Skip to comments.ACA Delay May Hurt, Not Help, Dems in 2014
Posted on 07/07/2013 7:19:35 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
O-B-A-M-A-C-A-R-E, the president's signature first-term legislative achievement, may spell another round of political trouble for many Democrats, who have some new explaining to do, thanks to the White House.
Whether employers are eagerly sidestepping a key provision for another year (as many learned they would after a concession Tuesday night from President Obama) or House Republicans persist in voting to repeal the whole law (which theyve done nearly 40 times), its clear the Affordable Care Act continues to exist under a cloud more than two years after its enactment.
This is a setback for the administration and for Democrats, Jim Manley, a former senior communications adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, told RCP. It puts the Democrats in a little bit of a bind. What youre going to see is Republicans seizing on this for everything it is worth.
Indeed. Republicans on Capitol Hill predicted that by bowing to complaints from the business community about burdens within a complex law, Obama opened a door to the possibility of delaying the implementation of the ACA as it affects individuals, who are required by January to buy insurance or pay penalties in 2015.
What is a Democratic candidate supposed to say in light of this: 'Yes, I supported Obamacare but thankfully we delayed it to protect you from how bad it is?" asked Brad Dayspring, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
If the rule of law doesn’t apply Obamacare, illegal immigration, etc., why should it matter when King Hussein’s minions commit massive voter fraud to steal the House and maintain the Senate in 2014?
The editors of The New York Times, Mr. Obamas most reliable sycophants, are deep in mourning, but working furiously to apply more rouge to the corpse before it turns the parlor too fragrant for a wake. Its summer, and theyre running out of ice.
The downside to the delay in implementing the employer mandate is that it gives Republican critics the facts and figures, the ammunition to portray the health care reforms as a failure, The Times says. But not to worry, the years delay decreed by the president will allow the Internal Revenue Service time to figure out how this mandate will work it is more important to do this right than to do it quickly.
Its ever so reassuring to know the IRS is on the case.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/5/pruden-obamacare-called-fiasco-ages/#ixzz2YPuGEPX2
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
I think it’s odd that they can just delay this, assuming the bill has an employer mandate start date of 1-1-14 written into the text of the bill. You can’t just waive that date, but apparently Obama is going to get away with that.
Also, remember that Obamacare was passed in March 2010. We were told that different pieces of the law were being phased in over a period of years, so as to give everyone plenty of time to adjust to the new law.
So we’re saying that over three years later, the Obama administration is so incompetent that they haven’t been able to administer the employer mandate piece of the law in these three years? And so they need another year to do so? Is this for real or is it satire? What does this say about the competence of the Obama administration?
And what does it say about the media, Republicans, and everyone, that the president announces a delay in a major piece of this law, and nobody is calling him out to say that there is a firm start date in the law, which can’t just be waived at the whim of the president?
I don’t think they’ll have to steal the election. The Democrats have put together enough victim groups that all they have to do is make with the freebies and tell them that Republicans will restart slavery, segregation, kill women, homosexuals, the elderly, etc.
We have an army of Rachel Jeantels that vote now.
I guess that means we will have to print the ballots in cursive.
This is not a national election.
We also have a larger (IMO) army of Joe Sixpacks who didn't vote for the patrician the Republicans nominated last year. They are going to be screwed by Obamacare, and their shrinking paychecks may well motivate them to get out and vote in 2014.
Obama is not waiving the date he is waiving enforcement of the mandate. The mandate will still be law and enforceable, but King Obama says he will look the other way until after the election.
Well, then my question would be, can the president decide not to enforce the law? If he’s not called out on it, I fully understand that it won’t be enforced.
It seems odd to me also, as to why the president, even if he had authority to do so, would delay enforcement of his own signature legislation???
He is trying to cut his losses. He figures the political flak from the delay will not be as bad as from staying the course. Obama NEEDS a democrat congress and senate to finish us off before his second term is up. Although it seems we are already finished off anyway.
So then the president knows that Obamacare is a disaster in terms of healthcare policy? He wants to cut his losses? He would have more political flak from staying the course? Of his signature bill, his historic legacy of an achievement? Amazing...................
Of course he does. Improving health care was not the intent of Obamacare, the intent was to destroy our current system and grab lots of extra power over the citizenry.
“Jim Manley, a former senior communications adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [said]...’What youre going to see is Republicans seizing on this for everything it is worth.’
One can only hope. God knows, Sen. Reid would never do a thing like that. Wouldn’t even THINK of it!
To get campaign donations. It’s that simple.
Businesses would not have donated to Dems in the 2014 House and Senate elections.
If they’re smart they still won’t of course. But more will.
Obama does what he is told to do.
Eating sushi with a lib in Little Tokyo L.A. last Friday—after telling him my GGGgrandfather fought at Gettysburg, I said in a whiny voice “Please, All I want is my ObamaCare!”
Sometimes sushi’s alright.
Obamacare was meant to fail. When the whole thing falls apart, the Dems will say that it just means we need a single-payer, government-run system like those swell systems in other countries. Teddy Kennedy (who has been sober for quite some time now) said this many decades ago. The libs knew government meddling would make things worse, and the ignorant populace would call for even more government to fix the problems government caused in the first place. It is nationalization by stealth.
Sure, I'll take Obama's word for it. If I were an owner with conservative principles that are publicly acted upon, or that failed to donate to the Democrates, beware of isolated enforcement.
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.