Home > Obamacare > Obama threatens to veto a bill that would make his illegal mandate delay become legal. Got that?

Obama threatens to veto a bill that would make his illegal mandate delay become legal. Got that?

July 17, 2013

two_way_crossesSometimes the reality of politics is crazier than anything a fiction writer could come up with. There are two bill in the House of Representatives that were submitted last week as a response to President Obama’s illegal action of delaying the employer mandate portion of ACA (Obamacare). Obama has vowed to veto both bills. This has put those of us against Obamacare in a unique position. Now we are not only trying to fight against this economy-killer named Obamacare, but we also must stand against a President that unlawfully delay’s Obamacare’s implementation. It is good that Obama is finally understanding Obamacare is bad, but he still has to work within the law. Here are the two bills in question:

  • HR 2667 – Authority for Mandate Delay Act – To delay the application of the employer health insurance mandate, and for other purposes.
  • HR 2668 – Fairness for American Families Act – To delay the application of the individual health insurance mandate.

One would think Obama would support HR 2667 as it makes legal the employer mandate delay as he had illegally decided. Right? Wrong! Yesterday the Administration released a policy statement that includes the following:

H.R. 2667 is unnecessary, and H.R. 2668 would raise health insurance premiums and increase the number of uninsured Americans. Enacting this legislation would undermine key elements of the health law, facilitating further efforts to repeal a law that is already helping millions of Americans stay on their parents’ plans until age 26, millions more who are getting free preventive care that catches illness early on, and thousands of children with pre-existing conditions who are now covered.

If the President were presented with H.R. 2667 and H.R. 2668, he would veto them.

President Obama says he would veto HR 2667 because it “is unnecessary”. Obama is taking the stance that his illegal action is good enough and Congress should “back off” because who cares about little things like rule of law or checks and balances.

As to HR 2668 the President is saying it would “undermine key elements of the health law”. Another way to look at this is that Obama is allowing businesses a break from the economy-killing bill but not individual citizens. Michael F Cannon over at CATO better explains the ramifications:

The individual mandate is ObamaCare’s least popular provision. Just 17 percent of Americans support it. Only 12 percent support letting it take effect while employers get a pass. When he unilaterally delayed the employer mandate, President Obama put House Democrats, and potentially Senate Democrats, in the position of having to cast their most unpopular pro-ObamaCare vote, ever. The attack ads practically write themselves. ”Congressman X voted against giving families the same breaks as big business.

On top of that, Obama’s threat to veto the bill codifying the employer-mandate delay marginalizes all of Congress, Democrats included. It also puts Democrats in an impossible situation. If Democrats vote against the president on the employer mandate – by voting for the bill codifying his policy (are you confused yet?) – then they are breaking ranks with their party’s leader. If they vote with the president – by voting against the bill codifying the president’s policy – they would be participating in their own marginalization.

This will be an interesting vote. I would venture if the Republicans play their cards right this could be a very big winning issue for the 2014 mid-terms. But then the national Republican Party has shown itself to be anything but wise lately, so how knows…

Categories: Obamacare Tags: ,
  1. June 14, 2014 at 12:55 am

    It improves FRC, drainage of secretions, and ventilation-perfusion matching (efficiency
    of gas exchange). If you own and use your own rig,
    maintaining it now will save costly and embarrassing problems later.
    Since businesses utilize different kinds of
    depreciable assets and amortizable expenses, the Financial Accounting Standards Board deemed it
    best to institute specific GAAP accounting rules for capitalizing costs.

  1. July 18, 2013 at 11:33 am
  2. September 10, 2013 at 1:45 pm
  3. September 11, 2013 at 1:50 pm
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: