Jump to content


The Coming ObamaCare Train Wreck

Place your bets

  • Please log in to reply
2128 replies to this topic

#2101 White Cracker

White Cracker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,307 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 01:30 AM

Watching Obama ignore his own law makes me smile, too.



#2102 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,214 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 11 July 2014 - 01:34 AM

Watching the Republicans sue to unravel Obamacare with 20 million newly insured makes me smile too.



#2103 White Cracker

White Cracker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,307 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 01:44 AM

20 million?

 

Did they get a free Hope and Change Tee Shirt with every cancelled policy?



#2104 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,214 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 11 July 2014 - 01:46 AM

No, but they will have a lot of cancelled party memberships to throw at you when the suit succeeds.



#2105 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 11 July 2014 - 02:12 AM

So Boehner is going to sue Obama over unilateral changes to the ACA. Is that a winner? Should be interesting to watch.

#2106 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,606 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 11 July 2014 - 02:12 AM

So Boehner is going to sue Obama over unilateral changes to the ACA. Is that a winner? Should be interesting to watch.

What are the damages he's seeking?



#2107 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 11 July 2014 - 02:18 AM

According to a resolution posted on the House Rules Committee website, John Boehner will be suing President Obama for not enforcing parts of the Affordable Care Act.

The resolution states:

Resolved, That the Speaker may initiate or intervene in one or more civil actions on behalf of the House of Representatives in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction to seek relief pursuant to sections 2201 and 2202 of title 28, United States Code, and to seek appropriate ancillary relief, including injunctive relief, regarding the failure of the President, the head of any department or agency, or any other officer or employee of the United States, to act in a manner consistent with that official’s duties under the Constitution and laws of the United States with respect to implementation of (including a failure to implement) any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including any amendment made by such provision.

#2108 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,227 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 02:47 AM

Watching the Republicans sue to unravel Obamacare with 20 million newly insured makes me smile too.

 

Really?  You have a cite for that?  The key word being "newly".  Does that include people who were promised they could keep their insurance, were dropped because of Obamacare, and then had to sign up for Obamacare?

 

Am I missing something?



#2109 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,606 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 11 July 2014 - 02:51 AM

In a civil lawsuit, doesn't the plaintiff need to specify damages?  Ancillary relief is a divorce term.  Aren't there any practicing lawyers in the GOP who could have helped them write this suit?



Watching the Republicans sue to unravel Obamacare with 20 million newly insured makes me smile too.

 

Really?  You have a cite for that?  The key word being "newly".  Does that include people who were promised they could keep their insurance, were dropped because of Obamacare, and then had to sign up for Obamacare?

 

Am I missing something?

Yup every damn one of them.  Serves them right for buying such shitty policies for all their socks.



#2110 Remodel

Remodel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,394 posts
  • Location:None
  • Interests:Sailboat racing and long distance cruising

Posted 11 July 2014 - 02:51 AM

Watching the Republicans sue to unravel Obamacare with 20 million newly insured makes me smile too.

 

Really?  You have a cite for that?  The key word being "newly".  Does that include people who were promised they could keep their insurance, were dropped because of Obamacare, and then had to sign up for Obamacare?

 

Am I missing something?

Other than the fact that Boehner can't prove damages,, I don't know. You tell me.



#2111 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,606 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 11 July 2014 - 02:53 AM

Standing will be an issue with the suit also.  How was Boehner damaged by the President?



#2112 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,214 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 11 July 2014 - 03:00 AM

Watching the Republicans sue to unravel Obamacare with 20 million newly insured makes me smile too.

 

Really?  You have a cite for that?  The key word being "newly".  Does that include people who were promised they could keep their insurance, were dropped because of Obamacare, and then had to sign up for Obamacare?

 

Am I missing something?

 

Sorry RD, not newly, but 20 million people just the same. For the purposes of my post, the numbers work the same. The GOP opens a huge can of worms that might make the Tea Party happy, but they destroy the other half of their potential votes by screwing them on insurance. This suit is a lose lose for Boehner and the GOP, I hope Obama countersues and uses every wedge issue to make them look like the idiots they are. Here are the number breakdowns. http://time.com/2950...lth-care-obama/



#2113 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,139 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 11 July 2014 - 03:00 AM

Standing will be an issue with the suit also.  How was Boehner damaged by the President?


The employer mandate was delayed for a year, right? So the suit gets filed and served and they kick it around a bit... Then Obummer lifts the waiver and the suit is moot. Both sides declare victory.

Hee haw. More DC circus.

My prediction.

#2114 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 11 July 2014 - 03:04 AM

Watching the Republicans sue to unravel Obamacare with 20 million newly insured makes me smile too.

 
Really?  You have a cite for that?  The key word being "newly".  Does that include people who were promised they could keep their insurance, were dropped because of Obamacare, and then had to sign up for Obamacare?
 
Am I missing something?

The verdict is in: Obamacare lowers uninsured
http://www.politico....red-108789.html


Close
By DAVID NATHER | 7/10/14 8:20 PM EDT
The evidence is piling up now: Obamacare really does seem to be helping the uninsured.

Survey after survey is showing that the number of uninsured people has been going down since the start of enrollment last fall. The numbers don’t all match, and health care experts say they’re not precise enough to give more than a general idea of the trend.

But by now, the trend is unmistakable: millions of people who didn’t have health insurance before the Affordable Care Act have gained it since last fall. The law is not just covering people who already had health coverage, but adding new people to the ranks of the insured — which was the point of the law all along.

#2115 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 11 July 2014 - 03:06 AM

Standing will be an issue with the suit also.  How was Boehner damaged by the President?


The employer mandate was delayed for a year, right? So the suit gets filed and served and they kick it around a bit... Then Obummer lifts the waiver and the suit is moot. Both sides declare victory.
Hee haw. More DC circus.
My prediction.

Obama won't be in office by the time this gets adjudicated.

#2116 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,606 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 11 July 2014 - 03:06 AM

Boehner should have listened to Sarah and went the impeachment route.  Its clear Obama broke the law, its just a cherry waiting to be picked.

Boehner could possibly be the worst speaker of the house in US history.



#2117 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,269 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 11 July 2014 - 03:36 AM

for all the whining about Obama, the true idiot in all this is the Speaker. At least Obama is getting some things done...



#2118 coelacanth2

coelacanth2

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 833 posts
  • Location:Southern Delaware
  • Interests:hunting, fishing, sailing gardening and exposing my son to all of the above

Posted 11 July 2014 - 03:48 AM

Hey SpeciousEd - I'm not realizing any savings. Did find insurance that is comparable to what's being cancelled - but it's about 100 smackers a month more. Why do I need contraception and prenatal care ( not to mention abortion coverage) when the wife and I are just a bit too old for that?

In other news, Obama is unaware what is being tweeted in his name, maybe.
Don't you just love it when he's unaware of gunrunning, IRS targeting, IRS coverups, Benghazi requests for security by the ambassador and the fact that it wasn't the video? Or that "unexpectedly" the economy isn't that great?
Unexpectedly, unaware, and " I read about it in the news" are recurring memes with this bunch of amateurs.

Who was it that wrote,"The unexamined life is not worth living" ? This cluck's life is not only unexamined, its spent in blissful ignorance. Like yours.

I'd tell you that you were a schnorkeling syncophantic dimwit with your head so far up the administration's collective ( nice ref to their far-Left ideology there, dontcha think? I didn't want your planarian level perception to miss it) ass they have to fart so you can breathe. That would, however, be demeaning to schnorkelers, syncophants, lackeys and other lickspittles. I will rest upon this and try to find the words. In the meantime you should engage in a battle of wits with a guppy - a challenge which, although a losing proposition for you and a waste of the guppy's valuable time will keep you occupied enough to reduce your internet drivel output.

#2119 coelacanth2

coelacanth2

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 833 posts
  • Location:Southern Delaware
  • Interests:hunting, fishing, sailing gardening and exposing my son to all of the above

Posted 11 July 2014 - 03:52 AM



Watching the Republicans sue to unravel Obamacare with 20 million newly insured makes me smile too.

 
Really?  You have a cite for that?  The key word being "newly".  Does that include people who were promised they could keep their insurance, were dropped because of Obamacare, and then had to sign up for Obamacare?
 
Am I missing something?
The verdict is in: Obamacare lowers uninsured
http://www.politico....red-108789.html




Close
By DAVID NATHER | 7/10/14 8:20 PM EDT
The evidence is piling up now: Obamacare really does seem to be helping the uninsured.

Survey after survey is showing that the number of uninsured people has been going down since the start of enrollment last fall. The numbers dont all match, and health care experts say theyre not precise enough to give more than a general idea of the trend.

But by now, the trend is unmistakable: millions of people who didnt have health insurance before the Affordable Care Act have gained it since last fall. The law is not just covering people who already had health coverage, but adding new people to the ranks of the insured which was the point of the law all along.

Politico? Politico? Their collective tongue is this administrations doormat. Spin and hogwash thinly disguised for the unaware and unperceptive.

#2120 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,227 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 03:54 AM

for all the whining about Obama, the true idiot in all this is the Speaker. At least Obama is getting some things done...

 

God save the King!



#2121 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,606 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 11 July 2014 - 04:13 AM

Hey SpeciousEd - I'm not realizing any savings. Did find insurance that is comparable to what's being cancelled - but it's about 100 smackers a month more. Why do I need contraception and prenatal care ( not to mention abortion coverage) when the wife and I are just a bit too old for that?
In other news, Obama is unaware what is being tweeted in his name, maybe.
Don't you just love it when he's unaware of gunrunning, IRS targeting, IRS coverups, Benghazi requests for security by the ambassador and the fact that it wasn't the video? Or that "unexpectedly" the economy isn't that great?
Unexpectedly, unaware, and " I read about it in the news" are recurring memes with this bunch of amateurs.
Who was it that wrote,"The unexamined life is not worth living" ? This cluck's life is not only unexamined, its spent in blissful ignorance. Like yours.
I'd tell you that you were a schnorkeling syncophantic dimwit with your head so far up the administration's collective ( nice ref to their far-Left ideology there, dontcha think? I didn't want your planarian level perception to miss it) ass they have to fart so you can breathe. That would, however, be demeaning to schnorkelers, syncophants, lackeys and other lickspittles. I will rest upon this and try to find the words. In the meantime you should engage in a battle of wits with a guppy - a challenge which, although a losing proposition for you and a waste of the guppy's valuable time will keep you occupied enough to reduce your internet drivel output.

I am getting the impression you don't care for me. That is a shame.

#2122 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 11 July 2014 - 09:37 AM


Watching the Republicans sue to unravel Obamacare with 20 million newly insured makes me smile too.

 
Really?  You have a cite for that?  The key word being "newly".  Does that include people who were promised they could keep their insurance, were dropped because of Obamacare, and then had to sign up for Obamacare?
 
Am I missing something?
The verdict is in: Obamacare lowers uninsuredhttp://www.politico....red-108789.html
Close
By DAVID NATHER | 7/10/14 8:20 PM EDT
The evidence is piling up now: Obamacare really does seem to be helping the uninsured.
Survey after survey is showing that the number of uninsured people has been going down since the start of enrollment last fall. The numbers dont all match, and health care experts say theyre not precise enough to give more than a general idea of the trend.
But by now, the trend is unmistakable: millions of people who didnt have health insurance before the Affordable Care Act have gained it since last fall. The law is not just covering people who already had health coverage, but adding new people to the ranks of the insured which was the point of the law all along.

Politico? Politico? Their collective tongue is this administrations doormat. Spin and hogwash thinly disguised for the unaware and unperceptive.
Tell that to Frederick J. Ryan Jr., former Assistant to the President in the Reagan administration. I always felt they were right leaning, but trying hard to be centrist.

Frederick J. Ryan, Jr. is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of POLITICO. He is also President and Chief Operating Officer of Allbritton Communications Company, a Washington, D.C. based corporation that owns and operates television stations, a cable news channel and internet ventures.

He serves on the Board of Councilors of the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California, is Chairman of the White House Historical Association and Chairman of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation.

#2123 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,184 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 11 July 2014 - 05:05 PM

Politico? Politico? Their collective tongue is this administrations doormat. Spin and hogwash thinly disguised for the unaware and unperceptive.

 

Politico is solidly right of center. Sorry for the confusion.



#2124 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,139 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 11 July 2014 - 05:08 PM

 

Standing will be an issue with the suit also.  How was Boehner damaged by the President?


The employer mandate was delayed for a year, right? So the suit gets filed and served and they kick it around a bit... Then Obummer lifts the waiver and the suit is moot. Both sides declare victory.
Hee haw. More DC circus.
My prediction.

Obama won't be in office by the time this gets adjudicated.

It won't be adjudicated, it will be dismissed as moot, when the employer mandate is put into effect next year.  



#2125 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,184 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 11 July 2014 - 05:13 PM

It won't be adjudicated, it will be dismissed as moot, when the employer mandate is put into effect next year.  

 

That's flotsam. It will be tossed as a political matter. That's jetsam.

 

If the one-year delay was so egregious, why wait a year to address it with this lawsuit?

 

http://politicalwire...rs_lawsuit.html



#2126 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 12 July 2014 - 01:30 AM

Anybody remember this?



H.R.2667 -- Authority for Mandate Delay Act (Introduced in House - IH)

HR 2667 IH

113th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 2667
To delay the application of the employer health insurance mandate, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 11, 2013

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas (for himself, Mr. YOUNG of Indiana, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mrs. BLACK, Mr. CAMP, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. ROSKAM, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. NUNES, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. REICHERT, Mr. RENACCI, Ms. JENKINS, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. REED, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. PAULSEN, and Mrs. BLACKBURN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means


A BILL
To delay the application of the employer health insurance mandate, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Authority for Mandate Delay Act'.
SEC. 2. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF EMPLOYER HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE.

(a) In General- Section 1513(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking `December 31, 2013' and inserting `December 31, 2014'.
(B) Reporting Requirements-
(1) REPORTING BY EMPLOYERS- Section 1514(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking `December 31, 2013' and inserting `December 31, 2014'.
(2) REPORTING BY INSURANCE PROVIDERS- Section 1502(e) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking `2013' and inserting `2014'.
© Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect as if included in the provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to which they relate.

#2127 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,227 posts

Posted 12 July 2014 - 01:54 AM

Anybody remember this?



H.R.2667 -- Authority for Mandate Delay Act (Introduced in House - IH)

HR 2667 IH

113th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 2667
To delay the application of the employer health insurance mandate, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 11, 2013

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas (for himself, Mr. YOUNG of Indiana, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mrs. BLACK, Mr. CAMP, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. ROSKAM, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. NUNES, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. REICHERT, Mr. RENACCI, Ms. JENKINS, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. REED, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. PAULSEN, and Mrs. BLACKBURN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means


A BILL
To delay the application of the employer health insurance mandate, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Authority for Mandate Delay Act'.
SEC. 2. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF EMPLOYER HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE.

(a) In General- Section 1513(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking `December 31, 2013' and inserting `December 31, 2014'.
( B) Reporting Requirements-
(1) REPORTING BY EMPLOYERS- Section 1514(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking `December 31, 2013' and inserting `December 31, 2014'.
(2) REPORTING BY INSURANCE PROVIDERS- Section 1502(e) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking `2013' and inserting `2014'.
© Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect as if included in the provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to which they relate.

 

How did Pelosi feel about that bill?  Was she against it before she was for it?



#2128 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,185 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 12 July 2014 - 02:33 AM

Anybody remember this?



H.R.2667 -- Authority for Mandate Delay Act (Introduced in House - IH)

HR 2667 IH

113th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 2667
To delay the application of the employer health insurance mandate, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 11, 2013

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas (for himself, Mr. YOUNG of Indiana, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mrs. BLACK, Mr. CAMP, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. ROSKAM, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. NUNES, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. REICHERT, Mr. RENACCI, Ms. JENKINS, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. REED, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. PAULSEN, and Mrs. BLACKBURN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means


A BILL
To delay the application of the employer health insurance mandate, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Authority for Mandate Delay Act'.
SEC. 2. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF EMPLOYER HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE.

(a) In General- Section 1513(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking `December 31, 2013' and inserting `December 31, 2014'.
( B) Reporting Requirements-
(1) REPORTING BY EMPLOYERS- Section 1514(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking `December 31, 2013' and inserting `December 31, 2014'.
(2) REPORTING BY INSURANCE PROVIDERS- Section 1502(e) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking `2013' and inserting `2014'.
© Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect as if included in the provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to which they relate.

I remember it stalled in the Senate.. Not sure where you are going, care to clarify?

 

 

https://www.govtrack...ills/113/hr2667



#2129 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 12 July 2014 - 11:22 AM

Anybody remember this?
H.R.2667 -- Authority for Mandate Delay Act (Introduced in House - IH)
HR 2667 IH
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2667
To delay the application of the employer health insurance mandate, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 11, 2013
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas (for himself, Mr. YOUNG of Indiana, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mrs. BLACK, Mr. CAMP, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. ROSKAM, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. NUNES, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. REICHERT, Mr. RENACCI, Ms. JENKINS, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. REED, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. PAULSEN, and Mrs. BLACKBURN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A BILL
To delay the application of the employer health insurance mandate, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Authority for Mandate Delay Act'.
SEC. 2. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF EMPLOYER HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE.
(a) In General- Section 1513(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking `December 31, 2013' and inserting `December 31, 2014'.
( B) Reporting Requirements-
(1) REPORTING BY EMPLOYERS- Section 1514(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking `December 31, 2013' and inserting `December 31, 2014'.
(2) REPORTING BY INSURANCE PROVIDERS- Section 1502(e) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking `2013' and inserting `2014'.
© Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect as if included in the provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to which they relate.

I remember it stalled in the Senate.. Not sure where you are going, care to clarify?
 
 
https://www.govtrack...ills/113/hr2667

I just thought it mildly interesting that the House was for it before they were against it. 100% political theater designed to do nothing but rile up the base. Another complete waste of time and money. It is, however, entertaining.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Place your bets

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users