Obamacare: Arbitrarily Changing Law

Obama's Arbitrary Healthcare Flexibility

This law, the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA), was written exclusively by Democrats, voted on exclusively by Democrats, and singed into law by a Democrat.  The single worst enemy to Obamacare is Obama himself, according to Major Garrett.

"To those who must live with and live under the law, the arbitrary is the norm. The only pattern is chaos. Obamacare’s worst enemy is Obama."

President Obama has issued 13 separate changes to the law in the last 12 months.  Constitutional?  Well, not really.  But who will stop him?  Republicans?  No.

Each of the delays in individual pieces of the law ends shortly after an election date. The law was originally passed containing components that were not to occur until after the 2012 reelection campaign of the Campaigner in Chief.  The parts of the law that most voters like, coverage for pre-existing conditions for example, were enacted immediately to gain the voters' favor.  The less appreciated portions, such as taxes and mandates, were not enacted until after that election cycle.  And it worked, President Obama was reelected.

Republicans have long argued this law should not be passed, then it should be repealed, and I agree with them on that.  But will they stand by and allow Obama to make arbitrary changes to his signature law.  Most likely, they will, for the implications that will have in the 2014 mid-term elections.  Republicans are hoping to campaign on the chaos created by Obamacare to gain favor with voters in November 2014, and retake control of the Senate, while holding their huge margin in the House of Representatives.

The PPACA is, in my opinion, the single worst piece of law ever created in this country.  We should repeal it, then work to implement new law that better deal with the real health care problems facing America.

Recently, House Speaker John Boehner stated he would not entertain comprehensive immigration reform legislation, because the President could not be trusted to enforce that new law, whatever form it took, based on how the PPACA has been handled by his administration.  He is right about that.

President Obama cannot be trusted.

Liberal New York Taxation Confusion

NY State Website for Attracting Business

Start-Up-NY is a promotion to attract businesses to the state of New York, by offering 10 year tax exemptions.  But the Mayor of the city of New York sees it differently, wanting to raise taxes on the wealthy.

CNS: Mayor DiBlasio Promises to Tackle NYCS Inequality Crisis

See a conflict here do you?  In order to attract businesses to the state they must drop the taxes.  But in order to fix the problems of lack of income for some people, they must raise taxes.

Conservatives have been arguing since the days of Ronald Reagan that lower taxes will improve the overall economy.  Even JFK talked about this same thing during his term.  Then subsequent lowered tax rates indeed boosted the economy.

Today there are many states which have taken this conservative economic education to heart, and their states are thriving.  Florida is the best example of this.  Florida has no income tax, no inheritance tax, no SSI tax, though it does have a sales tax and property tax.

If liberals insist on raising taxes and investing in our future, they have to prove it works, and they cannot.  Conservatives can, however, prove lowering tax rates leads to increased tax revenue.

Time to get with the program.

School Adminstrators Failing America with Snow Daze

This has been as harsh a winter in many parts of the country this year, but are we doing ourselves any favors by allowing kids to remain home when they could be going to school?  I say no.

Today, for example, in northern Kentucky, there was an inch or less of snow on the ground at 6AM, and schools are closed.  When I looked at the street in front of my house it was cleared of any snow.  There is no reasonable person who went to school before the 1990's who thinks school should be called off today.

What logic could the decision makers have for closing school when it is such a small amount of snow and temperatures are not unbearably frigid?  People with jobs are still driving past the house on their way to work. 

What could we possibly be teaching our kids about life when we continually, and so easily, let them off the hook of going to school?  It should not be a liability issue.  If a parent would sue the school district for making them go to school in snow or cold weather, they always have the right to keep their child home, and not risk the weather outside.  The parent should be responsible enough to deal with the weather by teaching the child how to dress and how to safely navigate the route to school.

If the parent is not that responsible, that is not the fault of the schools.  It is time to toughen up, and stop making excuses for not doing the hard things.  For allowing excuses when none should be accepted, is doing more harm than good to the future of society.

THATCHER: Common sense for restaurant-menu labeling - Washington Times

THATCHER: Common sense for restaurant-menu labeling - Washington Times




Let me get this straight.  If there are more than 20 restaurants operating in a chain, there food is inherently more harmful for human consumption than if there are 19 or fewer restaurants?  And this is somehow related to healthcare, or why else would it be in the PPACA under section 4205 of that piece of legislation?




"The law’s Section 4205 requires restaurants with 20 or more locations to list calorie-content information for each menu item on a board at every establishment."




I really can't imagine just how the federal government regulators and/or legislators think this should be something they are responsible for controlling.

Obamacare Legal Challenge

Attorneys General Letter to HHS Secretary

The Obama administration has arbitrarily changed the law as passed in 2010 on numerous occasions.   The attorneys general from several states are challenging those changes in a letter, to be followed by a law suit.  They claim the president has no authority to change a law without going back to congress.

Imagine if the following occurred at a basketball game.  Before the opening tip of the game the officials told both teams that they were not going to call  fouls on the home team until the second half, but all fouls by the visitors would still be called.  Or imagine the plate umpire telling coaches during ground rules that all pitches thrown by the home team pitcher through the first 4 innings would be called strikes.

That is the same as what is currently happening with changes to the law for business exemptions to mandates, congressional subsidies, and many other changes to the law made by the Obama administration.

The constitution is still the document authority for all things involving the US government, including the president.  Laws are passed by congress, signed or vetoed by the president, and subsequently enforced by the executive branch.  The oath of office mandates the president faithfully execute the laws, which means he has no authority to arbitrarily change law, make exemptions or exceptions, or ignore those laws.

Playoff Game Tickets

I am somewhat troubled by the complaining about greed of the NFL over playoff tickets.  The NFL is a product, and they can charge whatever they want for tickets to their events.  Fans have the choice of paying or not.  It is not your right to be able to view the games on TV.

Many people are claiming the NFL is greedy by charging the supposedly high price for tickets.  All season long those tickets were bought up, and all home games for the Bengals were sold out.  No one I heard of complained then.  But now!

I do find the TV black out rules illogical.  If I want to watch the game on TV then many people need to buy tickets to see the game in the stadium.  Or I need to buy a ticket to see the game in person so others can watch it on TV.  This makes no sense to me.

But economics should prevail.  There re roughly 66,000 tickets for each game at Paul Brown Stadium (PBS).  If the price is too high, not all will be sold.  If the price is too low, then many who want tickets won't be able to buy them before they sell out.  The optimal price is one that sells exactly the number of ticket available for sale.

The point being, the price should be set where demand equals supply.  If you want to see the game badly enough, go buy a ticket.  Otherwise stop complaining.

A Challenge to Our Beliefs

A Challenge to Our Beliefs

I Think I Can't!  Who would buy a book with that title?  Apparently there are many.

"What low-income whites in England and ghetto blacks in the United States have in common is a generations-long indoctrination in victimhood"