|

Obama can refuse to implement provisions of ACA, but House Republicans are chastised for refusing to fund Obamacare

Why is it Ok for president Obama to unilaterally decide not to implement the Employer Mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), an Act he signed into law, but it’s wrong for the Republican House of Representatives to exercise their constitutional right to not appropriate funds for Obamacare until it’s ready for prime time.

Under Obamacare, companies with at least 50 full-time employees are required to provide qualifying health benefits to workers or face financial penalties called “shared responsibility payments.”

This provision of the law aims to strengthen the system that provides health benefits to most covered Americans. Under “regulatory guidance” to be published, the Obama administration will free companies, just like Moses, from this mandate and from rules that they report information about their health benefits to the federal government next year.

Twenty- seven states have as yet not implemented their portion of the ACA to expand their Medicaid exchanges, therefore, the job falls to the federal government.

The IRS, which has been assigned the duty to enforce the ACA, does not want its provisions forced on them, and even the president’s union friends are saying they want him to honor his promise and allow those who want to keep their insurance to do so.

If Obama can cherry-pick provisions of the law to implement, while not implementing other portions required by law, while giving waivers to millions of his friends, then why are House Republicans considered to be blocking the president’s signature law, according to the mainstream media, by refusing to fund a program that they, and over 54% of Americans, consider an Obamanation?

The president’s delay until 2015 of this provision of his health care law is a blow to the administration’s signature law. It spares employers, who don’t provide health insurance, of penalties up to $3,000 per worker. However, employees not covered by employer plans will still be subject to the law’s individual mandate that U.S. residents obtain health care coverage or pay a fine.

Are not both provisions, part of the law? Where in the Constitution is it written that the president has the power to follow the law of the land or not, based on his own volition? Of course, this isn’t the first time the president has decided on his own, which laws to follow and which laws to ignore, despite his oath of office.

“This announcement means even the Obama administration knows the ‘train wreck’ will only get worse,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said recently. “This is a clear acknowledgment that the law is unworkable, and it underscores the need to repeal the law and replace it with effective, patient-centered reforms.’

Obamacare has barely started and it is having trouble getting out of the gate. It will not only falter under its own weight of thousands of pages of rules and regulations, but will take down a medical system that could have been fixed with a few common sense changes by allowing competition in insurance across state lines, legal reform and means to provide for those without insurance by actually lowering the cost of medical care.

Share: