[sr4402]

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

[yldstrk]

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

[Diogenesis]

[deoetdoctrinae]

Click the Pic

Support Free Republic
Make it a monthly if you can

[DSH]

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

If—

(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.

[Wings-n-Wind]

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.

[Cheerio]

"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 Check.org.....
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."