kind of lazy there, Sketch. You can do d Googlez, no?

Since you're the one interested - research, summarize, report back.

Sorry it seems that way. I've researched quit a bit on this. Unfortunately, it's tough finding non-partisan, objective information.... that doesn't make my eyes glaze over after the first page.
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:31pm PT
I'm still waiting for a simple yes or no from John E and Ron.

How can one party (republicans) be on the wrong side of history so much and still win elections..they just lie.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:36pm PT
I'm a bit flummoxed about why this nit extension thing - which is actually an example of smart, adaptive government in action, and an agency simply doing its day to day job, is such a big deal.

The ACA war is over. The GOP lost. Big.

If you want to graduate from stickball and pin a pro level constitutional violation on Obama - um...surveillance, yo? That's as clear a violation as it gets.

Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:41pm PT
Tvash wrote: I'm a bit flummoxed about why this nit extension thing - which is actually an example of smart, adaptive government in action, is such a big deal.

Isn't obvious...it is all they have, along with not being American, not being a Christian, being the head of Acorn and not the one who killed Bin Laden.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:43pm PT
They could be whacking the Kenyan over the head with a 4th Amendment baseball bat for spying on all of us, but instead they're still tossing ACA spitballs after getting their asses handed to them...how many times now?

DROP YER JOHNSONS AND FIRE FOR EFFECT, LADS!
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:51pm PT
Fifty one times. Complete a-holes.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:52pm PT
From the obviously biased Cato Institute.

Last week, when most Americans were starting their Fourth of July holiday, the Obama administration announced it will wait until 2015 to implement Obamacare’s penalties against employers who fail to offer “affordable” and “minimum value” coverage to their workers, rather than impose this “employer mandate” in 2014, as the statute requires. The administration’s stated rationale is that, despite nearly four years of lead time, it still won’t have the capacity to collect from employers the information required to determine which employers will be subject to penalties in 2014. As a result, the administration also announced it would not require employers to report that information until 2015, though (again) the statute requires employers to furnish that information in 2014.

Nicholas Bagley, a professor of law at the University of Michigan, suggests that maybe there is a legal rationale for the Obama administration’s delaying these provisions. So let’s take each provision in turn.

1) Has Congress given Treasury the authority to waive the penalties? The answer is no. The employer-mandate penalties unequivocally take effect on January 1, 2014, and the PPACA gives the Treasury secretary no authority to postpone their imposition.

Every element of the employer mandate demonstrates that it takes effect in 2014.

If any worker at a firm with more than 50 full-time-equivalent employees receives a tax credit through a health insurance “exchange,” then “there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable payment.” Those tax credits become available on January 1, 2014. Thus that is also the date on which the penalties take effect.
The statute specifies penalty amounts that apply specifically in 2014, and provides that those penalties shall be adjusted for inflation in years after 2014.
The section creating the employer mandate even contains an effective date: “The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.”
The statute gives the Treasury secretary the authority to collect these penalties “on an annual, monthly, or other periodic basis as the Secretary may prescribe.” It does not allow the secretary to waive the imposition of such penalties, except in one circumstance: Section 1332 authorizes the Treasury secretary to waive the employer mandate, but only as part of a state-specific waiver, and only if the state enacts a law that would provide equally comprehensive health insurance to as many residents, and only if that law would impose no additional cost to the federal government, and only if there is a “meaningful level of public input” over the waiver and its approval, and even then not until 2017. In other words, Congress spoke to the question of whether and when the executive should be able to waive the employer mandate, and Congress clearly did not want the administration to waive it unless certain specified conditions were met.

Nevertheless, Treasury claims it has the authority to waive those penalties without following Congress’ instructions: “[T]he employer shared responsibility payments…will not apply for 2014. Any employer shared responsibility payments will not apply until 2015.”

2) Has Congress given Treasury the authority to waive the reporting requirement? Again, the answer is no.

The PPACA added two sections to the Internal Revenue Code (sections 6055 & 6056) that require employers to report certain information on their health benefits and the workers who enroll in that coverage, in order to help the IRS determine whether those workers are eligible for tax credits and whether the employer is subject to penalties. Again, the statute is clear: those reporting requirements take effect in “calendar years beginning after 2013” and “periods beginning after December 31, 2013.” The statute contains no language authorizing Treasury to waive those requirements.

Bagley argues the statute does contain language that might enable Treasury to delay the imposition of these reporting requirements. Sections 6055 & 6056 state that employers must furnish this information “at such time as the Secretary may prescribe.” He writes, “Delaying the reporting requirements until 2015 is arguably just a specification of the ‘time’ at which the reports must be submitted.”

This theory reflects a misunderstanding of what an effective date is. When Congress imposes an obligation on some party, that obligation becomes effective on the effective date. The secretary’s discretion to prescribe the time at which the affected party must discharge that obligation neither affects the existence of the obligation, nor empowers the secretary to repeal it.

One might argue that Treasury has the authority to say employers need not report the required information regarding their 2014 health benefits offerings until, say, the next year, when they report the same information for their 2015 offerings. Yet that is not what Treasury is doing. Treasury claims it can altogether eliminate the obligation to report the 2014 information: “The Administration…will provide an additional year before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin.”

Moreover, if the language Bagley cites were interpreted to permit Treasury to waive the mandate and reporting requirements for 2014, is there any reason why that interpretation would not empower Treasury waive those provisions indefinitely? Could the secretary determine employers need discharge these obligations every 1,000 years? If not, why not?

Finally, Bagley concludes no one would have standing to challenge these actions in court. Thus even if the administration’s actions are illegal, he writes, “So what?”

Let’s assume for the moment that Bagley is correct on the standing issue. Here’s “what.” The law is a mutual compact between the government and the people. The more the government acts as though it is not bound by that the law, the more widespread will be the belief among the people that they are not bound by the law, either. That would be a very bad situation. There are already enough people out there who believe the government is not bound by the law that President Obama feels it is worth his time to counsel Americans to “reject these voices” – even as his actions lend credence to them, and further diminish respect for the law. That’s a “what” that I figured law professors understood.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:52pm PT
Tvash,, a while back i was SCREAMING over the NDAA 2103 bill, and guess what,, all the Dems here had was a hardy F#ck you back at me. Nary a soul gave a rip here other than a few that actually payed attention. It was Obama's baby so therefor it was garoooovy. All that was said is "yeah,, but BUSH"...
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:55pm PT
Ron or John...yes or no?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:56pm PT
Bob ,, John GAVE you an answer, it was YES. Did you miss that?

In fact there is yet another answer just above,, did you miss that as well?

Computer virus?
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Mar 7, 2014 - 03:59pm PT
Ron wrote: Bob ,, John GAVE you an answer, it was YES. Did you miss that?


He was wrong. By law they are allow to delay/implement parts of the ACA.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:00pm PT
You still got an answer. You disagree. End of story eh.
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:04pm PT
No Ron...this is the law.

"The Constitution’s Article II assigns to the President the national government’s “executive power,” and tells the President that “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” It does not say how that is to be done, or when, but the emphasis on being “faithful” at least implies that the President will respect the choices that Congress has made and written into law.

At the same time, Article II does not say that a law shall be carried out at all cost, so every President operates on the assumption that federal agencies can be given some leeway in how they do it. And every lawyer advising a President is certain to provide more than one memo saying that the process of executing a law should aim at ensuring that it carries out the goal Congress set for it, even if that means varying somewhat from the text.


Given the complexity of modern government operations, very few of the laws that Congress passes are completely self-executing; most if not all of them require regulations to put them into actual effect. And writing regulations is the business of the federal agencies. An array of government agencies have been working for more than three years, for example, to write the rules for the new Affordable Care Act – the vast new law regulating the entire health care financing system.

The Supreme Court just last month went a long way toward requiring federal courts to trust the government agencies that execute the laws to interpret for themselves just what authority Congress has given them in their areas of official activity. What an agency decides is the range of its power, that ruling said, should be given considerable deference by the courts.

He or the agency DID NOT BREAK ANY LAWS.

Can you read?
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:05pm PT
Mar 7, 2014 - 12:41pm PT
Tvash wrote: I'm a bit flummoxed about why this nit extension thing - which is actually an example of smart, adaptive government in action, is such a big deal.

It's not nit picking. These extensions impact 100s of millions of Americans, as well as all employers and especially the insurance industry. We passed a law with specific mandates for it's implementation. People and companies made preparations for these changes. And then Obama says "never mind. We'll do that next year... or the year after".

Why? Because it'll piss off voters. I haven't heard an economic or implementation related reason for these extensions. It's pure politics.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:07pm PT
Bob and Norton,

Sorry that I didn't give an immediate response to your challenge of several hours ago, but I was in court and just got back.

The idea that Heckler v. Chaney permits a Treasury Regulation extending an explicit effective date (see ACA Section 1253) by two years is rather absurd. In Heckler v. Chaney , the SCOTUS held in 1985 that the FDA had discretion not to enact regulations concerning drugs used to execute a sentence of death, and that such discretionary actions are generally not reviewable in court.

Contrast that to the court's decision in, say, Massachusetts v. EPA, 22 years later, in which the court majority said the EPA did not have discretion simply to ignore the Clean Air Act and not at least consider whether greenhouse gasses constituted pollutants under the Act. If that EPA discretion was reviewable, in what way can the Treasury regs that outright contradict an explicit effective date be legal?

The cynicism by the Administration and Democrats on this issues is simply breathtaking. Here they're telling us the ACA is wonderful, and "the Republicans lost big" on the issue, but they're unwilling to let its real provisions take effect until (conveniently) after the next presidential election.

And to think, the Democrats shut down the government to prevent a delay of the ACA.

;>)

John
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:09pm PT
John..did he break the law as you stated before.

Stop being a lawyer and answer yes or no. :-)
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:11pm PT
Wait, there's politics going on in Washington? WTF?

LOL.

But seriously - @ Ron - that was before the Snowden revelations. Now we have huge amounts of concrete evidence.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:13pm PT
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 7, 2014 - 04:14pm PT
Yes, Sketch - Obama shouldn't do what the public wants. It's not like he's our elected representative or anything.

And he definitely shouldn't flip flop! Responding to changing circumstances in a dynamic world lends an appearance of weakness - and we would never, under any circumstances, regardless of the human cost, want an appearance of weakness...to the minority of the population that chooses to see it that way.

That's precisely why I make it a point to never be wrong or admit a mistake, ever.
Messages 40261 - 40280 of total 44761 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews