Posted on 12/05/2014 9:55:26 AM PST by Kaslin
What’s the easiest way to avoid getting sued by the Obama Administration? Well… If you come up with an answer, let the rest of us know. A company that has supported the President and his Affordable Care Act, is currently being sued by Obama for following the law. (Wait… “Affordable” Care Act? Can we sue Democrats for false advertising yet?)
Welcome to Obama’s America. Where you can literally get sued for trying to comply with the law. (Boy… That’ll teach you.)
Honeywell International Inc., and two smaller firms, are being sued for taking advantage of a specific provision in the ACA that allows them to lower their out-of-pocket medical expenses. Deroy Murdock at the National Review explains:
These firms are complying with Obamacare, which lets them offer wellness programs to their employees. These activities help workers lose weight, quit smoking, receive regular checkups, and otherwise become healthier. As an incentive, Obamacare offers participating employees as much as a 50 percent reduction in out-of-pocket medical expenses… The comically titled “Affordable Care Act” requires that employees in these programs undergo medical tests to qualify for lower premiums. Unfortunately, such exams violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.
So, let’s make sure we understand this: Employers can offer their workers “wellness programs”; but following the regulations for such programs result in a violations of the ADA. Well, Nancy Pelosi, I’m certainly glad we’re finally figuring out what’s in this thing; because Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would be three case-loads lighter if we hadn’t passed this reform.
Of course, this shouldn’t be unexpected. I mean, we have a community organizer trying to run an exponentially expanding Federal bureaucracy. (Don’t get me wrong… He clearly did a great job with that south side of Chicago.) But this isn’t some sort of unforeseen complication of an incompetent government, it’s actually just the natural consequence of big government. Heck, Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate suggests that the average American unwittingly commits up to three felonies each day… And he made that estimate before Obamacare, Dodd Frank, the EPA’s overhaul of climate regulations, the FDA’s war on soft cheeses, and Obama’s slew of royal decrees executive orders.
So, good news Honeywell… You’re not alone. You’re just unlucky enough to have found yourself in some prosecutor’s crosshairs.
Good thing the Administration is busy crafting an executive order aimed at granting “amnesty” to people who knowingly broke Federal immigration laws… Of course, that kinda brings up the bigger issue here, doesn’t it? Our laws are so numerous, regulations so contradictory, and government so powerful, that it is merely the fickle benevolence of bureaucrats, attorneys, and politicians that keep the wrath of the judicial system at bay.
I would suggest to Honeywell that they begin to shift their politic support to more libertarian and conservative causes, but I’m sure an IRS audit would just be a nuisance right about now.
“Heck, Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate suggests that the average American unwittingly commits up to three felonies each day… And he made that estimate before Obamacare, Dodd Frank, the EPA’s overhaul of climate regulations, the FDA’s war on soft cheeses, and Obama’s slew of royal decrees executive orders.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
How do you conclude from this statement that the writer can’t fact check? He is referring to an estimate of three felonies a day which I have been hearing about for a long time and he says the estimate was made BEFORE Obama’s slew of executive orders. Where is the error?
Facts matter.
/johnny
Yes, facts matter, the estimate he refers to was made long ago and he says it was BEFORE Obama’s executive orders, he does not refer to any specific kind of executive order and he does not say anything about them having occurred since October. He does say in a FOLLOWING paragraph that the administration is busy CRAFTING an executive order on immigration, he does not say that it has been signed. Sorry, but I cannot fathom what you are getting at.
That is what the author said.
There has been no slew of EOs.
Piss poor fact checking on the part of the author.
Defend him if you wish.
/johnny
Barry enjoys the idea of invoking so many new laws that virtually everyone is breaking one law or another. Consequently, whenever anyone is critical or inadvertently poses a risk to Democrats they can clamp down on them. We’ve seen it happen countless times... Dinesh D’souza, the IRS audit attacks etc., etc. I recall that Barry got into the State Senate by rifling through the sealed divorce papers of his opponent and that guy wasn’t even committing a crime.
I’m not concerned with defending him at all, just trying to figure out what you were on about, he does not appear to have said what you were claiming he said so now you say there is no slew of executive orders. Maybe you are here to defend Obama, I have been hearing about executive orders the whole time he has been in office, now are you telling me he has not signed any executive orders or just that there has not been a slew of them? I wouldn’t know how to judge that, slew seems to be a very subjective and vague term, I don’t know if a slew would be two or two hundred or two thousand.
At least I think we have established that the author did NOT say that any orders had occurred since October and he did NOT say that any executive orders pertaining to immigration have been SIGNED only that the administration is CRAFTING an order on immigration. I don’t know what the administration is crafting, I only know that that is what the author said so please argue with what he said and not a straw man of your own manufacture.
The author said that there was a slew of executive orders. He is full of bullshit.
Facts matter. You don't make good decisions based on false information.
You are defending the author.
I'm not playing at strawman. What he wrote is BS.
/johnny
Wow, you show me a TWENTY PAGE list of executive orders to prove that there is NOT a slew of executive orders when the author did not specify a time frame other than saying that the estimate of three felonies a day which has been around for years came BEFORE the slew of executive orders! Then you accuse ME of defending somebody and say you are not playing strawman, no you are not playing strawman you are making false arguments, when you say someone is full of excrement when they did not even say what you claimed they said that is called a strawman argument and that is certainly what you are doing. Logic does not appear to be your strong suit. I think somebody is full of something though.
So far you’re doing worse every time, maybe you should consider just dropping the subject.
The author is full of BS. You can pick all the nits you like.
Townhall can KMA, they have proven to be inaccurate.
/johnny
Oh, now I’m picking nits when I point out that YOU are the one making false arguments against something the author did not even say. Once again I say that logic is certainly not your strong suit. Townhall may very well be inaccurate, I don’t care one way or the other but that has nothing to do with the FACT that you have been arguing against something which was not written by the author it is simply ANOTHER false argument. You can keep on as long as you like but I think you know you are in the wrong here you just cannot accept it. Your arguments keep getting weaker and weaker.
He did say that. It is BS.
Those are the facts.
/johnny
“The author did say there was a slew of executive orders.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Well, at least you got that much right and I suppose you think you proved he was wrong when you sent me a link to TWENTY PAGES of executive orders. I said before that I could not say how many are in a slew so maybe you can tell me. Evidently it is more thant twenty pages, is that right?
/johnny
I saw that but how do I know that that does not constitute a slew?
/johnny
I guess I’ll have to, you have made it obvious that you don’t know.
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.