Another Obamacare delay

Skeptical wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Skeptical wrote:From the link in the first post in this thread.

Then there was the announcement, buried in the Federal Register, that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law’s health insurance subsidies, relying on the “honor system” instead.

IIRC this thing call "Obamacare" was rammed through the Democrat controlled congress and signed into law by the President thereby making it the law of the land to be obeyed.

Now that same President is taking it upon himself .. or at least his administration is deciding which parts of the law of the land to enforce and when.

I have been searching for the constitutional authority that allows the President to pick and choose which laws or parts of laws to follow/enforce since I first heard this.

Who is going to help out and cite the authority for what Obama wants to do?

Skeptical - As you probably know, the legislative branch of our government enacts the laws & the executive branch executes them.
I don't think it is 'picking and choosing' which laws or parts of laws. With this new and complex law (PPACA), various parts will naturally be enacted before other parts. As with any major change in a system (government or private), it takes time. You certainly didn't expect it to happen instantly/overnight, did you? I would guess that many various factors determine which parts are implemented earlier & which later.

Since you cannot or will not cite the specific constitutional authority for a law of land law to be delayed in its implementation by the President how about citing the specific section of the final version of the PPACA (the version signed by the President making it the law of the land to be followed) that allows the President or other administration person to alter the sequence of implementation.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Skeptical wrote:From the link in the first post in this thread.

Then there was the announcement, buried in the Federal Register, that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law’s health insurance subsidies, relying on the “honor system” instead.

IIRC this thing call "Obamacare" was rammed through the Democrat controlled congress and signed into law by the President thereby making it the law of the land to be obeyed.

Now that same President is taking it upon himself .. or at least his administration is deciding which parts of the law of the land to enforce and when.

I have been searching for the constitutional authority that allows the President to pick and choose which laws or parts of laws to follow/enforce since I first heard this.

Who is going to help out and cite the authority for what Obama wants to do?

Skeptical - As you probably know, the legislative branch of our government enacts the laws & the executive branch executes them.
I don't think it is 'picking and choosing' which laws or parts of laws. With this new and complex law (PPACA), various parts will naturally be enacted before other parts. As with any major change in a system (government or private), it takes time. You certainly didn't expect it to happen instantly/overnight, did you? I would guess that many various factors determine which parts are implemented earlier & which later.

Since you cannot or will not cite the specific constitutional authority for a law of land law to be delayed in its implementation by the President how about citing the specific section of the final version of the PPACA (the version signed by the President making it the law of the land to be followed) that allows the President or other administration person to alter the sequence of implementation.

"alter the sequence of implementation" ?
I was not aware that a "sequence" had even been established in the PPACA. Not sure how it could have been "altered".
Could you please cite that sequence? Link please.
Or at least list the proper order (sequence) as you recall it from the PPACA.
This "sequence" of yours, is news to me. Did any news sources carry that? Please link.
--------------------

Would you have liked to have had the cap limits (this topic) imposed earlier? Doesn't your current policy have that feature? Were you able to take advantage of the 'age 26' feature, which was implemented early in PPACA?

RedWhiteBlue wrote:
I wouldn't imagine that they would have many enrollees - since the "age 26" part of the ACA has been in effect for several years. Students would nearly always opt to stay on their parents' plan. In fact, that is/was considered a big plus of the ACA since the beginning.

BladeRunner wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:
I wouldn't imagine that they would have many enrollees - since the "age 26" part of the ACA has been in effect for several years. Students would nearly always opt to stay on their parents' plan. In fact, that is/was considered a big plus of the ACA since the beginning.

And what if their parents didn't have insurance?  What if their parents didn't want insurance?
What if they didn't have parents?

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:
I wouldn't imagine that they would have many enrollees - since the "age 26" part of the ACA has been in effect for several years. Students would nearly always opt to stay on their parents' plan. In fact, that is/was considered a big plus of the ACA since the beginning.

And what if their parents didn't have insurance?  What if their parents didn't want insurance?
What if they didn't have parents?

Exactly.[Exactly? Exactly what?]

There would only be a few instances of no parents & the student wants the insurance; or instances where the parents/parent don't have insurance, yet wanted it for their student only. Not much of a market base, for the school to be in the insurance business.[Damn you are always supposing this or that; yanking numbers or non-numbers out of your azz. Here are the numbers. Currently about 600,000 students, or 7% of the 18-23 yo in college paid for their own insurance. I would say that's a just tad more than a "few"]

Are these couple of schools requiring their students to have or purchase health insurance? Through them?[Good lord, wouldn't it be neat if there was some way way to search through all the gigabytes of information on the Internet? Something like...wait for it..Google? By the way the U of C required me to purchase insurance since I didn't have any and neither did my mother. That was in the 70's.]

A source on this would be nice - still looking? [I have a source but you keep looking. I'm not in a sharing mood right now.]

Do you currently have the limit (cap) included in your policy (topic of this thread)? Do you want it?

What if they didn't have parents?

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:
I wouldn't imagine that they would have many enrollees - since the "age 26" part of the ACA has been in effect for several years. Students would nearly always opt to stay on their parents' plan. In fact, that is/was considered a big plus of the ACA since the beginning.

And what if their parents didn't have insurance?  What if their parents didn't want insurance?
What if they didn't have parents?

Exactly. There would only be a few instances of no parents & the student wants the insurance; or instances where the parents/parent don't have insurance, yet wanted it for their student only. Not much of a market base, for the school to be in the insurance business.
Are these couple of schools requiring their students to have or purchase health insurance? Through them? A source on this would be nice - still looking?

Do you currently have the limit (cap) included in your policy (topic of this thread)? Do you want it?