Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Emperor Obama's New Clothes (AHCA Delay)
Vanity | 7/6/2013 | Self

Posted on 07/06/2013 6:28:10 AM PDT by sr4402

Obama's AHCA employer mandate delay is nothing more than the Emperor's New Clothes.

Remember the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Andersen in which an emperor was persuaded to wear clothes (he can't feel) that are "invisible to those unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent" and a child cries out "But he isn't wearing anything at all!" exposing the whole thing to be a sham?

Well what can one conclude, but that the "Constitutional Law Professor" has listened to such a Taylor and is wearing invisible clothes even he can't feel.

For any lawyer knows it's not the Presidents interpretation of the law that counts, but that of the prosecutors, the Judges (and don't forget the US Supreme Court). So any of these, when faced with a case of hungry lawyers finds a business charged with violating the law - what do you think they will do?

Will they abide by what Obama says or the text of the "Affordable Healthcare Act"?

Indeed the child is right "But he isn't wearing anything at all!"

TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: obamacare
All it takes is an accusation that a Business is violating the AHCA in 2014 and off we go.

Brave New World. Thanks Progressives/Liberals/Democrats.

/Sarcasm Off

1 posted on 07/06/2013 6:28:10 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sr4402

He can only hold off on enforcement. The law goes into effect on the date stated in the statute. Period

2 posted on 07/06/2013 6:33:18 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sr4402

3 posted on 07/06/2013 6:46:34 AM PDT by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReepers

Click the Pic

Support Free Republic
Make it a monthly if you can

4 posted on 07/06/2013 6:49:04 AM PDT by deoetdoctrinae (Gun-free zones are playgrounds for felons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sr4402
So any of these, when faced with a case of hungry lawyers finds a business charged with violating the law - what do you think they will do?

I'm afraid that you misapprehend the situation here -- understandable, as the reporting on this subject has been abysmal. There is nothing with respect to the provision of the Affordable Care Act at issue here for an employer to "violate."

Specifically, the provision states, in pertinent part, as follows:

"(a) Large employers not offering health coverage


(1) any applicable large employer fails to offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A (f)(2)) for any month, * * * *

then there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable payment equal to the product of the applicable payment amount and the number of individuals employed by the employer as full-time employees during such month."

In other words, the employer is not actually required to do anything . . . but if the employer should choose not to offer health insurance to his full-time employees, then said employer will be subject to an "assessable payment" -- call it a "tax," call it a "penalty," the terminology doesn't matter, for present purposes -- for tax year 2014. The employer's failure to offer health insurance is not itself a "violation" of the ACA; rather, it is an action (or "inaction," if you will) that, by operation of self-implementing law, has monetary consequences for the employer.

What the Administration has done is announce that, in the future, it will not seek to collect any such "assessable payments" for which employers may be liable for 2014. Maybe they won't. Or maybe they will. The Administration's representations as to its current intentions regarding its future actions are not (obviously) "binding" on the government, nor does it appear that those representations are enforceable in any way, at law.

5 posted on 07/06/2013 6:53:48 AM PDT by DSH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

I’m going to predict mass closing of small businesses because of this crap. I think that one of 0’s goals in AHCA (what an oxymoron) is to put small businesses out of business and create state owned businesses Communist style. The man is hellbent on destroying the very fabric that made America great. Somewhere in a notebook in his Oval office you will probably find a list of his goals, each one crossed out as he succeeds and they will consist of all the things that once made America great. The man hates America. Isn’t it obvious to the libtards?

6 posted on 07/06/2013 6:56:19 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
He can only hold off on enforcement.

Can Obama really prevent enforcement in 2014? I think not. Again, what is a Judge going to say when presented a case by a prosecutor? "We'll go with what Obama says rather than the Text of the Law"?

We forget that there are tens of thousands of hungry lawyers all ready with their sharpened knives out for business red meat. "Deep Pockets" you know are lucrative they say.

And "Overly" zealous prosecutors looking to make their marks.

And don't forget the Press. They're hungry too and want their red meat also. They'll ignore the Emperor's new clothes for now. But wait for the cry "But he has no clothes on!".

Just wait.

7 posted on 07/06/2013 6:56:41 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sr4402
The fairy tale is a parable about "group think" -
...a psychological phenomena occurring in group-led decision-making models.

In Hans Christians Andersen's story...
...everyone but the little kid was a victim of group think...

Dr. Irving Janis wrote several books as recurring studies of group dynamics - fascinating stuff.

You want to understand D.C. -- especially the Senate?

...Right down to several monolithic voting blocks and low-info voters...

fascinating stuff.

8 posted on 07/06/2013 6:58:57 AM PDT by Wings-n-Wind (The main things are the plain things!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Maybe they won't. Or maybe they will.

Ah, that is the other side of the coin. Will the government abide what Obama says or the text of the law? Currently the IRS is in deep doo doo. And the liberal/progressive press says "Rogue IRS agents" which I don't believe for a minute.

But the IRS is really in a quandary. Do they follow the letter of the Law or what the Administration says to do?

It's not so cut and dried. Obama doesn't have the power he thinks he has to rule by fiat. Thousands of Judges, the Appeal Courts, and the US Supreme Court all have their parts to play. And some are more Progressive than Obama.


9 posted on 07/06/2013 7:06:40 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

My opinion is that you are very close to the truth but I don’t think the goal is state owned businesses, at least not openly. I think the goal is to reach Benito Mussolini’s definition of FASCISM. There will be the outward form and appearance of private industry but the government will control everything through regulation. It is not possible to enforce absurd regulations on millions of tiny businesses so the goal is obviously to eliminate entrepeneurship and have everyone who works working for a large business. This is developing in the medical field now. When the GOP was in office we heard charges of Fascism evey day but now we have REAL Fascism and the word is not mentioned.

BTW NOTHING is “obvious to the libtards.” They do not dwell in the real world, they live in Fantasyland. If you state a truth as obvious as the sunrise to the libtards they think YOU are the crazy one. They imagine themselves to be great thinkers and masters of logic when in truth they make the average share cropper with a sixth grade education of sixty years ago look like Einstein.

10 posted on 07/06/2013 7:19:38 AM PDT by RipSawyer (I was born on Earth, what planet is this?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sr4402
"Constitutional Law Professor"

This must be stated sarcastically since we all know he was NEVER a "Constitutional Law Professor", just a mere lecturer.

From Fact
Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.. A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."
11 posted on 07/06/2013 7:24:58 AM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

I understand how he got retarded idiots who think they know everything to vote for him, but what about the so called elected leaders? What I don’t understand is how he got all those people, from both parties, to help him destroy this country. Were they all blackmailed? And even if that’s the case, he has to have a big group behind him to pull it off.

12 posted on 07/06/2013 8:56:05 AM PDT by VerySadAmerican (If you vote for evil because you can't see evil, you ARE evil!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson