Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:


    Presidents have been "changing" the laws, whether it be through signing statements, challenges, decisions about the what/where/when/why/how to enforce a law, delegation to administrative agencies to promulgate regulations to put the laws into effect. 

    It's been that way for a lot longer than Obama has been alive. So let's not pretend this is something new, originating with Obama (aka, let's not lie...k?)



    We're not talking about challenging a law or signing statements!! We talking about a POTUS stating arbitrarily and without explanation that "this block of people do not have to obey the law but, these people in similar circumstances do" with no explanation! When on top of that the law in question takes monies away from these people who are no allowed a delay on the law and these people have less income than those that he exempted!!

    I challenge to find one time something like this has happened!

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Presidents have been "changing" the laws, whether it be through signing statements, challenges, decisions about the what/where/when/why/how to enforce a law, delegation to administrative agencies to promulgate regulations to put the laws into effect. 

    It's been that way for a lot longer than Obama has been alive. So let's not pretend this is something new, originating with Obama (aka, let's not lie...k?)



    We're not talking about challenging a law or signing statements!! We talking about a POTUS stating arbitrarily and without explanation that "this block of people do not have to obey the law but, these people in similar circumstances do" with no explanation! When on top of that the law in question takes monies away from these people who are no allowed a delay on the law and these people have less income than those that he exempted!!

    I challenge to find one time something like this has happened!

    [/QUOTE]

    I wonder if, nwdywn is frantically trying to find something to counter with or if, the swine is just ignoring it. lmfao!!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to Bill-806's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    Basically, the company you work for is off the hook to provide you coverage, but you are not off the hook to buy coverage.

    Could it be to cause these companies to throw employees off of the plans they might want to keep, and force them into exchanges?

    The more you think about what the Democrats are doing here, the more it stinks.

     

      The "BIG O" has made 19 changes (on his own, without Congress) on his signature Health Bill ........   When did they change the job description from President to KING !!!! ???????


     

     

     

     



    The Supream Court voted the bill to be constitutional right? Is it still contitutional after 19 changes? This is now a much different bill than the one they voted on. Can someone explain if that would change anything?    

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The bill, as legislated, and found consitutional, is not the one being implemented. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    As far as the court is concerned, yes it is.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, no it's not. You don't get to live in your own little fantasy world.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    You forgot to mention that the directives have to have been signed left handed and that the person issuing the order must be someone who "isn't one of us". After all, ya can't leave any wiggle room else you might not get the exact answer you want.

     

    Well here's two example where the Bush administration issued "prosecutorial discretion" memos when dealing with illegal immigrants.

    One allowed people stay in the country when "compelling reasons exist," such as an unauthorized immigrant being a relative of a US servicemember or for "sympathetic humanitarian factors."

    Another Bush administration memo allowed immigration officials to consider letting people who had health problems or were taking care of sick relatives remain in the United States.

    As for the money aspect, anyone who is allowed to remain in the US will make more money and have a higher standard of living than those that are deported.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/22092975/ICE-Guidance-Memo-Prosecutorial-Discretion-William-J-Howard-10-24-05

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/22092973/ICE-Guidance-Memo-Prosecutorial-Discretion-Julie-Myers-11-7-07

     



    BUSH DID IT!!

     

    Whew.  That makes it ok.

    but, strange that the only thing you can come up with is immigration stuff.  Any cases where Bush signed an executive order saying oil companies don't have to pay taxes? That is essentially what Obama is doing.

     

    But, it is Obama, and everything he does smells like freshly baked bread to this dimwitted liberals.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    Funny how the progressives here don't want to touch this issue with a ten-foot pole.

    The President has deceptively given the companies a waiver, which will have the effect of pushing more people into the exchanges, but won't let the people,(you know, the people?  The supposed reason for this imperial presidency?  Do it for the people?), won't let the people be freed from the same mandate.

    Very telling.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to Bill-806's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    Basically, the company you work for is off the hook to provide you coverage, but you are not off the hook to buy coverage.

    Could it be to cause these companies to throw employees off of the plans they might want to keep, and force them into exchanges?

    The more you think about what the Democrats are doing here, the more it stinks.

     

      The "BIG O" has made 19 changes (on his own, without Congress) on his signature Health Bill ........   When did they change the job description from President to KING !!!! ???????


     

     

     

     

     



    The Supream Court voted the bill to be constitutional right? Is it still contitutional after 19 changes? This is now a much different bill than the one they voted on. Can someone explain if that would change anything?    

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The bill, as legislated, and found consitutional, is not the one being implemented.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    As far as the court is concerned, yes it is.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, no it's not. You don't get to live in your own little fantasy world.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes.  That's exactly what it means when the court rules.  Their world.

    Don't like it?  File your own lawsuit, and good luck with all that...I'm sure you'll make a compelling case.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Funny how the progressives here don't want to touch this issue with a ten-foot pole.

    The President has deceptively given the companies a waiver, which will have the effect of pushing more people into the exchanges, but won't let the people,(you know, the people?  The supposed reason for this imperial presidency?  Do it for the people?), won't let the people be freed from the same mandate.

    Very telling.



    Because you don't understand how insurance works and don't want to listen.  You've demonstrated this time and time again.

    Individuals and individual plans are the primary focus of the law, because they have the hardest time finding affordable policies.

    Employer plans are more stable and numerous but also more complex by their nature.

    The one-year employer mandate delay was a concession - an implementation slowdown, like the gopers are asking for - to allow companies more time to comply with the law.

    The individual mandate - ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court - is the key to the individual/exchange markets, because without it, people would only enroll when they get sick, and insurance companies would be bankrupted in a matter of weeks.

     

    3 1/2 years and you still don't get it...?  Blame yourself for not learning.

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to UserName9's comment:


    Delaying the employer mandate leaves nearly nobody uninsured.

    Delaying the individual mandate would leave millions uninsured.

    duh!!



    After this comment, conservatives still think this question has gone unanswered.  Very telling.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to UserName9's comment:

     

     

     


    Delaying the employer mandate leaves nearly nobody uninsured.

    Delaying the individual mandate would leave millions uninsured.

    duh!!

     

     



    After this comment, conservatives still think this question has gone unanswered.  Very telling.

     

     

     



    Because the comment is completely false.

     

    Even the DailyKOS has some clue, for once.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/31/1227909/-Employer-mandate-delay-will-keep-about-500-000-uninsured#

     And, check this out.

    http://betsymccaughey.com/delaying-employer-mandate-clobbers-taxpayers/

    Why don't you share with us how delaying the inidvidual mandate leaves millions uninsured?

    But, I won't wait for a factual response.  youu don't want facts.  you want to feel good about trying to help people while failing misrerably.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Funny how the progressives here don't want to touch this issue with a ten-foot pole.

    The President has deceptively given the companies a waiver, which will have the effect of pushing more people into the exchanges, but won't let the people,(you know, the people?  The supposed reason for this imperial presidency?  Do it for the people?), won't let the people be freed from the same mandate.

    Very telling.

     



    Because you don't understand how insurance works and don't want to listen.  You've demonstrated this time and time again.

     

    Individuals and individual plans are the primary focus of the law, because they have the hardest time finding affordable policies.

    Employer plans are more stable and numerous but also more complex by their nature.

    The one-year employer mandate delay was a concession - an implementation slowdown, like the gopers are asking for - to allow companies more time to comply with the law.

    The individual mandate - ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court - is the key to the individual/exchange markets, because without it, people would only enroll when they get sick, and insurance companies would be bankrupted in a matter of weeks.

     

    3 1/2 years and you still don't get it...?  Blame yourself for not learning.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I do understand that the liberals think forcing people to do something works.  

    Liberals don't understand that insurance as actual insurance no longer exists with Obamacare.

    after 3 1/2 years, you think they would learn.  But, their brains are stuck on stupid.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Funny how the progressives here don't want to touch this issue with a ten-foot pole.

    The President has deceptively given the companies a waiver, which will have the effect of pushing more people into the exchanges, but won't let the people,(you know, the people?  The supposed reason for this imperial presidency?  Do it for the people?), won't let the people be freed from the same mandate.

    Very telling.

     

     



    Because you don't understand how insurance works and don't want to listen.  You've demonstrated this time and time again.

     

     

    Individuals and individual plans are the primary focus of the law, because they have the hardest time finding affordable policies.

    Employer plans are more stable and numerous but also more complex by their nature.

    The one-year employer mandate delay was a concession - an implementation slowdown, like the gopers are asking for - to allow companies more time to comply with the law.

    The individual mandate - ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court - is the key to the individual/exchange markets, because without it, people would only enroll when they get sick, and insurance companies would be bankrupted in a matter of weeks.

     

    3 1/2 years and you still don't get it...?  Blame yourself for not learning.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I do understand that the liberals think forcing people to do something works.  

     

    Liberals don't understand that insurance as actual insurance no longer exists with Obamacare.

    after 3 1/2 years, you think they would learn.  But, their brains are stuck on stupid.

    [/QUOTE]

    None of which is either the point or disputes anything I said.

    You just choose to ignore facts and logic in favor of your views...which amount to very little in the end.

     

    Even so, I would love to hear how you can possibly justify the statement "insurance as actual insurance [whatever "actual insurance" means to you] no longer exists with Obamacare"

    I already know this is false, but I want to hear your sputtering explanation.  

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [/QUOTE]

    Liberals don't understand that insurance as actual insurance no longer exists with Obamacare.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    How so?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:



    Liberals don't understand that insurance as actual insurance no longer exists with Obamacare.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    How so?

    [/QUOTE]

    You are well, you don't sign up.  you pay the $95 bill.  You get sick.  you sign up.  that's not insurance.  That's paying your health care bills.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to tvoter's comment:


    I wonder if, nwdywn is frantically trying to find something to counter



    Your response was already countered.

     

    It's not like you ever admitted you were wrong here, so don't get too excited by my lack of a response.  Refusing to admit you are wrong doesn't make you right.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     



     

    Liberals don't understand that insurance as actual insurance no longer exists with Obamacare.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    How so?

    [/QUOTE]

    You are well, you don't sign up.  you pay the $95 bill.  You get sick.  you sign up.  that's not insurance.  That's paying your health care bills.

    [/QUOTE]

    Huh? What are you talking about? Could you repeat that in English please?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    tvoter was understandably furious about Bush's signing statements and his 1,100+ 'challenges' to provisions of laws.

     

    He was so mad he forgot to complain.

     

     




    Did he change a law for some but, not all??

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I seem to remember some Bush Exec Orders redefining enemy combatants, creating Gitmo, suspension of habeaus corpus, authorizing torture, authorizing drone strikes, authorizing extrodinary rendition ... those are just off the top of my head.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Did any of those change an existing law or did they change a regulation or interpretation of a regulation?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    tvoter was understandably furious about Bush's signing statements and his 1,100+ 'challenges' to provisions of laws.

     

    He was so mad he forgot to complain.

     

     

     




    Did he change a law for some but, not all??

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I seem to remember some Bush Exec Orders redefining enemy combatants, creating Gitmo, suspension of habeaus corpus, authorizing torture, authorizing drone strikes, authorizing extrodinary rendition ... those are just off the top of my head.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Did any of those change an existing law or did they change a regulation or interpretation of a regulation?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You mean, like the Geneva Conventions...?

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    You are well, you don't sign up.  you pay the $95 bill.  You get sick.  you sign up.  that's not insurance.  That's paying your health care bills.



    That makes no sense.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     



     

     

     

    Liberals don't understand that insurance as actual insurance no longer exists with Obamacare.

     

     

     



    How so?

     

     

     



    You are well, you don't sign up.  you pay the $95 bill penalty.  You get sick.  you sign up.  that's not insurance.  That's paying your health care bills.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Huh? What are you talking about? Could you repeat that in English please?

    [/QUOTE]

     

    I see a mistake, I fixed it.  Better?

    You just want to drag this into some arcare discussion about underwriting. Not playing that stupid game.

    The point is, you reall don't need to sign up.  you can wait to you are sick, THEN buy insurance to pay your health care bills.

    That's not insurance.  That's paying your health care bills DESPITE not having health care insurance to insure your possiblity of becoming sick.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    You are well, you don't sign up.  you pay the $95 bill.  You get sick.  you sign up.  that's not insurance.  That's paying your health care bills.

     



    That makes no sense.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I am glad we finally agree on something.  Obamacare makes no sense.

    It is not insurance.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     



     

     

    Liberals don't understand that insurance as actual insurance no longer exists with Obamacare.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    How so?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You are well, you don't sign up.  you pay the $95 bill.  You get sick.  you sign up.  that's not insurance.  That's paying your health care bills.

    [/QUOTE]

    Huh? What are you talking about? Could you repeat that in English please?

    [/QUOTE]

    What is so hard to understand?

    If you do not sign up you get a $95 tax.  That is far less expensive than health care insurance.

    If then you get sick, you can sign up when you get sick because the law mandates covering pre-existing conditions.

    Let's say you decide not to get property insurance for your house. Then your house burns down while you have no insurance.Will an insurance company then sign you up and cover the damage that already exists? If they did, they'd be out of business in no time.

    Another way healthcare insurance is not really insurance is that is used for routine care like doctor visits and routine testing. Insurance is generally used to provide protection against lower probability or unforeseen disasters. It is there to protect agains financial catastrophe.

    Do you use car insurance to pay for gasoline? Oil changes? No. Using insurance to cover doctor visits and other routine costs just pushes up the cost of those items. HEck, the co-pays are now as much or more than what you used to pay for the service in many cases.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    this whole thing is a lot of fun to watch.....i hope it doesnt end soon...

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    You are well, you don't sign up.  you pay the $95 bill.  You get sick.  you sign up.  that's not insurance.  That's paying your health care bills.


    Rick James? Is that you?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Why did Obama delay the Employer mandate, but not the individual mandate?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     



     

     

     

    Liberals don't understand that insurance as actual insurance no longer exists with Obamacare.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    How so?

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You are well, you don't sign up.  you pay the $95 bill.  You get sick.  you sign up.  that's not insurance.  That's paying your health care bills.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Huh? What are you talking about? Could you repeat that in English please?

    [/QUOTE]

    You just want to drag this into some arcare discussion about underwriting. Not playing that stupid game.

    [/QUOTE]


    OK, I'll bite...

    Which stupid game are you playing...?!

     

    Even without talking about underwriting (which you admit you don't understand), your logic is still broken.

     

     

Share