Skip to comments.Obama delays the parts of ObamaCare you won't like until after election
Posted on 03/04/2014 6:09:29 PM PST by grundle
Another wave of health-care plan cancellation notices was set to crash on voters this fall. But the Obama administration found a way to shut that whole thing down. According to The Hill:
As early as this week, according to two sources, the White House will announce a new directive allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet ObamaCare's minimum coverage requirements.
Prolonging the "keep your plan" fix will avoid another wave of health policy cancellations otherwise expected this fall.
The cancellations would have created a firestorm for Democratic candidates in the last, crucial weeks before Election Day.
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
Note to 0bama: “We have long memories”
I wonder how many of these dropped plans were reinstated anyway? That would seem ridiculous.
IMPEACH THE BASTARD __ NOW!!!
That will result in an outcry among Democrats, who will scream at the top of their lungs that the insurance companies are lying.
The Republicans will say nothing in response.
Extra-aggressive scrutiny of the insurance industry by the IRS and other regulatory agencies will follow.
Of course, when policies are dropped after the election, it will be reported as being the fault of greed on the part of insurance companies.
Why not have a class action lawsuit against Obamacare?
The product (Obamacare) is harmful to the financial, emotional and medical well-being of millions of American Citizens.
The FDA, ATF and EPA fine or haul us into courts for much lesser infractions!
Why should Obamacare get a pass?
Even Government monopolies are not above the Law.
the voters in those red stated just need to keep bitchin’ to their senators in regards to the mandate.just keep nagging them.LOSE THE MANDATE,GIVE US BACK OUR PLANS,,,OR YOUR FIRED!!!
And what about people that had a inexpensive “noncompliant” plan thru their employer.
and then the employer went and changed it up so that they were in a more expensive “compliant” plan.
What then, do those folks get to change it back to the cheaper plan?
Just thinking...if someone had one of those old “substandard policies” now extended by Obama’s fiat and then had a health issue that was not covered by their old policy, but would have been covered by Obamacare mandate. The law is clear that after January 1, 2014 all policies must meet the minimum Obamacare standards. Could this individual sue in federal court that the law requires their insurance pay for these services? Obama’s delays are obviously illegal so the law as passed I assume would apply. Any thoughts???
Only a racist would want to alter that which is settled law.
Don’t they have to send policy changes mid October ?
“Obama delays the parts of ObamaCare you won’t like until after election”
It worked before, so why not?
The stupidity of the American people never ceases to amaze me.
It has been my understanding that a so called reset button that turns everything back to pre-Obamacare is impossible in many cases, as in a burned down house being made whole again, or getting back what you lost in Vegas, haha.
What am I missing?
Liberals think their votes are all-powerful; if they vote for something, it must happen. Conversely, if what they voted for doesn't work as advertised, it can be simply voted out.
Realizing this ain't how things work is a major step toward becoming a conservative.
As mentioned in related threads, regardless what activist justices want everybody to think about the constitutionlity of
Obamacare Democratcare, the Supreme Court had previously clarified the following about so-called federal healthcare. Not only have the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to address public healthcare issues, but Congress is prohibited from laying taxes in the name of state power things like healthcare. .
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. (emphases added) Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Tailor-made for the LIV....