Patterico's Pontifications

7/10/2013

House GOP to Push Individual Mandate Waiver to Level Playing Field with Business

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:14 am



Across the country, politically aware people are asking the question: How is it that business gets a one-year exemption from ObamaCare penalties, but individuals don’t? To those people, I say: your lobbyist did a poor job.

What’a that? You don’t even have a lobbyist?!

Well, to quote the mechanic as he looks at your car at and shakes his head sadly: “Dere’s your problem right dere.”

Well, the House GOP is looking to do something about it: namely, pass a bill that gives individuals the same pass that Big Business is getting. The New York Times, which does not like the proposal, does not disguise its hostility in its “news” article on the move, characterizing the bill as Republicans “seizing” on an “opening” to exploit the situation and divide Democrats:

Seeing Opening, House G.O.P. Pushes Delay on Individual Mandate in Health Law

WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders on Tuesday seized on the Obama administration’s one-year delay of a mandate for larger employers to offer health insurance or face penalties, demanding the same postponement for the mandate on individual insurance purchases and promising a series of showdowns aimed at dividing Democrats from the White House.

After more than two years of voting repeatedly and unsuccessfully to repeal the health care law, Republicans believe they are getting traction thanks to what they see as the Obama administration’s self-inflicted wound over the employer mandate.

The message is not: Republicans try to bring fairness to the implementation of ObamaCare, but rather: crafty Republicans try to exploit political situation.

Of course, both are occurring, but only one narrative suits the newspaper’s point of view, so that’s the one they push.

Anyway, I think this is a grand idea — especially in light of the fact that a poll shows that applying the waiver to individuals as well as business is very popular: 41% support it as opposed to 12% who oppose it.

Maybe we can achieve repeal the same way Congress passes a budget: we don’t — but we achieve the same thing with “temporary” bills, one year at a time, until the political climate changes.

17 Responses to “House GOP to Push Individual Mandate Waiver to Level Playing Field with Business”

  1. This is actually what I think Rick Santorum proposed doing (zeroing out the mandates) through abudget resolution, and what this does is turn Obamacare into a complete train wreck. (although it’s really a train wreck anyway)

    Since community rating, no preconditions, first dollar coverage, no cap, and extensive coverage remain, traditional medical insurance starts heading into a death spiral, with enormous annual costs and few policies issued, as has happened already for individual policies in high benefit states.

    Sammy Finkelman (a4dbab)

  2. There is a fine old tradition in America, when speaking of our dedication to preserving the Union, and defending the Constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic:

    Every Man a Rifleman!
    (I think the Marine Corps borrowed it)

    Well, perhaps it’s time for one of those “Million Man Marches” where every man is a lobby man.

    Samuel Johnson famously said: “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”
    Well, nothing concentrates the mind of a pol on Capitol Hill so much as looking out onto the Mall and seeing hundreds of thousands (a good start) of voters there to ream his a$$!

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  3. I don’t think this is a very good idea, since Obama’s waiving of laws is dereliction of his duty under his oath of office. Sure, a President can choose how to enforce and how much effort to put into enforcing, but this President claims the power to ignore laws entirely.

    The damage done is immense and makes it impossible for a legislature to function — how does a legislative body compromise when the executive can just decide to ignore all your side’s provisions?

    It is also unconstitutional/

    Writing for the court in Clinton v. City of New York, Justice John Paul Stevens noted: “There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes.”

    Of all the stretches of executive power Americans have seen in the past few years, the president’s unilateral suspension of statutes may have the most disturbing long-term effects. As the Supreme Court said long ago (Kendall v. United States, 1838), allowing the president to refuse to enforce statutes passed by Congress “would be clothing the president with a power to control the legislation of congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.”

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  4. And if the President can do it, why can’t I? Or the state of Mississippi? Nullification all over again.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  5. What Kevin said.

    JD (5d442b)

  6. You are missing the point if you don’t see how the insistence on going forward with the individual mandate benefits Obama and the progressive juggernaut rolling toward national healthcare.

    Obama will require individuals to go into the insurance pools in order to:
    (1) get them used to the government providing their insurance coverage and
    (2) bring them to the government teat with subsidies not subject to qualification verification

    Once the money starts flowing, he is betting that even a Republican majority Congress will be unable to turn off the spigot. Obama desperately needs to open the doors of Obamacare to enlarge the benefits-based constituency for his flaming disaster on wheels to assure its survival in some form.

    in_awe (7c859a)

  7. Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/10/2013 @ 8:34 am

    Samuel Johnson famously said: “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”

    He was lying. He had ghostwritten that pamphlet. Although there is some truth to the thought.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  8. Temporary bills are like candy to politicians on all sides of an issue. They want to keep the issue alive so they don’t lose another active reason for us to vote for them or, more to the point, give to them.

    The more issues have yet to be decided, the more they stay political, the more power goes to politicians. They (meaning all of them, every one on both sides) are the only ones who benefit. Why would they make anything permanent?

    This is not governance. This is parasitic.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  9. He was lying. He had ghostwritten that pamphlet.

    Proof?

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  10. Congress needs to issue a stop-work order until HHS Secy testifies the admin is ready to proceed in accordance with the law. Meanwhile HHS needs the kind of oversight attention a major weapon system like the F-35 receives when it is over cost, behind schedule, incapable of meeting contractual requirements. The best solution, of course, would be to bury this monster at sea where it can’t possibly surface again, but stop-work and show-cause is reasonable plan B.

    crazy (d60cb0)

  11. askeptic- I’m all for the march.
    Can I bring my 300 savage?

    mg (31009b)

  12. You remember when Obama et all were so upset at Bush’s signing statements?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  13. et al, damn spell check

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  14. Those Bad Smart People are trying to make the president look bad. Again

    corwin (073156)

  15. I believe Samuel Johnson later admitted it.

    Sammy Finkelman (a4dbab)

  16. Citation?

    askeptic (2bb434)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0795 secs.