Doctor Fate wrote:Here's your fallacy: you think that me failing to sort through 2000+ pages proves me wrong. It does nothing of the sort.

I did not say that, the point is that it certainly doesn't prove you right. As bbauska correctly noticed (by the magic of reading), I used the word 'unproven'.

Doctor Fate wrote: Here's the hard truth: I'm not reading 2000+ pages and neither are you. You say I'm wrong and I say you are.

So how do you know you are right? Even withoit reading all 2000 pages, you have surely read enough opinion to see if any of it cites the actual text. I can't prove a negative without checking the full document, but you could back up your positive assertion with a small citation.

I've cited a law professor. I could cite more law professors. Unless they say, "Provision X is being violated," you say it's a fallacy.

Well, yes. To say "hey, a Law Professor says Y, therefore Y is true" is a fallacy. Even if he's a Law Professor who is right 99% of the time, that doesn't mean he's right on a particular issue, as everyone can make mistakes or allow bias to creep in. However, cite the actual provision, and that is what we call "evidence". Evidence trumps opinion, however grand the poobah from which it originates.

I do not say you are 'wrong' so much as that your case is unproven and your main evidence is just more aegument rather than fact. If after all this time no-one has done what was with.the individual mandate, perhaps the killer clause does not actually exist.

So, in your theory, they wrote all those pages to give the President a blank check to do whatever he wishes?

No, they wrote all those pages to change the way that healthcare is covered for Americans. And in doing so, they clearly empowered the executive to do more than it had been allowed to before. However, empowering the government to do things is not the same as imposing upon the government to do things.

Well, here, this seems to meet your standard: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ter ... nguage-law

See, that wasn't hard, was it?

And (despite the link in the article taking me to a place that was not that great, so having to search for the full text here - http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/la ... ection.pdf Title F, Part II, section 1513 starts on page 344) there is one crucial point I notice...

You see it is not really about saying the executive will do X or Y. It is about the fines that 'large' employers face if they don't do certain things.

There are provisions for administration:
"Any assessable payment provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68."

ie: employers have to pay if demanded (but by implication, they don't if they are not demanded)

"The Secretary may provide for the payment of any assessable payment provided by this section on an annual, monthly, or other periodic basis as the Secretary may prescribe."

ie: the HHS can allow for payments to be spread as they see fit.

"The Secretary shall prescribe rules, regulations, or guidance for the repayment of any assessable payment (including interest) if such payment is based on the allowance or payment of an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction with respect to an employee, such allowance or payment is subsequently disallowed, and the assessable payment would not have been required to be made but for such allowance or payment.’’.

ie: the HHS can set rules, and look at how tax credits affect any due payment

"The Secretary of Labor shall conduct a study to determine whether employees’ wages are reduced by reason of the application of the assessable payments under section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by the amendments made by this section). The Secretary shall make such determination on the basis of the National Compensation Survey published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. "

The DOL has to report the impact on wages (which I guess is moot if no payments are imposed). There is also a bit on who that report has to go to.

Yes, the last part says that the amendments come into force after Dec 31 2013. However, I can't see in that section where it says that it can't be delayed - the onus is on the employer to pay - if demanded to.

The letter of the law may say that payments should be made on demand from the HHS, but it does not actually say that those demands have to start from 1 Jan 2014 - just that the burden on employers who fit the criteria starts from that point.

Now, when it comes to applying fines and punishments, the Executive does have discretion. Just as a traffic cop may not cite everyone who has a busted tail light (perhaps reserving such things for those who mouth off, drive erratically, or whatever), and indeed may decide that all busted tail lights are not worth bothering with when the main issue is drunk driving or speeding, other parts of the Executive have discretion on whether to apply a sanction or not, unless they are expressly barred from it by law. I see nothing in the law cited by Terence P Jeffery to that effect.

Indeed, the other thing he quotes...

In its official summary of PPACA, the Congressional Research Service said: “(Sec. 1513, as modified by section 10106) Imposes fines on large employers (employers with more than 50 full-time employees) who fail to offer their full-time employees the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage or who have a waiting period for enrollment of more than 60 days.”

...is very plain - the imposition is on the employers, not on the government.

I believe you have yet to prove your accusation that the President has acted illegally.

But this does give me some more confidence that the law that people are complaining about is indeed saying, "Employers shall do X", not "the Executive shall do X".

delete

rickyp wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_v._Chaney

H eckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), is a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. The case presented the question of the extent to which a decision of an administrative agency, here the Food and Drug Administration, to exercise its discretion not to undertake certain enforcement actions is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Court further supported its holding by pointing to three reasons why reviewing an agency's decision not to act is unsuitable to judicial review. First, agency decisions whether to initiate enforcement actions are usually based on a complicated balancing of multiple factors, such as efficient allocation of limited resources, likelihood of success, and the relationship of the potential action to the overall enforcement strategy of the agency. The courts are ill-suited to performing such an analysis. Secondly, the court noted when an agency chooses not to act, they are not exercising any coercive power over others that might be worthy of heightened judicial protection. Third, the Court found an agency’s discretion not to seek enforcement as being analogous to exercises of prosecutorial discretion that courts have traditionally been unwilling to review.

Yet, you do not know, indeed cannot know, if the current court would take such a wide view of this case that it would give Obama a complete pass on redefining groups, changing dates, etc, for nothing more than partisan reasons.

Of course, you don't think the President should be questioned and that he is an absolute monarch. The Court might not agree with you. Many Democrats don't agree with you.

Now, is Obama using the levers of power abusively?

In 2004 leftwing filmmaker Michael Moore released his film Fahrenheit 9/11, a searing attack on the legitimacy of George Bush’s election to the presidency in 2000, and his handling of events before, during, and after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2011 on the World Trade Center. Moore was unequivocal in his stated hope that the movie would “help unseat a president.”

Fahrenheit 9/11 was produced by Moore’s production company Dog Eat Dog Films, a corporation. At the time – before the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission—it was illegal for corporations to spend money “in connection with any election to any political office,” and illegal for an officer of a corporation to consent to such an expenditure.

Imagine if fourteen months after the election, Moore had been indicted by a Bush-appointed federal prosecutor for violating the prohibition on corporate spending. Imagine if Moore was arrested, cuffed, criminally charged for his activities, had his passport confiscated, and bail set at $500,000–what would have been the reaction from the America’s liberals? Of the press? Of Senator Barack Obama?

Something much like this is, in fact, going on now, with nary a peep from the mainsteam press or the American left, and definitely not a peep from the President. Last month, Dinesh D’Souza, a long-time conservative commentator and director of the 2012 documentary film 2016: Obama’s America, was arrested, cuffed, and had his passport confiscated before being released on $500,000 bail. His alleged crime? Reimbursing four other individuals for making $5000 campaign contributions to the unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign of his college friend, Wendy Long.

More:

Meanwhile, conservatives felt the bite in other ways as well. The tax return, and with it the names of donors to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) were leaked from the IRS to the Human Rights Campaign, a pro-gay rights group that had been demanding the names of NOM’s donors and threatening them with boycotts of their businesses and employers. After starting a conservative non-profit called True the Vote, Catherine Englebrecht found her business audited by three different government agencies, and was visited at least six times by the FBI. In her prior twenty years in business, she had never been audited or investigated. Coincidence?

Yeah, sure, we might be conspiracy-theorists, OR it might be unreasonable to believe all these things (and more) are a series of coincidences.

Englebrecht's situation is interesting. In business for 20 years prior to forming True the Vote. The business was never audited or visited by Federal agencies. After TTV was founded, the hounds of hell descended on her.

There are so many other coincidences that, eventually, it seems like maybe they're not so unconnected.

Changing the subject?

danivon wrote:Changing the subject?

Not really. While the title is about Obama winning, my counter has been "Obama is abusing his power."

df

Yet, you do not know, indeed cannot know, if the current court would take such a wide view of this case that it would give Obama a complete pass on redefining groups, changing dates, etc, for nothing more than partisan reasons.

It is interesting that you say I cannot know what the current court would do. But you have written as if you do .....

Precedents are very important in a court of law. And precedence, is on Obama's side.
So any court challenge would fail.
There also is no serious legal challenge being made ... Can we assume that this is because anyone who is interested also understands the concept of legal precedence?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Changing the subject?

Not really. While the title is about Obama winning, my counter has been "Obama is abusing his power."

Just wondering if in between assuming Chaney was incorrectly spelled and bringing up a different 'abuse' you had time to read the law you cited.

rickyp wrote:df

Yet, you do not know, indeed cannot know, if the current court would take such a wide view of this case that it would give Obama a complete pass on redefining groups, changing dates, etc, for nothing more than partisan reasons.

It is interesting that you say I cannot know what the current court would do. But you have written as if you do .....

Precedents are very important in a court of law. And precedence, is on Obama's side.
So any court challenge would fail.

Many liberal experts on the law don't agree with you. Not all of them, but many.

The tricky thing about a precedent is that a current court may decide to apply some, all, or none of it--because circumstances are almost never the same.

There also is no serious legal challenge being made ... Can we assume that this is because anyone who is interested also understands the concept of legal precedence?

You can assume whatever you'd like. You've made a donkey of yourself on so many occasions, so why stop now?

I'm not saying it's an easy case. There are all kinds of questions about standing, etc.

However, for anyone who cares about Constitutional limits, like Turley, the President's actions ought to be troubling.

danivon wrote:Just wondering if in between assuming Chaney was incorrectly spelled and bringing up a different 'abuse' you had time to read the law you cited.

Yes, I was wrong about Chaney.

No, that is not related to anything else.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Here's your fallacy: you think that me failing to sort through 2000+ pages proves me wrong. It does nothing of the sort.

I did not say that, the point is that it certainly doesn't prove you right. As bbauska correctly noticed (by the magic of reading), I used the word 'unproven'.

Gee, you must have missed this, having failed to exercise the "magic" of reading:

Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:He said it does not prove you wrong, just unproven.

True.

So, now that a major point has been dealt with . . .

Yes, the last part says that the amendments come into force after Dec 31 2013. However, I can't see in that section where it says that it can't be delayed - the onus is on the employer to pay - if demanded to.

So, as I said, under your understanding, a future President could just decline to enforce the law. He/she also could stop collecting capital gains taxes. In fact, I think a future President using the Obama standard would have nearly unquestioned authority to do whatever he/she pleases.

The letter of the law may say that payments should be made on demand from the HHS, but it does not actually say that those demands have to start from 1 Jan 2014 - just that the burden on employers who fit the criteria starts from that point.

Does it say the President can pick and choose who has to comply? Could he exempt all of his friends and slam his enemies? He is already picking a group of employers and favoring them over others.

Does the law say that for political purposes the President may do whatever the man wants?

Now, when it comes to applying fines and punishments, the Executive does have discretion. Just as a traffic cop may not cite everyone who has a busted tail light (perhaps reserving such things for those who mouth off, drive erratically, or whatever), and indeed may decide that all busted tail lights are not worth bothering with when the main issue is drunk driving or speeding, other parts of the Executive have discretion on whether to apply a sanction or not, unless they are expressly barred from it by law. I see nothing in the law cited by Terence P Jeffery to that effect.

Right. Forget about equal protection. The President arbitrarily chooses a number of employees--have one less, you lose; have one more, you lose. This is really the law of the land . . . until tomorrow.

Indeed, the other thing he quotes...

In its official summary of PPACA, the Congressional Research Service said: “(Sec. 1513, as modified by section 10106) Imposes fines on large employers (employers with more than 50 full-time employees) who fail to offer their full-time employees the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage or who have a waiting period for enrollment of more than 60 days.”

...is very plain - the imposition is on the employers, not on the government.

I believe you have yet to prove your accusation that the President has acted illegally.

I won't be able to "prove" it until it's in a court of law. Hey, you're welcome to your opinion.

But this does give me some more confidence that the law that people are complaining about is indeed saying, "Employers shall do X", not "the Executive shall do X".

Right, and the Executive can just change what Employers and individuals have to do at his whim. He is, after all, sovereign in all things.

NY Times:

Over the past year, the Obama administration has made a series of major changes to the health care law, many in response to the troubled rollout of Healthcare.gov.
FEB. 7, 2013
Announces a one-year delay in issuing rules to states for putting in place a “Basic Health Program,” a Medicaid-like plan for low-income adults who don’t qualify for Medicaid and may not be eligible for insurance subsidies.
SPRING 2013
Delays for one year the option to provide workers with a choice of health plans on the small business marketplace, limiting them to a single plan. Related article »
JULY 2
Announces a one-year delay in the requirement that larger businesses offer health coverage to their employees or face a penalty. Related article »
SEPT. 26
Announces a one-month delay in the opening of the small-business marketplace, setting the new start date at Nov. 1. Related article »
OCT. 23
Announces an adjustment of the individual mandate deadline, saying people must now sign up for a plan by March 31, instead of Feb. 15, to avoid tax penalties. Related article »
NOV. 14
Asks insurers to reinstate plans being canceled because they do not comply with minimum coverage requirements of the law. Related article »
NOV. 22
Extends the deadline to sign up for health coverage that takes effect on Jan. 1 by eight days (to Dec. 23) and delays the 2015 insurance enrollment period by a month, to Nov. 15, 2014, after the midterm elections. Related article »
NOV. 27
Delays for one year online enrollment in the small-business marketplace (until November 2014). The rollout had previously been delayed one month. Related article »
DEC. 12
Urges insurers to give consumers more time to make their first premium payments for coverage beginning Jan. 1. On Dec. 18, America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, says insurers will give them an extra 10 days, until Jan. 10, to pay their first premiums. Related article »
DEC. 19
Announces that people whose policies have been canceled will be allowed to buy catastrophic coverage and will be exempt from tax penalties for not having insurance in 2014. It also extends for one month an expiring federal program for people with cancer, heart disease and other serious illnesses. Related article »
DEC. 23
Establishes a 24-hour grace period for people trying to sign up for health coverage that takes effect on Jan. 1, citing delays due to high website traffic. This change effectively extends the deadline for coverage beginning Jan. 1 to Dec. 24. Related article »
DEC. 24
Announces that if people could show that they missed the deadline for coverage beginning Jan. 1 because of problems with Healthcare.gov, they might qualify for “a special enrollment period.” The administration did not say how long the period would last, but a spokeswoman said it was not providing “a blanket extension,” but was offering to provide “assistance to individuals on a case-by-case basis.”
FEB. 10, 2014
For employers with between 50 and 99 employees, delays for another year (until 2016) the requirement that they offer health coverage to their employees or face a penalty. Temporarily reduces the percentage of employees that larger companies are required to cover.

But, it's a fine, fine law. Well-crafted. A stunning bit of legislative brilliance.

Why did we need the law? To protect people from "junk policies."

So, why did the President urge reinstatement of "junk policies?"

This is banana republic crap.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Yes, the last part says that the amendments come into force after Dec 31 2013. However, I can't see in that section where it says that it can't be delayed - the onus is on the employer to pay - if demanded to.

So, as I said, under your understanding, a future President could just decline to enforce the law. He/she also could stop collecting capital gains taxes. In fact, I think a future President using the Obama standard would have nearly unquestioned authority to do whatever he/she pleases.

That is not my understanding at all. It is your caricature of it. Enough putting words into my mouth...

The letter of the law may say that payments should be made on demand from the HHS, but it does not actually say that those demands have to start from 1 Jan 2014 - just that the burden on employers who fit the criteria starts from that point.

Does it say the President can pick and choose who has to comply? Could he exempt all of his friends and slam his enemies? He is already picking a group of employers and favoring them over others.[/quote]It says what it says. Try reading it properly, rather the selected snippets you've been fed by people you already agree with.

Does the law say that for political purposes the President may do whatever the man wants?

No, but it does not say that the payments have to start from 1 Jan - it says employers are liable from that date, which is not the same thing. The difference is subtle - but it is real.

Now, when it comes to applying fines and punishments, the Executive does have discretion. Just as a traffic cop may not cite everyone who has a busted tail light (perhaps reserving such things for those who mouth off, drive erratically, or whatever), and indeed may decide that all busted tail lights are not worth bothering with when the main issue is drunk driving or speeding, other parts of the Executive have discretion on whether to apply a sanction or not, unless they are expressly barred from it by law. I see nothing in the law cited by Terence P Jeffery to that effect.

Right. Forget about equal protection. The President arbitrarily chooses a number of employees--have one less, you lose; have one more, you lose. This is really the law of the land . . . until tomorrow.

Actually, the text of the law is the bit that sets arbitrary limits on what a business is to be 'large' or not. The article you linked to quotes something to that effect.

And as you have yourself told us about how you as a traffic cop did not apply equal enforcement of the full letter of the law on minor violations, I put it to you that you are applying double standards.

I won't be able to "prove" it until it's in a court of law. Hey, you're welcome to your opinion.

Thanks. I base mine on a reading of the text of the law. You base yours on second hand opinions. Is anyone taking it to court? Until then it's clearly unproven. If that never happens, it's a pretty good indication that you are overstating your case.

Right, and the Executive can just change what Employers and individuals have to do at his whim. He is, after all, sovereign in all things.

He's not changing the law - he's delaying the implementation of it. In reality that is very common, as the laws will provide for the executive to set up the rules etc under which the new provisions will operate, and until those new rules are written and promulgated, the new laws don't actually apply.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

Yes, the last part says that the amendments come into force after Dec 31 2013. However, I can't see in that section where it says that it can't be delayed - the onus is on the employer to pay - if demanded to.

So, as I said, under your understanding, a future President could just decline to enforce the law. He/she also could stop collecting capital gains taxes. In fact, I think a future President using the Obama standard would have nearly unquestioned authority to do whatever he/she pleases.

That is not my understanding at all. It is your caricature of it. Enough putting words into my mouth...

The letter of the law may say that payments should be made on demand from the HHS, but it does not actually say that those demands have to start from 1 Jan 2014 - just that the burden on employers who fit the criteria starts from that point.

Does it say the President can pick and choose who has to comply? Could he exempt all of his friends and slam his enemies? He is already picking a group of employers and favoring them over others.

It says what it says. Try reading it properly, rather the selected snippets you've been fed by people you already agree with.

Does the law say that for political purposes the President may do whatever the man wants?

No, but it does not say that the payments have to start from 1 Jan - it says employers are liable from that date, which is not the same thing. The difference is subtle - but it is real.

Now, when it comes to applying fines and punishments, the Executive does have discretion. Just as a traffic cop may not cite everyone who has a busted tail light (perhaps reserving such things for those who mouth off, drive erratically, or whatever), and indeed may decide that all busted tail lights are not worth bothering with when the main issue is drunk driving or speeding, other parts of the Executive have discretion on whether to apply a sanction or not, unless they are expressly barred from it by law. I see nothing in the law cited by Terence P Jeffery to that effect.

Right. Forget about equal protection. The President arbitrarily chooses a number of employees--have one less, you lose; have one more, you lose. This is really the law of the land . . . until tomorrow.

Actually, the text of the law is the bit that sets arbitrary limits on what a business is to be 'large' or not. The article you linked to quotes something to that effect.

And as you have yourself told us about how you as a traffic cop did not apply equal enforcement of the full letter of the law on minor violations, I put it to you that you are applying double standards.

I won't be able to "prove" it until it's in a court of law. Hey, you're welcome to your opinion.

Thanks. I base mine on a reading of the text of the law. You base yours on second hand opinions. Is anyone taking it to court? Until then it's clearly unproven. If that never happens, it's a pretty good indication that you are overstating your case.

Right, and the Executive can just change what Employers and individuals have to do at his whim. He is, after all, sovereign in all things.

He's not changing the law - he's delaying the implementation of it. In reality that is very common, as the laws will provide for the executive to set up the rules etc under which the new provisions will operate, and until those new rules are written and promulgated, the new laws don't actually apply.[/quote]
Take off.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I took what you said and applied it. There's a difference. Wise up.

The President arbitrarily exempted employers having between 50-99 workers. He did that.

It is not common to delay implementation for a year. It's also not something that is unprecedented in terms of scope. No President has ever exerted this much power over this much of the economy.