The president's precident

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

AKA "The Fix"

So in the lead up to the shutdown President Obama was telling his critics that the ACA was “settled” and “here to stay”. But in a effort to stave off growing backlash, and the threat of house Democrats siding with Republicans on the Keep Your Health Plan Act, the President is announcing that he will delay enforcement of the act's policy requirements and employer mandate until after the 2014 election cycle. (May 2015)

So in a seriously surreal moment Tea-partiers and the GOP establishment find themselves nodding in a agreement with Howard Dean...

So does the president have the authority to "fix" a problematic law? The short answer is no, he doesn't. If the President doesn't even get a line-item veto. He certainly doesn't get to rewrite or amend a statute without sending it back to congress.

Now I understand the desire to do "whatever it takes" to salvage the President's signature achievement but it sets a dangerous precedent. Would Obama, and his party as whole, be similarly supportive of a hypothetical pro-life president's attempts to unilaterally "fix" abortion law, or a libertarian president "fixing" the federal tax code? Personally I suspect that the vast majority of Democrats would be up in arms, and that calls for impeachment would on the speaker's desk before lunch.

And yet here we are...

Personally I find these developments deeply troubling.

I've been told that I put too much stock in "dead white slave-holders", but I still believe that the chief thing that stands between the US and a neo-soviet or fascist style police state is not the fact that we get to elect a new set of Ivy-League overlords every 4-8 years but the fact that there are, in theory at least, rules and standards that even our Ivy-League overlords must adhere to. "a government," as John Adams used to say "of laws not of men".

Only time will tell what sort of effect Obama's presidency will have on "rule of law" but unless there is some serious push-back and soon I don't see it being a good one.

I would hope that those who criticized Bush for his "Imperial Presidency" would see this as well.

Comments

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Considering we got health insurance reform rather than health care reform, of course we got a Band-Aid. The core problem with health care in the US is that we're spending about twice as much as Canadians and three times the OECD average for health care. Changing how people to buy insurance, even to a single payer, isn't going to change this.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

It wasn't really designed to though.

That's definitely something that does need to be addressed but what was needed in the short-term is a way for people to avoid a lifetime of crushing debt due to circumstances outside their control.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

...by having the government pay the bill instead of bringing costs down to something reasonable. This means that future generations will endure a lifetime of crushing debt due to circumstances outside their control instead.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Which, depending on how cynical you are, may have been the objective from from the start.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Would it be less cynical to be to believe this was unnoticed by those who wrote the legislation.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Actually it would be more so.

You see, I saw this shit coming back in 2010 and posted about it. (thus starting my feud with Paft) I'm just a white-trash stretcher-monkey. If Democrats are so much smarter and more moral than the general population how did something that was so obvious to an uneducated scruff such as myself would slip past them?

That thought does not inspire confidence, quite the opposite in fact.

[paft.livejournal.com]

s: You see, I saw this shit coming back in 2010 and posted about it. (thus starting my feud with Paft) I'm just a white-trash stretcher-monkey. If Democrats are so much smarter and more moral than the general population how did something that was so obvious to an uneducated scruff such as myself would slip past them?

Sigh.

Okay, sandwichwarrior, what are you talking about? What discussion between us do you have in mind?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Some time in 2009 or 10 you wrote something implying that the only reason anyone would oppose the ACA is that if they wanted babies to starve or some other similarly hyperbolic nonsense.

Being unfamiliar with your modus-operandi at the time I replied by pointing out that the ACA did very little to improve access to actual care because, if anything, it would increase overall medical costs rather than reduce them. Having insurance doesn't do you a lick of good if there are no doctors available, and that defraying costs by getting someone to pay in your place does not actually do anything to address this. If anything it makes the situation worse by creating perverse incentives to raise prices even higher so that providers can take advantage of all the "new money" flowing into the market.

You responded pretty much as you always do and we've been at it ever since. ;)

[paft.livejournal.com]

s: Some time in 2009 or 10 you wrote something implying...

IOW, it's either something you've made up, or another one of your wild extrapolations that don't stand up to scrutiny.

So far, most of the people I know who've signed up to ACA are pretty pleased with the fact that it has actually made good healthcare insurance affordable. Even the people facing increases in premiums don't seem to be priced out of health insurance entirely.

Not of course, that that makes a difference to uou. The fact is, Sandwichwarrior, you've made it plain that it really doesn't matter to you whether or not people who need health insurance get it. As far as you're concerned, it's better for a diabetic to die for lack of insulin than that the government step in and do what pretty much every other western industrialized country does. (You'll be sure, of course, to look sad when it happens.) You don't give a damn about people's access to healthcare, so I see no reason for us to waste time pretending that the ACA's ability to make healthcare available is really an issue with you.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Not of course, that that makes a difference to you.

No it doesn't, because robbing Peter to pay Paul is still robbery no matter how you try to justify it. You are so eager to demonize your ideological opponents that you ignore the obvious implications of your own words.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Thank you for proving my point.

How is it "demonizing" you when I'm simply pointing out your premise?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

endure a lifetime of crushing debt

Are you suggesting this is the secret objective of the ACA?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Not really secret, but to a degree yes.

One of the stated objectives of the ACA was to get younger healthier people to bear the brunt of the old and infirm's health care costs. Going into crushing debt as a result is merely a side-effect.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

$50/month leads to crushing debt? After subsidies, the average mid-twenties guy on the lower end of the income spectrum is looking at a decent amount of subsidies to help with insurance costs.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

You realize that at some time in the future, someone will have to pay for those government subsidies plus interest.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Of course. However, the ACA is projected to cut $200 billion from the deficit in its first 10 years, and $1 trillion in the next 10 years according to the CBO. Whether or not it accomplishes that is anyone's guess, but that's the best estimate we have at the moment. So if your contention is that we're adding more to the debt, we're not. We're slowing its growth.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Forbs did a comparison here (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/07/27/cbo-obamacare-will-spend-more-tax-more-and-reduce-the-deficit-less-than-we-previously-thought/) about what has happened to the savings over time. It is not a good trend.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Another was to let the government expand Medicaid and subsidize policies, to be paid for by the our kids and their kids. Health care costs were already the main driver of future deficits, expanding them did not help.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

No it's private insurance still.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

The insurance is private but the government will be paying for quite a bit of the premiums, through expanding Medicaid and subsidizing people's insurance. While there is a private party involved, the additional money going into health insurance (and therefore health care) doesn't come from them, it comes mostly from the government... unless of course you're counting on increases to people's insurance rates that aren't covered by the government to cover the differences.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Why would the government be paying premiums more now than before?

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Because the government is going to be paying a portion of the premiums though subsidies. My take is that the subsidy will increase in size and number over time to cover increases in insurance costs (which will match increases in health care costs)... as well as election cycles.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

So will the penalty for not having insurance, meaning either more people will be covering the subsidies, or more people will be paying in to the insurance system.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Well of course, if we go down the rabbit hole we'll find the root problems and solving those requires systemic change of how we handle health care. The kind of change too drastic for this generation or maybe even the next.

The most we can do is a 'step in the right direction'.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Yes, health care reform requires systematic change of how we handle health care. If health care costs follow their current trend, they will be about 1/3rd of our GDP in 20 years and 1/2 in about 35 years, so drastic change is coming.