Skip to comments.Trump can alter the Employer Mandate in ObamaCare by Executive Order
Posted on 08/01/2017 10:26:59 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
click here to read article
Force Congress, government workers and the UNIONS who fought so hard for obamacare to actually use it for their own health care.
Change would come pretty quickly.
It’s past time for him to start doing some of these things.
He is giving the GOP time to get rid of Obamacare, if not, he will.
Naw...leave the unions out of this. What do they have to do with it? There are SO many waivers it is ridiculous: Christian healthcare co-ops, Muslims, unions, little businesses, large corporations, it is a huge web.
[Its past time for him to start doing some of these things.]
You’re not kidding! What is he waiting for???
The ACA is full of code sections that defer to the HHS Secretary. Congress was abdicating their authority to the Exec branch again.
President Trump should use this to restructure the ACA.
"Unlike Republican members of Congress, Trump can use his pen to fundamentally transform ObamaCare."
I suspect that Congress gave the Oval Office this Obamacare-related power to give lawless, second-term presidents the power to do Congresss unpopular, unconstitutional dirty work for it so that career lawmakers could keep their voting records clean.
Its good that this Oval Office back door for adjusting Obamacare is now possibly backfiring in Congresss face thanks to Pres. Trump.
swamp sewer! Drain the sewer!
Remember in November 2018 !
Since corrupt Congress is the biggest part of the sewer (imo) that Trump wants to drain, it is actually up to patriots to drain the sewer in the 2018 elections, patriots supporting Trump by electing as many new members of Congress as they can who will support Trump.
In the meanwhile, patriots need to make sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting candidates on the primary ballots.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitutions Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal governments powers.
Patriots also need to make sure that candidates are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal governments limited powers listed here.
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.
"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.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.
Also, unlike incumbent members of Congress who wrongly remained silent while misguided state officials abridged the constitutionally enumerated rights of citizens during the lawless Obama Administration, patriots need to make sure that candidates on the 2018 primary ballots commit to the following.
Candidates need to commit to making and enforcing 14th Amendment-related laws to prosecute misguided state officials who use state powers to abridge constitutionally enumerated protections, 1st Amendment-protected religious expression and free speech for example, such actions prohibited by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Again, drain the sewer! Drain the sewer!
Public Law 111-148 - "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" SEC. 1513. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYERS. (a) In General. -- Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following: [...] ``(d) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this section-- ``(4) Full-time employee.-- ``(A) In general.--The term `full-time employee' means an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week. ``(B) Hours of service.-- <> The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, shall prescribe such regulations, rules, and guidance as may be necessary to determine the hours of service of an employee, including rules for the application of this paragraph to employees who are not compensated on an hourly basis.
General Definition of Hours of Service
Section 4980H(c)(4)(B) provides that the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, will prescribe such regulations, rules and guidance as may be necessary to determine the hours of service of an employee, including rules for the application of section 4980H to employees who are not compensated on an hourly basis. In consultation with the Secretary of Labor, the Treasury Department and the IRS formulated rules set forth in the proposed regulations that generally were based on the definition of the term hour of service for purposes of the rules related to the crediting of hours of service under a qualified retirement plan (see 29 CFR 2530.200b-2(a)), with certain modifications.
Specifically, the proposed regulations define an hour of service to mean each hour for which an employee is paid, or entitled to payment, for the performance of duties for the employer, and each hour for which an employee is paid, or entitled to payment by the employer for a period of time during which no duties are performed due to vacation, holiday, illness, incapacity (including disability), layoff, jury duty, military duty or leave of absence (as defined in 29 CFR 2530.200b-2(a)).
For employees paid on an hourly basis, an employer is required to calculate actual hours of service from records of hours worked and hours for which payment is made or due. For employees paid on a non-hourly basis (such as salaried employees), an employer may calculate the actual hours of service using the same method as for hourly employees, or use a days-worked equivalency crediting the employee with eight hours of service for each day for which the employee would be required to be credited with at least one hour of service, or a weeks-worked equivalency whereby an employee would be credited with 40 hours of service for each week for which the employee would be required to be credited with at least one hour of service. The proposed regulations prohibit use of these equivalencies, however, in circumstances in which their use would result in a substantial understatement of an employee’s hours of service in a manner that would cause that employee not to be treated as a full-time employee.
Comments were received on the days-worked and weeks-worked equivalency methods. Commenters requested that the number of hours of service credited under the equivalency methods be increased from eight hours per day or 40 hours per week to 10 hours per day or 45 hours per week, consistent with equivalency methods contained in regulations issued by DOL. See 29 CFR 2530.200b-3(e). The higher equivalency amounts under the DOL regulations are intended to provide an expansive standard for the number of hours an employee is credited with for purposes of eligibility, vesting and accrual of benefits in a pension plan. In the context of section 4980H, an equivalency of eight hours per day or 40 hours per week is more appropriate.
Commenters requested clarification of the circumstances under which an employee must be credited with service under the equivalency methods. Specifically, commenters asked whether an employee must have actually worked one hour of service in a day or week to be credited with eight or 40 hours of service respectively for that period. The equivalency methods contained in the proposed regulations provide that hours must be credited for any day or week in which the employee would otherwise be required to be credited with one hour of service if treated as an hourly employee. As described previously in this section VI.A, under the service crediting method applicable to hourly employees, an hourly employee must be credited with hours of service for certain hours in which no services are performed but with respect to which payment is made or owed by the employer (such as certain hours of paid leave). Accordingly, the equivalency methods do not require that an employee have actually worked an hour of service in a day or week to be credited with eight or 40 hours of service with respect to that day or week. This approach is the same as the equivalency rule for crediting hours of service under an employee pension benefit plan under DOL regulations at 29 CFR 2530.200b-3(e).
The preamble to the proposed regulations states that an employer may change the method of calculating non-hourly employees’ hours of service for each calendar year. At one commenter’s request, this rule has been added to the text of the final regulations. As set forth in the proposed and final regulations, an employer is not required to use the same method of calculating a non-hourly employee’s hours of service for all non-hourly employees, and may apply different methods of calculating a non-hourly employee’s hours of service for different categories of non-hourly employees, provided that the categories are reasonable and consistently applied. An employer may change the method of calculating a non-hourly employee’s hours of service for one or more categories of non-hourly employees for each calendar year as well.
One commenter asked whether an employer is required to calculate hours of service using all three hours of service calculation methods provided for non-hourly employees (actual hours and two equivalencies), and if an employer is required to classify the employee as a full-time employee if the employee would have such status under any of the methods. The regulations indicate that the equivalency methods are optional, and that an employer choosing to use equivalencies may determine hours of service using one of the equivalency methods. Accordingly, employers are not required to use more than one method of determining hours of service for any particular employee.
Commenters requested that the equivalency methods be expanded to include employees who are compensated on an hourly basis. Because employers are required to maintain records of hours worked in the case of employees who are compensated on an hourly basis, and because use of the equivalency methods could in some cases understate or overstate the number of hours actually worked by such employees, the final regulations do not adopt this suggestion.
One commenter requested that the anti-abuse rule prohibiting the use of an equivalency method if the result is to substantially understate an employee’s hours of service in a manner that would cause the employee not to be treated as Start Printed Page 8550a full-time employee be expanded to also prohibit the use of an equivalency method if the result is to understate hours of service for a substantial number of employees (even if no given employee’s hours of service are understated substantially and even if the understatement would not cause the employee to not be treated as a full-time employee). This expanded rule could affect the calculation of FTEs as part of the applicable large employer determination. For example, if an employer had 100 non-hourly employees who each worked two days per week for 10 hours each day, the employer could not use the days-worked equivalency because that would result in 400 fewer hours of service being included in the FTE calculation for each week, even though the understatement would not affect the employees’ treatment as full-time employees (because these employees are not full-time employees, regardless of the use of equivalencies). The final regulations adopt this suggestion.
I don’t know if it has something to do with the coming eclipse or what, but...
Lindsey Graham is - all of a sudden - the most correct voice on health care!
The plan he described on Fox and Friends is better than ANYTHING Trump, Ryan or anyone else has proposed since the election.
He is suggesting we do what Freedom-lovers such as some folks here should favor 100%. Turn health-care dollars (block grants) back to the states and get the feds the hell out of the mix.
I don’t know if Graham is suggest this part too, but obviously I would also sunset the block grants in a couple years so the fed are not even involved in that part too.
Candidates should be REQUIRED to take an exam - the questions all pertaining to our CONSTITUTION (perhaps assembled by The Heritage Foundation) After completion, their scores should be magnified as they run for office. ALL congress critters both upper and lower houses should be required to take this same exam. It’s time they knew the LAWS OF THE LAND. These are the Laws and this is the Land.
I don’t trust Linda. Do you suppose it’s taqqiya? A cookbook?
“I dont trust Linda.”
But he claims Trump and the R guvs on in favor too.
Plus, look at it this way. If this constitutionally squishy guy is for it AND it is a freedom-oriented option, then we have a good chance of getting the votes for it.
Keep this in mind too... not sure how many people recall this but Paul Ryan originally rode into DC as the Donald Trump of entitlement reform. He wanted to turn ALL the awful fed entitlements (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) over to the states in the same manner - but he was quickly beaten down by the establishment and then became part of it himself. Anyway, I’m guessing he would still go for what is essentially his own line of thinking from a few terms ago.
Linda’s plan was discussed on Laura Ingraham today. Apparently, it does not address individual or employer mandates, or the taxes imposed by Obamacare. It is one possible part of what needs to be done, even if you are looking at minimal repeal.
It may not be as easy as presented, but it might be possible.
Rather than define a full-time employee for purposes of ACA shared responsibility provisions as 40 hours per week, I recommend 169 hours per week. (There are only 168 hours per week.)
Ill go a step further and suggest a constitutional amendment that enumerates not only your suggestion about candidates for government office, but lets broaden who has to take the test.
All legal voters who want to continue to vote, and immigrants seeking citizenship, would be constitutionally required to pass a basic constitutional law test.
Such a test would stress not only the Founding States division of federal and state powers evidenced by the 10th Amendment, but also stress the federal governments constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, including the Supreme Courts clarification of Congresss limited power to appropriate taxes.
In fact, the following excerpt should not only be amended to the Constitution as part of the voter qualification amendment, but also printed at the top of the IRS 1040 until patriots can work with state and federal lawmakers to abolish the 16th Amendment and the unconstitutional (imo) IRS. (The 17th Amendment can disappear too.)
"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.
And lets hold voters responsible for also knowing the following excerpt before they can continue to vote.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.
The test would make it easier for patriots to work with attorneys to prosecute federal and state officials in all government branches who blatantly ignore the feds constitutionally limited powers and constitutionally enumerated rights.
Make full time 41 hours in that mandate
<>Congress was abdicating their authority to the Exec branch again.<>
Yes, and Scotus long ago found the assignment of Article I legislative powers to the exec to be Constitutional.
If allowed to continue, Congress and especially the Senate will render the once greatest lawmaking body ever, to the usefulness of an appendix.
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.