Legal Scholar: Changes Made by Obama to the ACA are Unconstitutional

[g5000]

The ACA provides the Executive Branch with all kinds of regulatory authority. It also grants HHS powers to grant extensions and exemptions for a number of provisions.

Read the damned thing for yourself instead of reading the piss rags. If you keep reading the partisan hackery, you deserve to be lied to.

I can actually do a better job of showing where the HHS has probably abused or misinterpreted its powers than what you idiots have done so far. I even provided a link that would have helped your case in another topic, but one of you rubes decided I must have been posting liberal propaganda without bothering to read what I posted. Now that's what I call a "HOLY SHIT!!!" moment.

Your self-delusions are so powerful that you can't see reality any more that would actually help your case.

 

[g5000]

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 was amended by the ACA to require businesses with 50 or more employees to provide health insurance. This is the "employer mandate".

Sections 6055 and 6056 of the Code were amended. At the end of each amendment is the following:

d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section
shall apply to periods beginning after December 31, 2013.

This deadline was extended by the Secretary of the Treasury: Continuing to Implement the ACA in a Careful, Thoughtful Manner

The Administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin.

Now this may look like a change to the law, based on what it says at the end of the amendments. However, at the beginning of each amendment is the following:

Every applicable
large employer required to meet the requirements of section
4980H with respect to its full-time employees during a calendar
year and every offering employer shall, at such time as the
Secretary may prescribe, make a return described in subsection (b).

In subsection (b) which follows, the Secretary of the Treasury is then tasked with deciding the form and manner of the reporting requirements.

Section 1513 of the ACA adds Section 4980H to the Internal Revenue Code. This is where the tax penalties for non-compliance of the employer mandate are contained.

...there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable
payment equal to the product of the number of full-time employees
of the applicable large employer described in subparagraph
(B) for such month and an amount equal to 1⁄12 of
$3,000.

Exemptions, exceptions, et cetera follow.

Then there is the Administration and Procedure subsection which contains the following:

TIME FOR PAYMENT.—The Secretary may provide for
the payment of any assessable payment provided by this section
on an annual, monthly, or other periodic basis as the Secretary
may prescribe.

COORDINATION WITH CREDITS, ETC..—The Secretary
shall prescribe rules, regulations, or guidance for the repayment
of any assessable payment (including interest) if such
payment is based on the allowance or payment of an applicable
premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction with respect to an
employee, such allowance or payment is subsequently disallowed,
and the assessable payment would not have been required
to be made but for such allowance or payment.’’.

More from the Treasury link:

The ACA includes information reporting (under section 6055) by insurers, self-insuring employers, and other parties that provide health coverage. It also requires information reporting (under section 6056) by certain employers with respect to the health coverage offered to their full-time employees. We expect to publish proposed rules implementing these provisions this summer, after a dialogue with stakeholders - including those responsible employers that already provide their full-time work force with coverage far exceeding the minimum employer shared responsibility requirements - in an effort to minimize the reporting, consistent with effective implementation of the law.

There is your actual battleground.

 

[regent]

But the legal scholar said....

 

[ClosedCaption]

This will open the door to court challenges.

No it won't.

All the parties involved (patients, insurers) are in favor of the changes.

Obama's executive changes to the ACA will never be challenged in court.

You keep spouting these lies with no substance.

The patients are not in favor of the changes:

CNN Poll: Health care law support drops to all-time low ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

And the insurers are equally not in favor of the changes:

Big insurers avoid many state health exchanges | USA Today

And there's already a lawsuit circulating in the courts over the changes:

Lawsuit Seeks to Stop Obama's Mandate Delay: 'President Has No Right to Change Law' - Newsmax

Go have a seat and let me know when you can do your own research.

Thats great! Before I go to a movie I always like to find out what people think about it who havent seen it before it comes out too. You really get a good idea of how good something will be that way

 

[novasteve]

The problem with the USA besides libfags is that the repercussions of violating the constitution are drastically less severe than for driving without a seatbelt

 

[Kosh]

Well if (according to the far left) that Obama did not violate the Constitution, this proves that Obamacare gives the executive branch way to much power and should be repealed.

 

[g5000]

Well if (according to the far left) that Obama did not violate the Constitution, this proves that Obamacare gives the executive branch way to much power and should be repealed.

The ACA proves the entire federal government, not just the executive branch, has way too much power.

The Right and the Left gave the federal government that power. We DEMANDED the federal government take over. Even a modern day faux conservative screams like a hippie when their particular federal government nipple is threatened.

All you have to do is read a few laws for yourself to see that. They are chock full of federal pre-emptions of state power, and none of the "states rights" advocates ever make a peep about the ones put in by Republicans. Hell, they rarely make a peep about the ones put in by Democrats, either, because hardly anyone is paying any attention any more.

Another giant clue is in all the tax expenditures in the federal tax code. It's a Democratic and Republican gorge fest of your money in there. The tax code is the biggest vehicle Congressmen use to get re-elected. It's a roadmap of campaign cash in exchange for federal cash and prizes that are paid from your pocket and borrowed from China.


Getting back to the ACA, we demanded decades ago that people who don't buy houses or who don't buy the right kind of refrigerators pay a tax penalty. So it was no leap to make people who don't buy the right kind of insurance pay a tax penalty. Both parties gave up the fight over mandates decades ago and the rubes don't even know it.

The Republican Party sold us into ACA bondage back in the 90s. When they had all the reins of power in their hands, they made a conscious decision to do nothing about a seriously broken healthcare delivery system. They abdicated the issue entirely over to the Democrats who had been telegraphing for decades what they would do if given a chance.

All this shouting from the GOP leadership today is just theater for rubes like you. They sold you out a looooooong time ago.

I tell the other rubes to stop reading and copying and pasting the piss rags, but in your case I doubt you even read.

Start paying attention. Read the laws for yourselves. Start learning how the process actually works. Your eyes will really be opened. The modern day parties do not have your interests at heart. They are completely captured by special interests.

Completely.

All a politician in the House cares about is maintaining that 98 percent re-election rate they have.

98 percent. A sure sign of corruption. A plutocracy.

So go ahead and post your obligatory "drone" psychologically projecting post about me now. God forbid you should start thinking for yourself.

 

[Kosh]

Well if (according to the far left) that Obama did not violate the Constitution, this proves that Obamacare gives the executive branch way to much power and should be repealed.

The ACA proves the entire federal government, not just the executive branch, has way too much power.

The Right and the Left gave the federal government that power. We DEMANDED the federal government take over. Even a modern day faux conservative screams like a hippie when their particular federal government nipple is threatened.

All you have to do is read a few laws for yourself to see that. They are chock full of federal pre-emptions of state power, and none of the "states rights" advocates ever make a peep about the ones put in by Republicans. Hell, they rarely make a peep about the ones put in by Democrats, either, because hardly anyone is paying any attention any more.

Another giant clue is in all the tax expenditures in the federal tax code. It's a Democratic and Republican gorge fest of your money in there. The tax code is the biggest vehicle Congressmen use to get re-elected. It's a roadmap to campaign cash in exchange for federal cash and prizes that are paid from your pocket and borrowed from China.


We demanded decades ago that people who don't buy houses or who don't buy the right kind of refrigerators pay a tax penalty. So it was no leap to make people who don't buy the right kind of insurance pay a tax penalty. Both parties gave up the fight over mandates decades ago and the rubes don't even know it.

The Republican Party sold us into ACA bondage back in the 90s. When they had all the reins of power in their hands, they made a conscious decision to do nothing about a seriously broken healthcare delivery system. They abdicated the issue entirely over to the Democrats who had been telegraphing for decades what they would do if given a chance.

All this shouting from the GOP leadership today is just theater for rubes like you. They sold you out a looooooong time ago.

I tell the other rubes to stop reading and copying and pasting the piss rags, but in your case I doubt you even read.

Start paying attention. Read the laws for yourselves. Start learning how the process actually works. Your eyes will really be opened. The modern day parties do not have your interests at heart. They are completely captured by special interests.

Completely.

All a politician in the House cares about is maintaining that 98 percent re-election rate they have.

98 percent. A sure sign of corruption. A plutocracy.

So go ahead and post your obligatory projectile vomiting "drone" post about me now.

More proof that far left low info voters loaded with propaganda trumps actual facts.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hey, when people say they are dissatisfied with Obamacare did they always ask them about other things they dont have like how much do they like their time machine?

How safe would you say your flying skateboard is compared to regular flying skateboards?

Do you like the next Vin Diesel movie that isnt out yet?

 

[bripat9643]

Hey, when people say they are dissatisfied with Obamacare did they always ask them about other things they dont have like how much do they like their time machine?

How safe would you say your flying skateboard is compared to regular flying skateboards?

Do you like the next Vin Diesel movie that isnt out yet?

You have to be positively delusional to believe people will start liking Obamacare once we are all suffering under it.

 

[Indeependent]

Well if (according to the far left) that Obama did not violate the Constitution, this proves that Obamacare gives the executive branch way to much power and should be repealed.

The ACA proves the entire federal government, not just the executive branch, has way too much power.

The Right and the Left gave the federal government that power. We DEMANDED the federal government take over. Even a modern day faux conservative screams like a hippie when their particular federal government nipple is threatened.

All you have to do is read a few laws for yourself to see that. They are chock full of federal pre-emptions of state power, and none of the "states rights" advocates ever make a peep about the ones put in by Republicans. Hell, they rarely make a peep about the ones put in by Democrats, either, because hardly anyone is paying any attention any more.

Another giant clue is in all the tax expenditures in the federal tax code. It's a Democratic and Republican gorge fest of your money in there. The tax code is the biggest vehicle Congressmen use to get re-elected. It's a roadmap to campaign cash in exchange for federal cash and prizes that are paid from your pocket and borrowed from China.


We demanded decades ago that people who don't buy houses or who don't buy the right kind of refrigerators pay a tax penalty. So it was no leap to make people who don't buy the right kind of insurance pay a tax penalty. Both parties gave up the fight over mandates decades ago and the rubes don't even know it.

The Republican Party sold us into ACA bondage back in the 90s. When they had all the reins of power in their hands, they made a conscious decision to do nothing about a seriously broken healthcare delivery system. They abdicated the issue entirely over to the Democrats who had been telegraphing for decades what they would do if given a chance.

All this shouting from the GOP leadership today is just theater for rubes like you. They sold you out a looooooong time ago.

I tell the other rubes to stop reading and copying and pasting the piss rags, but in your case I doubt you even read.

Start paying attention. Read the laws for yourselves. Start learning how the process actually works. Your eyes will really be opened. The modern day parties do not have your interests at heart. They are completely captured by special interests.

Completely.

All a politician in the House cares about is maintaining that 98 percent re-election rate they have.

98 percent. A sure sign of corruption. A plutocracy.

So go ahead and post your obligatory projectile vomiting "drone" post about me now.

More proof that far left low info voters loaded with propaganda trumps actual facts.

Ad hominem...BORING!

 

[Listening]

This will open the door to court challenges.

No it won't.

All the parties involved (patients, insurers) are in favor of the changes.

Obama's executive changes to the ACA will never be challenged in court.

More fantasies by the left.

Or do you have a sworn pledge from the right ?

Didn't think so.

Started drinking a bit early ?

 

[regent]

Most Americans do not have any idea how ACA will work, they only know what their political party tells them regarding how it will work. How many people knew in 1934 how Social Security would work, again only what their political parties told them. ACA can be changed, improved, dropped or whatever depending on how it works. The problem for Republicans is that in thirty years it may be working quite well and Americans will not remember the political battle taking place today. If Republicans were smart, they would wait for the outcome and if successful claim credit for the whole thing.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

This will open the door to court challenges.

No it won't.

All the parties involved (patients, insurers) are in favor of the changes.

Obama's executive changes to the ACA will never be challenged in court.

You keep spouting these lies with no substance.

The patients are not in favor of the changes:

CNN Poll: Health care law support drops to all-time low ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

And the insurers are equally not in favor of the changes:

Big insurers avoid many state health exchanges | USA Today

And there's already a lawsuit circulating in the courts over the changes:

Lawsuit Seeks to Stop Obama's Mandate Delay: 'President Has No Right to Change Law' - Newsmax

Go have a seat and let me know when you can do your own research.

Do you like wasting your time finding links that don't support your argument?

Yes, the ACA is unpopular, but the changes are not.

Below is an excerpt from the Bloomberg Business Magazine. According to this article, any lawsuit has very little chance of succeeding and would seem to be groundless. The lawsuits filed now don't even involve any of the relevant parties. A dentist? A political action group?

One way to read this -- and the way it was probably intended -- was that the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, would determine when in 2014 employers would file their insurance reports. That's consistent with her discretion under other parts of the law to determine how employers file. Under this interpretation, employers would still be required to insure their employees for all of 2014 even if Sebelius had them file on New Year's Eve.

Another way to read the passage is as a blank check to postpone the mandate by as long as a year. That comes from the key part: "during a calendar year, shall, at such time as the Secretary may provide."

Yet, a third way to read it: If "during a calendar year" is read to modify "employees" and not "at such time" then the Secretary could have the power to defer the mandate indefinitely.

I happen to find the first reading the most plausible. But the only way to know which interpretation is right is for someone to file a lawsuit against the administration. As Forbes' Avik Roy writes, it isn't clear who would do that. Business is pleased the mandate is delayed and that may lead Republicans to keep quiet. Democrats running for re-election are happy to dodge a potential opposition advertisement droning on about how Obamacare caused local business X to fire employees so could escape the mandate (which only applies to large firms).

New York University law professor Richard A. Epstein thinks that a larger problem will be to find someone with standing to sue against the delay. "It's a very strange phenomenon in administrative law. If you imagine there's a direct violation of statute, there should be a party who could sue," Epstein said. "But doctrines of standing don't allow that to happen easily for the non-enforcement of laws."

"Name me someone you think really does have standing," Epstein continued. An employee? No. A competing firm? No. I'm just hard pressed to identify a party who does."

Even if a lawsuit made it through these hurdles, Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett -- whose writings played a major role in the Supreme Court's opinion on Obamacare last year -- is skeptical that courts would force the Obama administration to comply with the employer mandate. "It's hard to make the executive branch do something. They would have to have a mandamus to make them apply this law," he said. "I don't know if they technically can, but as practical matter, they aren't likely to do that."

 

[Antares]

The attackers of ACA will roo the day.

The American public is already ruing the day this piece of shit was passed.

BTW, what does it mean to "roo?" Is that something a kangaroo does?

Jakes thinks he's cute, I am, or was roo.

 

[Antares]

@ g 5000

[B`(1) HEALTH PLAN CERTIFICATION-
`(A) ELIGIBILITY FOR A HEALTH PLAN, HEALTH CLAIM STATUS, ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS, HEALTH CARE PAYMENT AND REMITTANCE ADVICE- Not later than December 31, 2013, a health plan shall file a statement with the Secretary, in such form as the Secretary may require, certifying that the data and information systems for such plan are in compliance with any applicable standards (as described under paragraph (7) of section 1171) and associated operating rules (as described under paragraph (9) of such section) for electronic funds transfers, eligibility for a health plan, health claim status, and health care payment and remittance advice, respectively.][/B]

Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Poor g...no more than a little cu*t

[MENTION=40954]Antares[/MENTION]
Poor Antares. You thought that applies to what, exactly? You found a deadline date for something, but have no idea how that applies to Obama changing the law.

That section deals with insurance companies that want to be listed on a health insurance exchange, idiot.

@g 5000, no surprise, you actually think that just because you say "nuh-uh" it means something.

You've just been shown the date everything was supposed to be compliant and yet like a child you just say "nuh-uh".

We both know you need to argue semantics...I've already said he didn't change it, he has ignored much of it.

 

[1776]

It is common sense that Obama can't pick and choose which parts of a law he wants to enforce and not enforce for the benefit of his supporters.

But he has been doing it long before obamacare, see his amnesty for illegals by not enforcing immigration laws for certain illegals.

He is a criminal, plain and simple.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Common sense that an American president can manage and administer a program passed by Congress as necessary to make it work in the best interest of We the People.

 

[Antares]

Common sense that an American president can manage and administer a program passed by Congress as necessary to make it work in the best interest of We the People.

I see, again you say that YOU think the President of the United States is free to choose which laws he will and will not enforce.

I got it the first time you said it Jake.

 

[Listening]

Common sense that an American president can manage and administer a program passed by Congress as necessary to make it work in the best interest of We the People.

I see, again you say that YOU think the President of the United States is free to choose which laws he will and will not enforce.

I got it the first time you said it Jake.

Common Sense is the name of the whore Jake pays every week to make him feel important.