Night Strike wrote:Obama has illegally authorized insurance companies to offer illegal insurance plans that have already dropped because of their illegality.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Obama unilaterally stated today that insurance companies can offer plans that Obamacare has deemed to be illegal.
Such as? You're kinda flying evidence free here.
Apparently you don't pay attention to the news. Go read about Obama's speech from today that he was 30 minutes late to.
Metsfanmax wrote:I have to sympathize with the President here, he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. Stand by the law as written and take flak for breaking his earlier promises. Change the law in response to those people and take flak from others for doing what he promised to do.
I'm rather skeptical that this was a good idea. There's a reason those plans no longer exist under the new system, and allowing them to continue existing presumably does damage to the efforts the law attempts to advance.
It was a scenario of his own doing, and the actions he has taken are illegal. He doesn't have the authority to rewrite the law. His speech should have been completely about the legislation he's submitting to Congress to have that part of the law changed, but instead he decreed the change from his throne.
Night Strike wrote:Obama has illegally authorized insurance companies to offer illegal insurance plans that have already dropped because of their illegality.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Obama unilaterally stated today that insurance companies can offer plans that Obamacare has deemed to be illegal.
Such as? You're kinda flying evidence free here.
Apparently you don't pay attention to the news. Go read about Obama's speech from today that he was 30 minutes late to.
Meh, it's your assertion, you back it up. I don't think it's my responsibility to track down all of your weird unsubstantiated claims about Obama.
I am liking that you're down to "he was half an hour late" though. You're getting desperate now NS.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Metsfanmax wrote:I have to sympathize with the President here, he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. Stand by the law as written and take flak for breaking his earlier promises. Change the law in response to those people and take flak from others for doing what he promised to do.
I'm rather skeptical that this was a good idea. There's a reason those plans no longer exist under the new system, and allowing them to continue existing presumably does damage to the efforts the law attempts to advance.
It was a scenario of his own doing, and the actions he has taken are illegal. He doesn't have the authority to rewrite the law. His speech should have been completely about the legislation he's submitting to Congress to have that part of the law changed, but instead he decreed the change from his throne.
You can't have it both ways. If President Obama cannot change the law as he wants because that is the responsibility of Congress, then it is also not the case that he is to blame for what the law ended up being.
Symmetry wrote:Meh, it's your assertion, you back it up. I don't think it's my responsibility to track down all of your weird unsubstantiated claims about Obama.
I am liking that you're down to "he was half an hour late" though. You're getting desperate now NS.
Him being late to a presser was nothing compared to the illegal actions he promoted in that speech.
Metsfanmax wrote:I have to sympathize with the President here, he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. Stand by the law as written and take flak for breaking his earlier promises. Change the law in response to those people and take flak from others for doing what he promised to do.
I'm rather skeptical that this was a good idea. There's a reason those plans no longer exist under the new system, and allowing them to continue existing presumably does damage to the efforts the law attempts to advance.
It was a scenario of his own doing, and the actions he has taken are illegal. He doesn't have the authority to rewrite the law. His speech should have been completely about the legislation he's submitting to Congress to have that part of the law changed, but instead he decreed the change from his throne.
You can't have it both ways. If President Obama cannot change the law as he wants because that is the responsibility of Congress, then it is also not the case that he is to blame for what the law ended up being.
Is Obama a dictator now? What president has the authority to make a speech and then have the law immediately changed without Congress?
He's to blame because he pushed for the law and signed it into law. Now that it's massively unpopular and harmful, he's taking illegal actions to make it more politically palatable for himself and his allies. If he wants to change the law, he must submit legislation to Congress, have them vote on it, then sign the changes into law. He does not get to write laws from a podium.
He's just being the central planner. He gives the order from the white house podium teleprompter, and the markets must change their formulas and prices and policies. It doesn't get more obvious than this.
Last edited by Phatscotty on Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Symmetry wrote:Meh, it's your assertion, you back it up. I don't think it's my responsibility to track down all of your weird unsubstantiated claims about Obama.
I am liking that you're down to "he was half an hour late" though. You're getting desperate now NS.
Him being late to a presser was nothing compared to the illegal actions he promoted in that speech.
Lol, you make me laugh sometimes NS, after the debacle of you trying to slate Obama for being late to a speech, now you're quoting the site of the guy who was fired from Fox for being a bit too much of a wingnut.
Kudos to you NS, you really have an irrational hatred for your President.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Symmetry wrote:Meh, it's your assertion, you back it up. I don't think it's my responsibility to track down all of your weird unsubstantiated claims about Obama.
I am liking that you're down to "he was half an hour late" though. You're getting desperate now NS.
Him being late to a presser was nothing compared to the illegal actions he promoted in that speech.
Lol, you make me laugh sometimes NS, after the debacle of you trying to slate Obama for being late to a speech, now you're quoting the site of the guy who was fired from Fox for being a bit too much of a wingnut.
Kudos to you NS, you really have an irrational hatred for your President.
There's nothing irrational about being opposed to dictatorial decrees. If you don't trust The Blaze, then go look at another news source to find out what he decreed. It was a presidential speech at a press conference, not some private interview session.
Symmetry wrote:Meh, it's your assertion, you back it up. I don't think it's my responsibility to track down all of your weird unsubstantiated claims about Obama.
I am liking that you're down to "he was half an hour late" though. You're getting desperate now NS.
Him being late to a presser was nothing compared to the illegal actions he promoted in that speech.
Lol, you make me laugh sometimes NS, after the debacle of you trying to slate Obama for being late to a speech, now you're quoting the site of the guy who was fired from Fox for being a bit too much of a wingnut.
Kudos to you NS, you really have an irrational hatred for your President.
There's nothing irrational about being opposed to dictatorial decrees. If you don't trust The Blaze, then go look at another news source to find out what he decreed. It was a presidential speech at a press conference, not some private interview session.
Well, if you can't trust Glenn Beck, who can you trust, right NS? The man's a saint.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Symmetry wrote:Well, if you can't trust Glenn Beck, who can you trust, right NS? The man's a saint.
So you disappear from the site for months, and the first thing you fight about upon return is whether or not Obama making a speech setting aside a portion of his signature legislation? What made you deny reality while gone?
Symmetry wrote:Well, if you can't trust Glenn Beck, who can you trust, right NS? The man's a saint.
So you disappear from the site for months, and the first thing you fight about upon return is whether or not Obama making a speech setting aside a portion of his signature legislation? What made you deny reality while gone?
Is this your coy insanely wingnut anti-Obama way of saying that you missed me?
Or are you really upset about people being late?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Symmetry wrote:Well, if you can't trust Glenn Beck, who can you trust, right NS? The man's a saint.
So you disappear from the site for months, and the first thing you fight about upon return is whether or not Obama making a speech setting aside a portion of his signature legislation? What made you deny reality while gone?
Is this your coy insanely wingnut anti-Obama way of saying that you missed me?
Or are you really upset about people being late?
I'm upset about Obama behaving like a dictator and thinking that his words have the power to change law without Congress.
Symmetry wrote:Well, if you can't trust Glenn Beck, who can you trust, right NS? The man's a saint.
So you disappear from the site for months, and the first thing you fight about upon return is whether or not Obama making a speech setting aside a portion of his signature legislation? What made you deny reality while gone?
Is this your coy insanely wingnut anti-Obama way of saying that you missed me?
Or are you really upset about people being late?
I'm upset about Obama behaving like a dictator and thinking that his words have the power to change law without Congress.
I know that irrationally complaining about your President is your way of showing affection. I love you too dude.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Symmetry wrote:Well, if you can't trust Glenn Beck, who can you trust, right NS? The man's a saint.
So you disappear from the site for months, and the first thing you fight about upon return is whether or not Obama making a speech setting aside a portion of his signature legislation? What made you deny reality while gone?
Is this your coy insanely wingnut anti-Obama way of saying that you missed me?
Or are you really upset about people being late?
I'm upset about Obama behaving like a dictator and thinking that his words have the power to change law without Congress.
The Blaze disagrees.
“HHS will be using its enforcement discretion to allow for this transition,” the official said, according to the Washington Times. “Enforcement discretion can be used generally in transitions, as well as a bridge towards legislation. This is something that has been used, for example, with the deferred action for childhood arrivals policy, pending immigration reform.”
Choosing not to enforce the law is legally different from changing it, and something this President has already done a couple of times.
Howard Dean: I Wonder If Obama Has the 'Legal Authority to Do This'
As a matter of public policy and fiscal health, this is a mixed bag. It’s good that poor sick people without insurance coverage are getting something. On the other side of the scale, we have the fact that the country is racing toward entitlement-fueled bankruptcy. So if you can overlook that, yippee!
But as a political and ideological matter, this is beyond fantastic. For years we’ve been told that Democrats were more “reality-based,” that “facts have a liberal bias,” in the words of Paul Krugman, and that if they could just have their way, they could fix all of our problems. No one represented this arrogant promise more than Barack Obama himself. But, with an irony so rich it would be made of Corinthian leather if it was a car seat, the only way he could get his signature legislation passed was to baldly and brazenly lie about it, over and over and over again. He created a rhetorical cloud castle where no one would lose his insurance, every family would save thousands of dollars, and millions of the uninsured would suddenly get coverage. Anyone who doubted this was called a fool or a liar, or even a racist. It was, in the parlance of liberalism, a “false choice” to assert that Obamacare couldn’t be a floor wax and a dessert topping.
And all of this — every bit of it — is their own fault. The bedraggled cadres of Obama’s defenders are valiantly trying to blame it all on Republican sabotage: The Obama administration had to keep the whole thing secret for fear of “feeding the opposition,” in the words of a Washington Post reconstruction of the debacle. But when you read the stories, if you replace phrases like “keep the Republicans from finding out” with the more accurate “keep the public from finding out,” you’ll get a better sense of things. The Obama White House, by which I mean the Obama campaign, was desperate to keep voters from grasping the scope of its misinformation campaign until after the election. And then, after the election, it was afraid to let the public know what they’d been misinformed about.
The argument against gloating holds that conservatives should want Obamacare to succeed even though we said all along it couldn’t. It’s such an odd argument, particularly since the Democrats’ lies were of the first order, in that Obama’s aides actually debated and discussed them, no doubt presenting them to focus groups like a jar of “new Shimmer, now an erectile-dysfunction treatment and paint thinner all in one!”
When a product is brought to market and the market discovers — as it eventually has to — that the advertising wasn’t merely a tissue of lies but a geological stratum of lies, the utterly fair and justified response from the critics is “I told you so!” — not “Let’s make this thing bipartisan now.” That’s particularly true when the president continues to lie. On September 26 he said, “If you already have health care, you don’t have to do anything” to keep your plan. On November 3 he said, “What we said was you could keep [your plan] if it hasn’t been changed.” Who knew that dozens of flat declarative statements — “You can keep your plan. Period” — were trailed by a cloud of asterisks like so many invisible fireflies?
If Obamacare had been a shining success from Day One, do you think the Democrats would be in the mood to share the credit? Then why should Republicans be in more of a mood to share the blame?
Feel free to cross your fingers that reality will bend to the gravitational pull of Obama’s stellar ego, his invincible hubris. As for me, I’ll be sitting on the sidelines cheering on Nemesis, with joy in my heart.
He may have the legal authority to do it depending upon what powers were granted to the executive branch through the law. I don't know. I am interested to see what he does (what's best for the people, or what's best for what's looking to be the signature policy of his presidency).
thegreekdog wrote:He may have the legal authority to do it depending upon what powers were granted to the executive branch through the law. I don't know. I am interested to see what he does (what's best for the people, or what's best for what's looking to be the signature policy of his presidency).
Do you definitely see that as an "or" kinda question?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
thegreekdog wrote:He may have the legal authority to do it depending upon what powers were granted to the executive branch through the law. I don't know. I am interested to see what he does (what's best for the people, or what's best for what's looking to be the signature policy of his presidency).
Do you definitely see that as an "or" kinda question?
thegreekdog wrote:He may have the legal authority to do it depending upon what powers were granted to the executive branch through the law. I don't know. I am interested to see what he does (what's best for the people, or what's best for what's looking to be the signature policy of his presidency).
Do you definitely see that as an "or" kinda question?
Sure.
Care to elaborate?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
thegreekdog wrote:He may have the legal authority to do it depending upon what powers were granted to the executive branch through the law. I don't know. I am interested to see what he does (what's best for the people, or what's best for what's looking to be the signature policy of his presidency).
Do you definitely see that as an "or" kinda question?
Sure.
Care to elaborate?
Sure.
Making an executive fix so that those affected by the lack of insurance can get their old insurance back is good for the general public, but acknowledges that the Affordable Care Act is flawed (Mets sort of hinted at this yesterday).
Not making a fix negatively affects a large portion of the public, but retains, at least in the president's supporters' point of view, the viability and effectiveness of the Affordable Care Act.
Symmetry wrote:Well, if you can't trust Glenn Beck, who can you trust, right NS? The man's a saint.
So you disappear from the site for months, and the first thing you fight about upon return is whether or not Obama making a speech setting aside a portion of his signature legislation? What made you deny reality while gone?
Is this your coy insanely wingnut anti-Obama way of saying that you missed me?
Or are you really upset about people being late?
I'm upset about Obama behaving like a dictator and thinking that his words have the power to change law without Congress.
The Blaze disagrees.
“HHS will be using its enforcement discretion to allow for this transition,” the official said, according to the Washington Times. “Enforcement discretion can be used generally in transitions, as well as a bridge towards legislation. This is something that has been used, for example, with the deferred action for childhood arrivals policy, pending immigration reform.”
Choosing not to enforce the law is legally different from changing it, and something this President has already done a couple of times.
Just because he's done it a couple times doesn't make it legal. The executive branch is tasked with carrying out the laws. They do not have the authority to toss a blanket over all enforcement of a law. Prosecutorial discretion was designed for use on a case-by-case basis, not as a blanket policy to ignore the implementation of a duly passed law. Remember all the Democrats crying that Congress couldn't change Obamacare because it's the law of the land? Why aren't they crying about Obama blatantly changing it through refusal to enforce it?
