i thought selective enforcement of the law was illegal... wait, never mind
Posted on 07/04/2013 3:29:56 PM PDT by grundle
They must have gotten feedback that it was going to hurt their chances in the election.
They have to sneak in their agenda. If the public took its head out of its a$$ long enough to see what’s going on, the public would reject the dems.
Despotism.
He did it with our immigration laws and nothing happened to him.
Yes, repeal would be ideal.
Except that we're counting on the Republicans to do it, and they're incompetent.
I think it needs to go in effect as originally planned, and let the RAT chips fall next election as it may.
How can a President delay a law passed by Congress???
“How can a President delay a law passed by Congress???”
Because no one stops him. He rules.
Well, he can't, of course. But the President isn't delaying a law: the provision of the ACA at issue here -- the so-called "employer mandate" -- is self-implementing. Among other things, that means that no further administrative action (e.g., IRS regulations, etc.) is required in order for the employer mandate to take effect beginning in 2014.
Per this provision of the ACA, an employer with 50 or more employees must, beginning in 2014, either (i) offer its full-time employees health insurance or else (ii) the employer will be liable to pay a tax (or a "penalty"; call it whatever you like), the amount of which is derived from a formula that takes account of how many full-time employees the employer had in 2014 for which it didn't offer insurance.
Nothing that the Administration announced this week changes this; because the pertinent provision of the ACA is self-implementing, any large employer who doesn't provide insurance to its employees beginning in 2014 will, by operation of law, be liable for the tax/penalty for 2014. What the Administration has announced is that it won't seek to collect any such taxes/penalties owed for 2014.
It's hardly clear to me, since estoppel generally doesn't run against the government, that the foregoing announcement has any true force or effect in any event. That is to say, if, at the end of 2014, the feds turned around and told employers "pay up, you had X-number of employees for whom you did not offer health insurance," that the employers would actually be entitled to any relief whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, by operation of (the self-implementing) law, they would owe the money.
i thought selective enforcement of the law was illegal... wait, never mind
When did this become an IRS decision? Morphing responsibility away from the regime? I thought the IRS simply determined compliance to the law and collected the penalties. Where did the get the authority to modify the law?
I agree an employer could still be open to liability unless the Congress passes something.
-PJ
Not the tax collecting portion.
Good
Gutless Old Party!
The answer might be to make his program voluntary and only covering medical care in clinics, and only covering the most inexpensive options to treat something. Won't happen, for sure. But that would be the way out.
We are a nation of LAWS, not of men!
The law is the groundwork that makes everything else stable and possible. The law applies to everyone equally, no exceptions.
Obummer may NOT change the law as he sees fit. NO! That is tyranny, cold and clear.
Altering the terms of written law, without the approval of Congress, is an impeachable offense if ever I could imagine one! Somebody wake up the GOP!!
Bad idea. Control of my body is not for sale for fantasies of better election results.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.