Topic: Chicago Tribune criticizes Obamacare-- sort of

[LadyVirginia]

link


at some point this may not be available online since it came out yesterday and many newspapers archive for paying subscribers so I quote:

Democrats strong-armed Obamacare into law three years ago. Now they're busy flouting it.

The mandate that employers provide insurance next year or pay a penalty, as the law requires? Delayed for at least a year.

The law's dictate that people applying for federal subsidies to buy insurance provide proof that they're eligible for the government aid? Scaled back.
Sharp limits on Americans' out-of-pocket costs for health care? Suspended for a year.

Providing members of Congress and more than 10,000 staff members with federal health care subsidies that the law does not allow? Done, via a deal brokered by President Barack Obama.

And on and on.

***
Every time the White House undercuts one provision of Obamacare, there is a massive ripple effect on other provisions. It's generally a zero-sum game: When someone gains, someone else loses. Example: When employers are relieved of their mandate to provide insurance, taxpayers risk having to subsidize more of those companies' employees.

The administration asserts that it can make these changes under the president's broad executive authority. Yet critics make a compelling argument that the president is stretching the limits. Former federal appellate Judge Michael McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, writes in The Wall Street Journal about a different sort of mandate: the mandate in Article II of the Constitution that the president "'shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' This is a duty, not a discretionary power. ... As the Supreme Court wrote long ago (Kendall v. United States, 1838), allowing the president to refuse to enforce statutes 'would be clothing the president with a power to control the legislation of Congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.'"

***

Congressional Democrats, and some Republicans, may agree with the numerous delays, changes and special favors. But the president invites chaos when he picks which parts of Obamacare to enforce, and which, in retrospect, he has decided are unworkable or unwise.

In a recent news conference, Obama acknowledged that congressional modification of the law is preferable to these White House fiats: "In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up (House Speaker John Boehner) and say, 'You know what? This is a tweak that doesn't go to the essence of the law. ... Let's make a technical change of the law.' That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do, but we're not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to, quote-unquote, 'Obamacare.'''

Tweaks? Obama isn't making tweaks. He's trying to circumvent major flaws that began flaring when the law was enacted. Hence the many carve-outs, delays and special deals that have been piling up since he added his signature to Obamacare on March 23, 2010.

The president crusaded for this law and has embraced its nickname. But he did not write the law. Congress did. Major changes are necessary — he has stipulated by his actions that this law as constituted cannot work — and Congress should legislate them for his review.

Bottom line: Let's delay and rewrite this ill-conceived law. Congress need not start from scratch. Lawmakers can build on what all of us have learned from three years of painful trial and error. Three years of attempting, but failing, to make this clumsy monstrosity work for the American people.

Despite acknowledging it's a failure they call for Congress to fix it by rewriting it while calling it ill-conceived.  To me that means it should die and never come back.  I just love how they don't blame Obama for it--it's not his fault it's bad, it's Congress' fault!


(I'm pretty sure Congress didn't write it either!)

[Dan]

Iirc, this garbage legislation had provisions for exemptions written into it. Allowing for the pres and HHS to grant waivers as they see fit. IMO, that violates the equal protection afforded to citizens and shoulda been grounds for Scotus to toss it out.
I will be completely honest, I welcome the collapse. It's coming anyway, and I'd rather deal with it than leave it for my kids.

[Libertas]

All pre-engineered full-frontal progressive power-play any way you cut it!  The rammed it through knowing many elements needed to be banged out, legislated or dictated to make it work.  The Traitor Roberts changed a word from penalty to tax and the whole monsterous entity was deemed swell.  And if the sucker bogs down they have the Plan B all ready to go...obvsiouly any failure in the plan will be blamed on the private sector, the solution is simple - single payer.  Andy they will have succeeded in shoving nationalized healthcare down our throats by employing deceit...because if they had voted on songle payer in 2009 there is no way in Hell it would have passed.  They continue to work the long con, and they have the perfect patsies to play with...dumbass pubbies and clueless citizens.