Nancy Pelosi’s claim that Obamacare’s employer mandate ‘was not delayed’ (4 Pinocchios)

Washington Post ^ | 7/12/2013

[markomalley]

“The point is, is that the mandate was not delayed. Certain reporting by businesses that could be perceived as onerous, that reporting requirement was delayed, and partially to review how it would work and how it could be better. It was not a delay of the mandate for the businesses, and there shouldn’t be a delay of the mandate for individuals.”

— House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), news conference, July 11, 2013

After all of the headlines in the past week, we were surprised to see Pelosi’s assertion that the “mandate was not delayed.” Indeed, just minutes before Pelosi made these comments, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), held his own news conference to complain that other elements of the law have not also been delayed.

“The president has delayed Obamacare’s employer mandate, but hasn’t delayed the mandate on individuals or families,” Boehner said. “I think it's unfair and indefensible. If you’re a software company making billions of dollars in profits, you’re exempt from Obamacare next year. But if you’re a 28-year-old struggling to pay off your student loans, you’re not.”

That’s such a dramatically different take that one can see why most Americans hate politics. So what’s going on here? 

[markomalley]

Pretty bad when even the Compost gives her a 4 Pinocchio rating!

[Diogenesis]

Boehner, the DNC’s docile crying loser,
agrees with Obama that Obama can write any law,
any time.

Boehner should RESIGN and GO HOME.
That is NOT what the Constitution says.
It IS what RINOs want.

[freeangel]

The alternate universe where she was spawn must be laughing its butt off right now.

[Ann Archy]

We are going to have to change “Pinocchio” to “PELOSI”!!!She’s a WAY bigger liar than Pinocchio!!

[Go Gordon]

Technically, I think she’s right. As I understand what they’ve done is: the employer mandate was not delayed, the administration is just not going to enforce the penalty against companies for non-compliance.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said she was “diminishing the impact of the decision,” which he said would result in “no fundamental change to the law.”

That is a ridiculous statement, typical of the way liberals parse meanings. Although the law itself is not changed, the date of implementation is, in a very meaningful way, a vital factor concerning that law.

If a large company does not offer "approved" healthcare in 2014, they would have been breaking the law. Now, they will not be breaking the law. Sounds pretty "fundamental" to me.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

the employer mandate was not delayed, the administration is just not going to enforce the penalty against companies for non-compliance.

That is absolutely correct and it will probably be the legal tactic that the regime uses to attempt to skirt the Constitution. However, it is a distinction without a difference. By arbitrarily refusing to enforce the law in 2014, the law, de facto, is not in effect until 2015. Wouldn't an employee who otherwise would be covered by the law have grounds for a lawsuit against his company for failing to provide such coverage?

[txrefugee]

The Fact Checker for the WashCompost could only bring itself to award 2 Pinocchios to Lyin’ Nancy. She should be locked up at some safe facility where she could do no harm to herself and others....and the Fact Checker editor should be her roomie.

[shove_it]

Looks like 3 Pinocchios to me at the WaPoo site. Oughta be 5.

[norwaypinesavage]

"Technically, I think she’s right. As I understand what they’ve done is: the employer mandate was not delayed, the administration is just not going to enforce the penalty against companies for non-compliance."

I believe you are exactly right. This creates an interesting dilemma for businesses. I retired from a company with a written policy "We will not intentionally violate any laws." This is a common position for many corporations due to issues with articles of incorporation. They can't have a corporate policy that intentionally violates the law. So, How do they respond to a law that is on the books, but the President says he won't enforce for a year? I believe they have to follow it.

[originalbuckeye]

Yep! Democrat’s lies are always backed up by Big Media. Why should any Dem worry about being outed for their lies? Surprised the WaPo admits Pelosi is lying; doesn’t happen very often to Dems.

[Thebaddog]

She might be right, you know. Suppose the feds make the requirement retroactive back to 2014 to spank the businesses who don’t comply? How can you trust this bunch?

[baddog 219]

I hope she burns in hell...