Posted on 08/05/2015 5:37:30 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
According to the New York Times, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota requested rate increases averaging about 50 percent for 2016, and a vice president there said his company had not seen an improvement in the health status of new customers.
“WASHINGTON — Hoping to avoid another political uproar over the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration is trying to persuade states to cut back big rate increases requested by many health insurance companies for 2016…”
The deception continues.
It will be universal Medicaid. Everything will be rationed except drug treatment, sex change procedures, and abortion, which have sacramental status on the left.
Just hold on until Trump/Cruz are in office...Trump has said he is wiping out obamacare...and replacing it with something better to get people well again...
Cruz is all for getting rid of obamacare also....
I would like to see Trump/Cruz wipe out the full 8 years of obuma like he never existed!!!
LETS JUST HIDE THIS PREDICTABLE AND INEVITABLE OUTCOME AND LIE SOME MORE
Rates will somehow be suppressed until after 2016 so the sheeple won’t know what’s happening before they vote.
I would like to see Trump/Cruz wipe out the full 8 years of obuma like he never existed!!!
**************
It would be a beautiful thing to behold if they did.
I have been going to research that...maybe today I will and find out if it can be done....I don’t see why not, most all of obums’s presidency has been by ‘pen and phone’ and b.s.
shouldn’t be that hard....oh watch the rino’s and MSM and libtards come unglued if that can be pulled off...
I’m hoping they can keep this Iran deal off the table until after the elections, so we can just tear it up and throw it in the trash with all the rest of the b.s. obuma has done....
We have a winner!!
If a decent Republican can get elected president, and the congress stays Republican, the next president could wield a big stick without fear of impeachment. That would give them plenty of latitude to roll back most if not all of Obama’s agenda.
You can bet your ass that DoJ, HHS, and every evil agency under Obama’s control is out there right now threatening State governments with the type of crap they pulled on the premium bond holders for GM.
They don’t have regular citizens in their sights, though. There are a lot of non Democrat state government out there just looking to let Obama take the blame for this (and save some Medicaid cash too).
Why is that? Everybody knows healthcare got cheaper under ACA.
Best thing Trump could do would be to put Oturd on a Peacemaker and launch him to Teheran.
"I'd hate to see a nice guy like you get audited..."
Now he is planning on instituting “improvements” in the environmental standards as he has done with health care.
Once again, everyone will be hurt by his new rulings.
Pray, Pray, Pray we get a conservative president who can pull the country to the center again.
“LETS JUST HIDE THIS PREDICTABLE AND INEVITABLE OUTCOME AND LIE SOME MORE”
And then give the companies taxpayer dollars to stay afloat long enough until the big boys gobble them up.
Since this is not a treaty, is it binding on future administrations?
Treaties are binding. In fact, the U.S. government still has more than a dozen treaties on the books with Iran, having brokered various agreements on agricultural commodities, aviation, and even military matters dating back to the 1950s.
But treaties are also trickier to come by, because they need Senate approval. That is one reason why presidents in recent decades have opted for executive agreements, which typically don’t require congressional input. But they carry a major drawback: they can be reversed by the next president.
A 2009 study published by the University of Michigan found that 52.9% of international agreements were executive agreements from 1839 until 1889, but from 1939 until 1989 the ratio had risen to 94.3%.
The founding fathers designed the international agreement system with a lot of flexibility, or, depending on your perspective, ambiguity, because even they couldn’t agree on which branch of government should have the dominant say in how the U.S. reached deals with foreign governments.
In recent decades, presidents have entered into thousands of executive agreements with foreign governments, on a range of issues, both controversial and relatively basic.
“Diplomacy is a lot more complicated now than it was in 1789,” said Michael Ramsey, a professor at the University of San Diego Law School.”The president has a lot more things now that he has to just get done on a daily basis than he used to. If all those agreements had to be brought back to the Senate to be approved, there’s no way it would be done.”
Executive agreements have their weaknesses, however, and make for easy political targets.
First of all, they can lead to immense squawking from members of Congress, which is what happened when the Clinton administration cut a deal with North Korea over its nuclear program in 1994.
A number of GOP lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona, went ballistic, saying a deal of that magnitude should have been brought before Congress. The agreement was never ultimately implemented, in part because of how little political support there was for it back in the U.S.
Robert Einhorn, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the Obama administration could structure the deal it is negotiating with several foreign countries and Iran as an “executive agreement” to bypass the Senate, but ultimately Congress would get its say. That is because the White House is trying to lure Iran into a deal by suggesting that long-standing sanctions would be rolled back. The White House has the power to temporarily suspend sanctions, but not eliminate them. Only Congress could do that.
“The agreement will provide for the eventual removal of sanctions, and that can only be done by the Congress,” Mr. Einhorn said. “So the Congress will get a vote, but it will be down the road.”
If the Iran talks were structured like a treaty now, the White House could try and push for a formal agreement with Congress over a way to phase out the sanctions. But the White House isn’t pushing for such a treaty, in part because senior officials know it would never pass.
Congress approved more than 1,500 treaties in the first 200 years of the U.S. government’s existence, a number so large that some White House officials might be tempted to test their luck with the Iran talks.
But the White House has made clear it will instead seek an executive agreement, or something like it. This approach will draw heat from Congress, and legal experts will watch the proceedings closely to see the constitutional implications.
“One way to spin this is: ‘Presidents do this all the time, there are thousands of executive agreements out there. Why is Congress worked up about this one?’” Mr. Ramsey said. “But the answer is, typically, the executive agreements you see are routine, low-level, ‘how-to-get-along’ things, whereas this agreement is a pretty big deal.”
He added the GOP’s case rests on choices, not requirements: “Their argument isn’t that the president can’t make executive agreements. But, rather, that the president can’t make an executive agreement on an issue of this importance.”
Treaties vs. Executive Agreements: When Does Congress Get a Vote?
“One way to spin this is: ‘Presidents do this all the time, there are thousands of executive agreements out there. Why is Congress worked up about this one?’” Mr. Ramsey said. “But the answer is, typically, the executive agreements you see are routine, low-level, ‘how-to-get-along’ things, whereas this agreement is a pretty big deal.””
This is the same argument made by Congress who vote for small things as conservatives but act like liberals whenever it REALLY matters.
In one hand they’re saying “This deal is so tense, so important, that no one is allowed to read it without guards watching to make sure they don’t photograph it, have to sign a waiver stating they wouldn’t talk about it etc...”
In the other they’re saying “What’s the big deal? We use this method all the time for normal stuff. If we didn’t nothing would get done.”
Either it’s important and the FULL TREATY process should be followed or it is not and everyone should be able to read, comment on it.
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.