Okay. I hope you're doing well on this morning's quiz. Here's question 2: When can the administration exceed statutory deadlines without needing to procure statutory authority? I'll make this one multiple choice (with all the quotes taken from Charles Krauthammer's effort at answering the question):
a. When "the administration decides that morning" that's "how it wants the law to read."
b. When it's "sort of comical" or "cynicism raised to the level of comedy."
c. When the administration is dealing with "one of the longest laws in American history, thousands of pages," so that no one can really be expected to "refer[] to section 706-b, or whatever," so "none of [the words] really matter."
d. When they "were lying when they said... the deadline wouldn't change" and "Everyone knew they were lying."
e. When "nobody really cares" about the statutory text or the fact that it's been lied about.
f. When you actually don't want any deadline, because you want an endless period of open enrollment, because you want to let people wait until they have a big medical expense before they buy insurance, because that's the way to "send all the companies into bankruptcy."
g. All of the above.
h. All of the above except f.
Posts
66 comments:
"g." All of the above. Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass the law to know what was in it. Turns out we'd have to read President Obama's mind to know what was in it (subject to change with the political winds, of course)
There is a logical inconsistency in your answers, because 'h: all of the above except f' includes 'g: all of the above' and that includes f.
Why should anyone believe anything that comes out of anyone's mouth in the Executive Branch?
i. All the above, because (a) No one has the standing to sue, and (b) The only remedy is impeachment, which isn't going to happen.
With f. according to Dr. Strangelove (Ezekiel Emanuel).
I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"
The correct questions would be when is the enrolled insured bound and when is black letter law actually the law?
ObamaCare is too big to flail and its proponents should have more self respect.
It's time to mom-up and get tough.
Krauthammer: There Are No Obamacare Deadlines Unless Obama Or Sebelius Decides The Gig Is Up
Awesome.
What if I called a dog's tail a leg?
"There is a logical inconsistency in your answers, because 'h: all of the above except f' includes 'g: all of the above' and that includes f."
I thought about that, and I have an answer, which is that at the point when you've excepted f, you excepted it from the "all of the above" too. Since I put that option last, I think it is logical.
And the other day Garage Mahal was cackling about the Republicans not having an iron-clad, bullet-proof, specific "concrete" alternative to Obamacare.
Anxiously awaiting the alternative Republican plan to ObamaCare. I bet it's awesome. Coming out soon I hear?
3/25/14, 9:15 AM
Republicans will run on "ObamaKKKare is the worst thing since slavery.....but, uh, we're not going to offer any solutions so, uh, vote for me?" That sounds about right.
3/25/14, 10:50 AM
So what are the Republicans running on currently?
ObamaCare is bad....and?
3/25/14, 10:53 AM
So Republicans are running on a 5-point ObamaCare alternative plan? Does it have a name or a link?
3/25/14, 11:00 AM
I'm wondering where all the anger is coming from if Republicans aren't proposing any concrete plans to change the law with legislation.
3/25/14, 12:14 PM
f -- because of Hanlan's Saw
e.
For the reasons given by Peter. The courts wont help and impeachment is off the table. So no one cares enough to do anything about it.
I just wish we had one party that professed a desire for clean, open and honest government.
E and F. Thank you, lawyers and insurance companies, for pursuing your self-interest over the needs of the American people.
What happened to the bar chart with the VOTE, VIEW button?
Hillary Clinton's words sum up everything about this administration:
At this point, what difference does it make!?
The ACA isn't longer than the tax code, but try telling the IRS you are going to "exceed statutory deadlines without needing to procure statutory authority".
According the Sen. Harry Reid (D-Charisma), Obamacare is failing because the internet is hard or something.
E. Seems to be what has been happening the last few months.
I just wish we had one party that professed a desire for clean, open and honest government.
Oh, I think they all profess that desire. Implementing it just never happens.
Look, every extension, waiver, and change is another nail in the coffin for Democrats this fall. They all voted for this POS, and when pressed on this crap it becomes very clear that no Democrat can be trusted to fix it.
f. The point has always been to put private insurers out of business. When they're all out of the picture, single payer will be the only alternative. Lies, damned lies, and whatever oozes from Obama's mouth.
j. When congress lacks the will to force the president to respect its law-making authority.
"Thank you, lawyers and insurance companies, for pursuing your self-interest over the needs of the American people."
The instinct of self-preservation is strong. It's hard to get someone, let alone a corporation, to commit suicide.
Obama might pull it off.
Scott said...
E and F. Thank you, lawyers and insurance companies, for pursuing your self-interest over the needs of the American people.
3/27/14, 9:02 AM
I have no problem with lawyers and insurance companies pursuing their self-interests. Everyone should BUT the law SHOULD be there to make sure that someone pursuing their self-interest does not deprive me of my rights. That is the job of politicians and the government. Neither of which have been doing their jobs for quite some time now.
All sound plausible to me.
'You're going to fit into these one-size-fits-all pants, America,' said the people not wearing any clothes.
@Todd: Absolutely, well put.
Obama has done more to promote small government than any President since Calvin Coolidge.
His disrespect and cavalier attitude toward law is a huge blessing. There are too many laws and regulations and most of them are bullshit. The administration doesn't care about the law and neither should the citizenry. When no one follows a law, it's the same as if that law doesn't exist. You want to legalize something? Just have enough people do it. The government can't credibly enforce the law. It will be amnesty for all.
tl;dr
o. I won.
Why should we let a 100 year old document boss us around?
#banbossyconstitutions
Tyrone Slothrop said...
f. The point has always been to put private insurers out of business. When they're all out of the picture, single payer will be the only alternative. Lies, damned lies, and whatever oozes from Obama's mouth.
While I agree this was probably the intention when they wrote Obamacare, I think it's massive failure will make it a harder sell to anyone other than the most rabidly-ignorant Obama supporters. They've proven beyond all doubt that they're incompetent at implementing Obamacare. Fact is, if you look at any of the big federal health care programs (VA, military, Indian reservations, Medicare, Medicaid), you'll see they're a mess. How could anyone other than the most stupid people believe that letting the government run single payer will be any better? Had the Obamacare implementation and rollout been a success, it would've been easier to make the case. Sorry, but "trust us, next time will be better!" just doesn't cut it.
Since Obama bragged that he was a Constitutional Law Professor, not like that law-breakin' dummy Bush!, [“I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution"] -
I'm shocked this is happening.
There may also be gambling happening here.
Incredible that Althouse can clearly see the folly of this big time meddling by the social engineers in a healthcare system that evolved through human experience and tradition.
And she can't see the folly of her arrogant desire to re-engineer the sacrament of marriage. Without the consent of the people. Imposed on us by lawyers.
What in the fuck is going on in her head?
How is it possible that she cannot see her stupidity? What is it that causes this incomprehensible blindness?
This is setting some wonderful precedent for the next White House occupant. I seem to remember reading something about a nation of laws, not men, but that seems quaint now.
Remember, the original impetus for "gay marriage," that absurd contradiction in terms, was to help surviving partners of gay men who died of AIDS to obtain healthcare insurance.
Althouse and her lawyers colleagues have re-engineered the sacrament of marriage in an effort to provide health coverage to gay men.
This is really what it was all about. The shit about how gay cohabitation should be seen as the same as marriage was just tacked on for PR purposes, in order to evoke the black civil rights movement and paint both issues as identical.
Althouse continues to observe a steadfast silence on the AIDS epidemic for the very reason that mentioning it would explode her ridiculous legal arguments.
I seem to remember reading something about a nation of laws, not men, but that seems quaint now.
Yeah.
Well, in the same vein, what happens when the will of the electorate is rendered null because they are "homophobes?"
who-knew: screw that. It's a nest of snakes in there, and dark.
"We have no plans to extend the open enrollment period," Julie Bataille said. "In fact, we don't actually have the statutory authority to extend the open enrollment period in 2014."
- How nice.
My prediction; deny, deny, deny, delay, delay, delay and open enrollment until 21January 2017. The the Democrats can blame the Republicans.
They all voted for this POS, and when pressed on this crap it becomes very clear that no Democrat can be trusted to fix it.
Or Republicans. So why vote for them? To fling poo from the sidelines like howler monkeys?
"this extension is tyranny!"
Um, Bush extended enrollment in Medicare Part D by months.
"Soooooo!"
I kind of go for "g," except the bankruptcies will be more of a side effect, not the main goal, which is a European-style government-run single-payer system. The ostensible false choice will be between a bailout to keep the insurance industry, as presently constituted, afloat or for more government take-over of everyone's medical life.
I don't believe the large insurance companies are innocent bystanders in all this. They wanted all those new customers. Imagine controlling the market of a product that had to bought by everyone. Getting all that new business and not having to compete, sell or innovate. Just be caretakers, raking in all that dough. Captive customers.
But, darn it, if the deadline is honored, the real figures on enrollment must be released.
I'll bet those figures are devastating to the administration. Right now it's a juggling act and I think Obama will continue to push back deadlines or rewrite the law at least until after the mid-terms.
The point has always been to put private insurers out of business. When they're all out of the picture, single payer will be the only alternative.
Yes. But the insurance big shots must be nervously thinking by now that this was not what they signed up for. If there are no deadlines and continued spur-of-the-political-moment arbitrary exceptions allowing people to wait until they are in medical trouble to enroll(and begin paying), the insurance business model is doomed.
I doubt that Obama sold Obamacare to them by telling them that they were ultimately to be phased out of the healthcare picture entirely. He probably implied that they would remain much as before Obamacare, relatively independent and private, the only real difference being all those easy new customers they would get from the government.
"You can keep your private healthcare industry if you like your private healthcare industry."
"They all voted for this POS, and when pressed on this crap it becomes very clear that no Democrat can be trusted to fix it.
Or Republicans. So why vote for them? To fling poo from the sidelines like howler monkeys?"
Republicans actually do have a plan to fix this. It's called repeal.
Surely you don't like that answer, but it's a plan nevertheless.
Republicans actually do have a plan to fix this. It's called repeal.
Repeal is an option...... only for suckers who want to be separated from their money.
garage mahal, I've already been separated from my money by Obamacare. My plan was cancelled. I'm now paying more, for less coverage. Thousands of dollars in 2014. Cancelled contract in 2013.
I'll keep repeating this, since you lefties seem to want to deny it or aren't listening.
"Repeal is an option...... only for suckers who want to be separated from their money."
Maybe. I'll bet there are a lot of people who would disagree with you who have direct experience before and after the ACA was enacted.
However, to say there is no plan is just inaccurate.
@LarryJ
Fact is, if you look at any of the big federal health care programs (VA, military, Indian reservations, Medicare, Medicaid), you'll see they're a mess.
You and I understand this, and maybe even a majority of Americans. The problem is, we're not in charge. A majority opposed Obamacare and opposes it yet, but it's still the law. The dreadful federal agencies you mention are expensive and inefficient and everybody knows it, but not one of them is going away.
@grackle
I don't believe the large insurance companies are innocent bystanders in all this.
You are of course correct. But I think the insurance companies believed the ACA would go into force as enacted, delivering to them a big slice of the federally mandated pie. They fucked up-- they trusted Obama. Now the delays and extensions will carry them into a realm between light and shadow, between science and superstition known as the ACA, where insurance companies cannot do any realistic planning. An insurance company that can't plan is an insurance company in the shitter. This has always been the intent of liberals in passing the ACA.
So you see chaps, when it comes to the federal government, incompetence isn't a bug, it's feature.
However, to say there is no plan is just inaccurate.
Are Republicans running on repeal? I don't think so. As far as I can tell they're just whining about it.
Garage the undereducated union sycophant is going to explain our options to us!
Lol
I've never worked in a union in my life.
Came by to step on some more rakes, you blazing idiot?
One would be hard pressed to find a single facet of obamacare that garage and his pals didnt lie about and continue to lie about.
The fact that leftists are incapable of shame keeps their lie engine humming.
Being a union sycophant does not require you to have belonged to a union.
Your podunk high school education is showing again.
And theres that rake comment again. Its like you are a one note johnny. No wonder your lefty betters have no trouble winding you up like a toy.
Reading garages independent (as opposed to his cut and paste) comments i really cant fault titus for running, not walking, to the wisconsin exit.
Its ok garage. The plane door is closing so you can have the thread back to demand "specifics! SPECIFICS dammit" from the repubs while ignorimg we still dont have all the specifics of obamacare.
One can only wonder what new surprises will be revealed as time marches forward.
Of course its clear you dont wonder about it.
Cognitive dissonance and all.
Its ok garage. The plane door is closing so you can have the thread back to demand "specifics! SPECIFICS dammit" from the repubs while ignorimg we still dont have all the specifics of obamacare.
One can only wonder what new surprises will be revealed as time marches forward.
Of course its clear you dont wonder about it.
Cognitive dissonance and all.
Its ok garage. The plane door is closing so you can have the thread back to demand "specifics! SPECIFICS dammit" from the repubs while ignorimg we still dont have all the specifics of obamacare.
One can only wonder what new surprises will be revealed as time marches forward.
Of course its clear you dont wonder about it.
Cognitive dissonance and all.
The only thing worse than a Drago post is when he triple posts the same damn thing.
garage mahal, I have been hurt by Obamacare. It has cost me much money, much time, and much frustration. My policy was cancelled at the end of last year, and the letter Blue Cross sent me said the cancellation was because of the ACA.
garage mahal, I have been hurt by Obamacare. It has cost me much money, much time, and much frustration. My policy was cancelled at the end of last year, and the letter Blue Cross sent me said the cancellation was because of the ACA.
I've been helped.
Wasn't the "Dispensing Power" issue settled at the Glorious Revolution?
Jeeze!
Sorry about the triple post. The network at the airport kept hanging me
Its clear that the only thing worse than having someone illustrate garages childlike ignorance and trollish behavior is for that person to do it 3 times.
"Are Republicans running on repeal? I don't think so. As far as I can tell they're just whining about it."
True. It's not like they voted a bunch of times to repeal the law or something.
Did Bush really extend the sign-up period for Medicare Part D or did he just waive the penalties for a certain period? My brief search only revealed the latter, not the former. If the latter is true, the collection of penalties, taxes, fees etc. is a function controlled by the Executive branch and within the executive's powers to waive. The actual extension scenario would be more problematic, constitutionally speaking. Anyone have a clear answer?
garage, if you have been helped, then perhaps you should thank those who have been hurt, for subsidizing your behind, instead of being a dick.
Post a Comment