|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Hi guys, I just have some questions about the Obamacare/Affordable Care Act.
I'm not trying to state an opinion, I barely know anything really about it but I have some questions and I'm trying to find out a little more about it so if possible please provide some sources that I can read up on. I don't have a particular interest but I'd rather at least have some knowledge on it rather than be totally uninformed.
- I hear that the "employer mandate" has been pushed back. What exactly does this mean and how does it get pushed back?
- I have heard that President Obama has been "re-writing the law," frequently both in real-life conversation and just in the media. By what mechanism is he purportedly doing so, and what is the actual legality of it?
- If the person that comes after President Obama is against Obamacare/Affordable Care Act what kind of changes can that person make as President? (Pretty much, assuming if the second question is both true and legal what kind of changes can be made to the law at that point.)
Thanks for any answers to these questions, I'm hoping that I can get some definitive information about it.
PS: If this post is against the rules please PM me OP and I'll spoiler it or something.
|
On March 13 2014 15:34 Finality wrote:
Hi guys, I just have some questions about the Obamacare/Affordable Care Act.
I'm not trying to state an opinion, I barely know anything really about it but I have some questions and I'm trying to find out a little more about it so if possible please provide some sources that I can read up on. I don't have a particular interest but I'd rather at least have some knowledge on it rather than be totally uninformed.
- I hear that the "employer mandate" has been pushed back. What exactly does this mean and how does it get pushed back?
- I have heard that President Obama has been "re-writing the law," frequently both in real-life conversation and just in the media. By what mechanism is he purportedly doing so, and what is the actual legality of it?
- If the person that comes after President Obama is against Obamacare/Affordable Care Act what kind of changes can that person make as President? (Pretty much, assuming if the second question is both true and legal what kind of changes can be made to the law at that point.)
Thanks for any answers to these questions, I'm hoping that I can get some definitive information about it.
PS: If this post is against the rules please PM me OP and I'll spoiler it or something.
Basically, Obama is saying that he's not going to enforce the punishments spelled out by the law for employers that fail to provide healthcare to employees under the regulations spelled out under the law. It was a controversial part anyways, not "essential" to the law, but an experiment to influence employer behavior.
The President has the power of enforcement when it comes to the law. What that means is a little vague, but any President can choose to uphold or ignore parts of some laws due to things like feasibility of enforcing or following the law. The argument in this case is that the Government hasn't been able to provide a stable, working marketplace for employers to shop for Obamacare certified insurance plans for their employees. Since they can't shop for plans, it's a bit stupid to punish them for not providing them to their employees.
|
DENVER (AP) — Colorado's second-highest court says some people convicted of possessing small amounts of marijuana can ask for those convictions to be thrown out under the law that legalized recreational marijuana in the state.
The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that people whose cases were under appeal when Amendment 64 took effect in December 2012 are eligible to have their convictions reversed.
A spokeswoman for the Attorney General John Suthers says prosecutors are reviewing the opinion to determine any next steps.
Marijuana advocate Brian Vincente says the ruling could affect hundreds of people who were given jail terms for petty marijuana offenses.
Source
|
Eight Florida same-sex couples and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday evening challenging their state's refusal to recognize gay marriages legally performed in other states.
While the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act invalidated a federal law barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, the ruling did not address states' rights to refuse recognition of legal same-sex unions.
"I'm proud of the work that I do protecting my community, but the law in Florida doesn't let me protect my own family," plaintiff Sloan Grimsley, a firefighter from Palm Beach Gardens, said in an ACLU press release Wednesday. "We just want the peace of mind of knowing that those vows we took to care for one another aren't dependent on where we are."
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida by the ACLU of Florida and Miami law firm Podhurst Orseck, named Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) and Attorney General Pam Bondi as defendants, among other state officials.
"The time has come for Florida to end its discrimination against same sex couples, including those whose marriages are legally recognized elsewhere in our country and by the federal government," Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said in a press release.
In January, LGBT advocacy group Equality Florida represented six same-sex couples in a lawsuit against Miami-Dade County Clerk Harvey Ruvin after his office refused to issue them marriage licenses. The lawsuit, still pending, seeks to overturn Florida’s constitutional ban on marriage equality, which was enshrined in the state constitution by voters in 2008.
Source
|
On March 13 2014 15:34 Finality wrote:
Hi guys, I just have some questions about the Obamacare/Affordable Care Act.
I'm not trying to state an opinion, I barely know anything really about it but I have some questions and I'm trying to find out a little more about it so if possible please provide some sources that I can read up on. I don't have a particular interest but I'd rather at least have some knowledge on it rather than be totally uninformed.
- I hear that the "employer mandate" has been pushed back. What exactly does this mean and how does it get pushed back?
- I have heard that President Obama has been "re-writing the law," frequently both in real-life conversation and just in the media. By what mechanism is he purportedly doing so, and what is the actual legality of it?
- If the person that comes after President Obama is against Obamacare/Affordable Care Act what kind of changes can that person make as President? (Pretty much, assuming if the second question is both true and legal what kind of changes can be made to the law at that point.)
Thanks for any answers to these questions, I'm hoping that I can get some definitive information about it.
PS: If this post is against the rules please PM me OP and I'll spoiler it or something.
Finality, the actual legality of a President re-writing the law is inversely proportional to the power and willingness of his opposition or those standing for the rule of law to oppose power grabs of that like. He is not allowed to change legislation after passage; his involvement is executing the laws as written. If the laws says there are certain taxes starting at the moment of passage, penalties in this year, more changes in taxes and penalties in another year, then it is his express duty to oversee the IRS, and involved government agencies (HHS, for example), as they put them into practice.
The employer mandate enacts a penalty on businesses with over 50 employees that do not offer compliant insurance to their employees. The bill, as written and passed, said it would penalize businesses that did not offer insurance by Dec. 31, 2013. On July 2nd, 2013, the administration announced it would delay the deadline to 2015. On February 10th, 2014, the administration announced it would delay the deadline to 2016. Typically, these sorts of major changes would be done by the legislative branch and amendments ... they may amend any law they have passed in like manner to passing new ones, subject to presidential veto. The Right says Obama has seized legislative authority for himself. If you ask me, when you have weak leaders like McConnell and Boehner, and no real furor from the media, the President can get away with power grabs of this type.
A new president opposed to Obamacare may speak against it and try to sway public opinion, and through public opinion congress, towards support of legislation for a full or partial repeal. He himself may sign that bill into law. He also may threaten numerous vetoes until the law is repealed, leveraging his power should he think it possible of success. He has the choice to act lawlessly, like Obama, though mainstream opposition I think would not go that route. You ask what kind of changes the next president can make, and the answer is whatever changes he wishes subject to the power of the opposition.
What is the lawfully passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?
Well ... what is today's date?
Once you've substantially weakened the rule of law, you're in a gray area of legality.
|
They delayed enforcement of the employer mandate to appease the Republicans and "business leaders", and somehow this is a power grab? I don't see the logic here
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the right has this centralized command of their propaganda efforts. stuff like "obstruct the fuck out of the ACA" are like military campaigns
|
On March 14 2014 05:51 TheFish7 wrote:
They delayed enforcement of the employer mandate to appease the Republicans and "business leaders", and somehow this is a power grab? I don't see the logic here The other side of the argument is that these changes were made to allow Democrats to win races in 2014. The last thing a campaigning Democrat that voted for PPACA wants is for layoffs related to the 50-employee rule, shuffles to part time for the 50-employee rule, and all assorted compensations companies must make to relieve the added burdens. The law's 90-day cancellation warning would inform many people of their soon-coming canceled plans for 2015 deadline just before they go to vote in 2014 midterms. It's logical to delay the squeeze until 2016 to give the Democrats a chance to keep the Senate and preserve seats in the House. Political considerations first and foremost.
|
On March 14 2014 06:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2014 05:51 TheFish7 wrote:
They delayed enforcement of the employer mandate to appease the Republicans and "business leaders", and somehow this is a power grab? I don't see the logic here The other side of the argument is that these changes were made to allow Democrats to win races in 2014. The last thing a campaigning Democrat that voted for PPACA wants is for layoffs related to the 50-employee rule, shuffles to part time for the 50-employee rule, and all assorted compensations companies must make to relieve the added burdens. The law's 90-day cancellation warning would inform many people of their soon-coming canceled plans for 2015 deadline just before they go to vote in 2014 midterms. It's logical to delay the squeeze until 2016 to give the Democrats a chance to keep the Senate and preserve seats in the House. Political considerations first and foremost.
That's quite a bit of tinfoil you're wearing on your head.
Fact of the matter, the employer side of healthcare.gov simply doesn't function correctly, and has been put on the backburner while they work out all the issues with the individual side of it. It makes little sense to penalize businesses for not participating in a system they literally can't participate in due to bureaucratic fuck ups.
|
On March 13 2014 12:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 02:27 Roe wrote:
When has american culture ever valued hard work? It's always been about innovating and creating new technology that reduces the amount of work we have to do...The business culture has always been about squeezing every penny and making things more efficient - not just doing your job and calling it a day. If you really value hard work you'd put a freeze on all technological and commercial progress. Automation (or whatever) and valuing hard work are not mutually exclusive things. I won't speak for the country as a whole, but a protestant / puritan work ethic was part of new england culture back before the US was the US.
Automation is done because humans don't want to do hard work.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
as i've said earlier hard work doesn't emphasize the hard, but the success, the product of work. the hard is a rationaalization and has no perspective
|
On March 14 2014 07:06 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 12:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 13 2014 02:27 Roe wrote:
When has american culture ever valued hard work? It's always been about innovating and creating new technology that reduces the amount of work we have to do...The business culture has always been about squeezing every penny and making things more efficient - not just doing your job and calling it a day. If you really value hard work you'd put a freeze on all technological and commercial progress. Automation (or whatever) and valuing hard work are not mutually exclusive things. I won't speak for the country as a whole, but a protestant / puritan work ethic was part of new england culture back before the US was the US. Automation is done because humans don't want to do hard work.
100% correct.
People worked super hard in the 1600s because it was required for survival.
Hard work is never a bad thing, but it's not the only thing that matters. How many people in the world slacked off in university, but still got a good job afterward?
|
On March 14 2014 07:06 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 12:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 13 2014 02:27 Roe wrote:
When has american culture ever valued hard work? It's always been about innovating and creating new technology that reduces the amount of work we have to do...The business culture has always been about squeezing every penny and making things more efficient - not just doing your job and calling it a day. If you really value hard work you'd put a freeze on all technological and commercial progress. Automation (or whatever) and valuing hard work are not mutually exclusive things. I won't speak for the country as a whole, but a protestant / puritan work ethic was part of new england culture back before the US was the US. Automation is done because humans don't want to do hard work.
You sound like an old man - 'kids these days don't know how good they got it' 
|
So if a district attorney exercises prosecutorial discretion is he rewriting the laws?
If the president exercises executorial discretion by not enforcing a statute is this different?
|
On March 14 2014 10:07 IgnE wrote:
So if a district attorney exercises prosecutorial discretion is he rewriting the laws?
If the president exercises executorial discretion by not enforcing a statute is this different?
Only if he's a socialist Democrat.
|
On March 14 2014 09:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2014 07:06 Roe wrote:On March 13 2014 12:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 13 2014 02:27 Roe wrote:
When has american culture ever valued hard work? It's always been about innovating and creating new technology that reduces the amount of work we have to do...The business culture has always been about squeezing every penny and making things more efficient - not just doing your job and calling it a day. If you really value hard work you'd put a freeze on all technological and commercial progress. Automation (or whatever) and valuing hard work are not mutually exclusive things. I won't speak for the country as a whole, but a protestant / puritan work ethic was part of new england culture back before the US was the US. Automation is done because humans don't want to do hard work. You sound like an old man - 'kids these days don't know how good they got it'
Well, that's true as well. Youth don't realize how many advantages and liberties and extra chances they have until they're too old to take advantage of them  Well, most kids - some are wiser. But I'm not sure what that has to do with automation and the will to less work. Do you think I'm just mad at the youngsters who aren't doing as much work as the ye olde people did? I'm only 24 johnny! I'm just making a straight forward argument about technological progress.
|
On March 14 2014 04:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 15:34 Finality wrote:
Hi guys, I just have some questions about the Obamacare/Affordable Care Act.
I'm not trying to state an opinion, I barely know anything really about it but I have some questions and I'm trying to find out a little more about it so if possible please provide some sources that I can read up on. I don't have a particular interest but I'd rather at least have some knowledge on it rather than be totally uninformed.
- I hear that the "employer mandate" has been pushed back. What exactly does this mean and how does it get pushed back?
- I have heard that President Obama has been "re-writing the law," frequently both in real-life conversation and just in the media. By what mechanism is he purportedly doing so, and what is the actual legality of it?
- If the person that comes after President Obama is against Obamacare/Affordable Care Act what kind of changes can that person make as President? (Pretty much, assuming if the second question is both true and legal what kind of changes can be made to the law at that point.)
Thanks for any answers to these questions, I'm hoping that I can get some definitive information about it.
PS: If this post is against the rules please PM me OP and I'll spoiler it or something. Once you've substantially weakened the rule of law, you're in a gray area of legality.
Haven't most laws been "substantially weakened" long before Obama took office? When I look at the legal arena it just seems the more media/money/influence involved the greyer the law becomes, almost immutably.
If we had a remotely functional congress much of the changes could of been avoided and/or would have been part of the natural process of adjusting legislation once it hits the real world.
|
Obama wouldn't have to use executive orders if he had people in congress that didn't filibuster the very bills that they, themselves, had proposed.
|
On March 14 2014 11:23 SnipedSoul wrote:
Obama wouldn't have to use executive orders if he had people in congress that didn't filibuster the very bills that they, themselves, had proposed.
I suppose the standard counter-argument here then is that it's on the Democrats to win enough races to achieve a filibuster-proof majority. Since this absurdly high requirement has become standard for pretty much anything (well, for Obama at least), we've got some pretty ridiculous gridlock. Democracy and Freedom! (tm)
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that's not a counter argument lol. if your governing party needs a 60% to do anything then it's basically fucked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
