More ObamaCare Delays, And A Concession To Unions

As Nancy Pelosi of the House explained, we had to pass the bill to find out what is in it. And now various Democratic Senators have convinced Obama that we need to delay the bill to avoid finding out what's in it. The lead is that what the White House described as "junk" insurance plans will remain legal for two more years; buried is the news that unions have won an exemption from various fees which will be passed on to the less well connected:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, grappling with continued political fallout over its health care law, said Wednesday that it would allow consumers to renew health insurance policies that did not comply with the new law for two more years, pushing the issue well beyond this fall’s midterm elections.

The reprieve was the latest in a series of waivers, deadline extensions and unilateral actions by the administration that have drawn criticism from the law’s opponents and supporters, many saying President Obama was testing the limits of his powers.

The action reflects the difficulties Mr. Obama has faced in trying to build support for the Affordable Care Act and the uproar over his promise — which he later acknowledged had been overstated — that people who liked their insurance plans could keep them, no matter what.

Buried in the coverage is Obama's war on women:

The health care law sets dozens of federal standards for insurance, requiring coverage of services in 10 specific areas and providing many consumer protections not found in older policies.

Under the transition policy announced by Mr. Obama in November, insurers “may choose to continue coverage that would otherwise be terminated or canceled.” Insurers were allowed to renew existing policies even if they did not provide the “essential health benefits” prescribed by law. In addition, the administration said, insurers could continue charging women more than men for those policies and could charge higher premiums based on a person’s health status, in violation of the new law.

A White House official said Wednesday that it would allow insurers to continue existing policies with renewals as late as Oct. 1, 2016, so individuals and small businesses could have noncompliant coverage well into 2017.

And very deep in the Times coverage is the union bone:

Under another policy announced by the administration on Wednesday, certain health plans will be exempt from new fees imposed on insurance companies and on many self-insured group health plans. Labor unions had been lobbying for such an exemption, saying the fees could be “highly disruptive” to Taft-Hartley plans administered jointly by labor and management representatives in construction, entertainment and other industries.

But Republicans denounced the change. “The administration’s decision to carve out its union cronies from the Obamacare fee is beyond egregious and will leave others with self-insured plans on the hook to foot the bill,” said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota.

Yeah, well, those "others to foot the bill" should have backed Obama. More on the background here.

As to how or why this is all legal and Constitutional, don't ask:

The move reflects the administration’s view that a divided Congress would not be willing to make changes to the law, but lawyers questioned the legitimacy of the action and said it could have unintended consequences in the long run.

“I support national health care, but what the president is doing is effectively amending or negating the federal law to fit his preferred approach,” said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. “Democrats will rue the day if they remain silent in the face of this shift of power to the executive branch.”

Mr. Turley said Mr. Obama was setting precedents that could be used by future presidents to delay other parts of the health care law or to suspend laws dealing with taxes, civil rights or protection of the environment.

Should that day come the Times will bleat pitiably. But this is not that day.

Comments

[Captain Hate]

He starts with a Fair Tax and eliminating the IRS

I wish Issa would start down this path instead of holding endless pointless hearings. Plus it might shut Cummings up (doubtful but it's worth a try).

[Holly]

German Shepherd
Pepper
Quiet
All Out Storm
Family
Iced Tea
Peaches
None
Basketball

You Got: Barack Obama

You are pure class and shy away from drama. You are very charismatic and eloquent, and you find it natural and easy to communicate your ideas and opinions to people. You’re a pioneer, a glass ceiling breaker in effect. Here’s to you.

Gag me.

[Danube on iPad]

Cruz goes maybe 8 for 10 with me. I certainly wouldn't want to see a balanced budget amendment until after there is legislation to address entitlements. In any event, how would any such requirement be enforced? There's not even any means to enforce existing law requiring an annual budget, which gets routinely ignored.

And he's got to give me some details on his tax proposal.

[Captain Hate]

Gag me

It's Buzzfeed. They all voted for him. Twice.

[narciso]

I was seeing how Ryan was letting McCoppins take a look at his speech, facepalm,

[Jane]

OMG Holly, I'm so sorry!

[DrJ]

I got George Washington. I thought many of the choices were silly, but that seems to be the nature of these sorts of "tests."

[cindyk]

Andrew Jackson - what the heck - I blame the first choice "Poodle" - what can I say? Love me some Poodle!

[anonamom]

Woodrow Wilson.
Geez.

[Eric in Boise]

You’re a pioneer, a glass ceiling breaker in effect. Here’s to you.

You also have one heck of a trouser crease.

[henry]

Random presidents served, questions are for a) link bait, b) nefarious big data marketing scheme. Now they know which dog food & travel to advertise with various sports.

[clarice]

If only the Republicans had a woman in their ranks who could speak directly to working class women --who understood their lives, interests, and persuade them that the Democrats do not care about them. Who could that be? oh, wait...

[Janet]

Tennessee Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn has been good whenever I've heard her.

[Frau Schminke]

I second Janet on Marsha Blackburn. She was gracious to us on that first Tea Party 2009. Doesn't TN deserve some love?
Many politicians that day were No Show: Ted the Whale s office was dark; he was busy proofreading the appeal to the pope for special dead Kennedy treatment.

[Threadkiller]

""Mr. Turley said Mr. Obama was setting precedents that could be used by future presidents"

He's simply wrong. Until a court declares that what he is doing is or is not OK, there are no "precedents." A future president can do these kinds of things regardless of whether Obama did them or not."

I think the precedent he is speaking of is the total behavior. You capture the essence of his thought by saying "A future president can do these things..."

The precedent is that it can be gotten away with.

Not all precedents are required to be legal precedents. This one happens to be about a tone.

[jimmyk]

This is pretty remarkable if it holds up (h/t AliceH on twitter):

[A] health plan cannot deny enrollment, or the plan’s benefits, to someone based on that person’s preexisting.

However, that is not the same as saying that a plan has to include coverage for any particular preexisting condition, and it certainly does not mean a plan has to include coverage for ongoing treatment that a patient started before obtain coverage in an exchange plan on January 1, 2014.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/11/05/no-obamacare-might-not-cover-your-preexisting-condition

[Danube on iPad]

"The precedent is that it can be gotten away with"

Except that if you'd asked me five years ago I'd have told you any president could get away with it, barring impeachment or denial of re-election.

What was the precedent Obama relied upon? Andrew Jackson, maybe. (If you google "trail tears jackson enforce" I think you'll find it.)

[kave]

criminy, I got JFK.

[Danube on iPad]

"...the Cherokees took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court and won a favorable decision. John Marshall's opinion for the Court majority in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia was essentially that Georgia had no jurisdiction over the Cherokees and no claim to their lands. But Georgia officials simply ignored the decision, and President Jackson refused to enforce it. Jackson was furious and personally affronted by the Marshall ruling, stating, 'Mr. Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!'"

[Jane on Ipad]

Frau,

I remember that. Who was the asshole? Was it hatch's aide?

[Ignatz]

--He starts with a Fair Tax and eliminating the IRS--

IIRC the Fair Tax is another name for the national sales tax.
Cruz proposes a flat tax.

[Frau Schminke]

Yes, Jane. It was a young arrogant snot who when pressed finally revealed that he was actually from Palm Springs, CA and was (merely) a flak-catcher for Hatch. Caro was overly polite with the man, and it was Jean who went back and laid into him for his rude treatment of a Utah constituent. I doubt he knew much about Utah or was even a registered Republican.

In an alternate universe, we jumped the counter, pummeled him, and left him in his Fruit of the Loom undies with a Melvin. Sigh...

[Janet]

Yeah, Frau...I wrote that in my quote book when you posted about it before -

"Jean noticed & went back in & torched the place verbally."

I loved that...torched the place verbally.

[MarkO]

There once was an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing between the President and the country. There were liars and sharp dealers, but a certain level of respect for law and decorum was generally followed. Nixon is the last example of one who disregarded the convention. Obama is worse.

[Gus]

Is Goofbetold, mentally ill?? Seriously. A creepy stalker. I love it when the sick freak tries to join the conversation and gets ignored like the mental case he is.

[Threadkiller]

Statements that weren't incorrect five years ago are incorrect now.

[Danube on iPad]

"Statements that weren't incorrect five years ago are incorrect now."

There was no need for any "precedent" five years ago. There is no need for any precedent today. The statement that a president needs a precedent to act extra-constitutionally is now, has always been, and is likely always to be incorrect. Any future president could do what Obama is doing now without regard to whether Obama does it or not.

Does it occur to you that your efforts to summarize my points always result in pratfalls?

[Threadkiller]

"Does it occur to you that your efforts to summarize my points always result in pratfalls?"

It is almost as if I planned it for you.

[Danube on iPad]

"It is almost as if I planned it for you."

It does seem that way.

Five years ago: "lead can be transformed into gold." Correct or incorrect. How about the same statement today?

Five years ago: "Mr. Obama has been in ofiice for five years." Correct or incorrect? Same statement today?

"Any president can act extra-constitutionally without a 'precedent' established by any prior president." When has that statement ever been incorrect?

[Threadkiller]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlz0he9rtKw

[Threadkiller]

BTW, did it occur to check what Turley said?

"HOBSON: But you say this has been done before. So tell us about the precedent for this? Because a lot of people just hearing the setup to this story will say wait a minute, why are you picking on President Obama? He's just doing things that have been done before.

TURLEY: Well certainly I was critical of his predecessor, but President Obama has taken it to a new level. I mean, when he went to Congress and said that he was going to go it alone, it was an amazing moment where various members of Congress cheered. It reminded me of when Holder went to an audience of lawyers and told them of the kill list policy, where the president was asserting the right to kill a citizen without a charge or conviction, and he received applause.

These are really sort of Felliniesque moments for someone who studies the Constitution. The framers assumed, most famously James Madison, that ambition would check ambition in our system. But the legislative branch for the last two presidents has been virtually inert. It's gotten to the point where the shift of power is so significant that I think we have to stop and take notice.

And there's no question that previous presidents abused their power. But what we're seeing with the Obama administration is really a systemic circumvention of Congress. And remarkably he's doing that with the applause of his own party, members of the legislative branch."

[Danube on iPad]

Yes, TK, I saw, heard and read it all. And it does not affect in any way the fact that any president in the past could have acted in this way (see the Jackson example), and any president in the future may do so, without regard to Obama: it is absolutely not a matter of anyone setting a "precedent" that will give some future president the ability to do something he would otherwise be unable to do.

I am now leaving this thread.

[Threadkiller]

Does it affect this quote?

"Mr. Turley said Mr. Obama was setting precedents that could be used by future presidents"

[Danube says]He's simply wrong"

[21_cathy_f_in_tripep@d_prison_98]

BlueGovIns is going to have to price health coverage for '15 according to the existing poisoned pool, not the BOzocare fantasy pool.

You don't just get the old pool back by re-legalizing the outlawed plans. People signed contracts for their new, crappy, plans and they are obligated to follow through. These waivers are just for renewals, too -- so people who have had major life changes and would need to change from one of those momentarily-legal plans to another won't be allowed. And every waiver, delay, concession, etc. can be eliminated the day after the election just as arbitrarily as it was created.

The LIVs really are like Charlie Brown with the football. Is there any way that the hapless GOP will be able to get across the simple message?

IF YOU ELECT DEMOCRATS THEY CAN COMPLETELY CHANGE WHATEVER LAWS THEY WANT THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION. ASSUME EVERY DEMOCRAT CAMPAIGN PROMISE IS A LIE. VOTE THE DEMOCRAT LIARS OUT OF OFFICE TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION AND THE COUNTRY FROM THEM.

[glasater]

The LIVs really are like Charlie Brown with the football

Actually it's the D's and Obama who are Charlie Brown not the LIV's don't you think cathyf?