DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Dr. Larry Kawa... sues over Obamacare delays.

Obama's Executive Power Pen Is Already Worn Out
http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddavenpo...ready-worn-out/


Much has rightly been made of President Obama’s promise to bypass Congress and act unilaterally to get things done. “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” he said, threatening to sign more executive orders and blast more messages from his bully pulpit.

Since then, defenders have argued that Obama has signed relatively few executive orders compared with other modern presidents. But all executive orders are not equal and simply adding them up misses the point. Obama has developed a bold and consistent pattern of unilateral action to set his agenda, advance it and change it, well beyond any reasonable understanding of the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.

First, one should note that presidential overreach is not limited to executive orders. For example, President Obama has appointed more czars—officials with power similar to cabinet officers but not requiring Senate confirmation—than any president, somewhere around 38 depending on how you count them. He’s empowered car czars, green job czars, Middle East policy czars and my personal favorite, the Asian carp czar. All these are unelected and unconfirmed senior White House officials with considerable power. And don’t forget those so-called recess appointments that sought to avoid Senate confirmation. The Supreme Court hasn’t, since they are likely to strike them down for having been done when there was obviously no recess.

He has defined his role as commander in chief in a breathtakingly powerful and detailed manner. For example, he committed the United States to war with Libya without Congressional authorization, an action that both allies and critics agree exceeded proper presidential power. He has claimed authority to target individual enemies for death by drone, including some American citizens located overseas. I’m sorry but the last time I checked, the death penalty for U.S. citizens was reserved to the judicial branch.

Similarly, the administration has been active in using waivers and regulations to reshape the law to its liking. Most obvious, though little discussed, the Department of Education has issued so many waivers to states that the No Child Left Behind Act is barely recognizable. The Environmental Protection Agency has launched an attack on the coal industry, unilaterally declaring their carbon emissions pollutants and potentially shutting down hundreds of their plants as part of its campaign against climate change.

But even in the realm of executive orders, Obama has managed to make a significant mark. Executive orders, as their name implies, are for the executive branch to carry out, literally to “execute,” a bill passed into law. They follow on and implement laws passed by Congress. But Obama has changed all of that, instead using executive orders on offense, to trigger a set of policy changes he wants but fears Congress won’t enact. He is not “executing” laws, he is making them.

For example, frustrated by the inability of Congress to pass immigration reform, Obama kicked off his own set of reforms by executive order, halting the legal deportation of thousands of immigrants in the U.S. illegally. Similarly, Obama launched his campaign to increase the minimum wage by unilaterally ordering an increase for all federal contractors. Congress won’t pass gun control? No problem, as Obama signed 23 executive orders on gun control, a couple of recent ones setting up possible confiscation of guns using the Affordable Care Act. That takes some doing.

And speaking of the Affordable Care Act, Obama has found yet another use for executive orders: changing and amending his own laws. For awhile it seemed like every week brought yet another unilateral presidential amendment to Obamacare. Don’t like the mandate on small companies? Fine, we’ll just postpone it. How about the requirements on big companies? Fine, we can ease those too. In all, the president has issued 22 modifications or delays of his signature legislation.

The president seems to think it’s something of a joke, telling visiting French president Francois Hollande recently, “that’s the good thing about being president, I can do anything I want.” But that giant tearing sound you hear is the separation of powers established by the Constitution.

this is why i hate when i read articles that are pure opinion and little else.

lets be clear, had anything obama has done so far been unconstitutional, the supreme court would've struck it down with Thor's hammer quick fast and in a hurry.

just because its an executive order doesn't mean "thats it. nothing we can do about it".

i like how the author tried to say that the number of executive orders isn't the issue, when in fact thats absolutely what republicans and people on this VERY board are arguing.

obama could sign an executive order about having an extra day off work and people will still complain. "omg the prez did another exex order dat dirty muslim lolz".

thats what you guys sound like. seriously.

And people still want to keep the constitution...

One could argue the Magna Carta is more influential. Although, that may be a semantics argument.

(Not saying the Constitution needs to be replaced. It's just the Magna Carta brought about many of these government form documents.)

I don't necessarily think we need to get rid of the constitution, but it just needs an upgrade. For example, I wouldn't mind seeing a limit to terms served for every elected position. I wouldn't mind the 6 year rule for Senators being reduced.

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills"

Really don't see a need for that. I'd also like to see more freedoms granted in the bill of rights, see something like a cap for campaigning and things like that. Oh, and the original comment was about the SC not reviewing laws until they're brought up to it, I'd like them to have the final say of the constitutionality of the bill before it becomes law.

There is no way the Supreme Court could review each and every law before it becomes law. Each session of Congress passes an average of 758 bills. (per 2 year period) Anywhere from 300 - 500 per year will become law. There is no way the Supreme Courts reviews them all. It cannot happen.

The great thing about our legal system is that anyone with standing (basically, who is harmed by a law) can challenge that law in court. Most laws passed are Constitutional, and require no review. However, if any law is thought to be unconstitutional, there are avenues to challenge them.

So, what's true? Politifact or other news sources.

Has he (obama) used his power more than any other president or has he used the least of any president since 1900?

I guess that's my only question....

As YTown's article stated, just counting up the # of enacted executive orders doesn't tell the entire story. It's a surface fact, not really containing any details other than the surface details/facts which if anyone knows anything about "facts" - you need to dig deeper from the surface to acquire them. It's the level/type/nature of the EO. Once a law has been pass, yes, it's his ability to change it on the grounds of "furthering the law, or to clarify it". Delaying Obamacare's employer mandate is either of those IMO. It damn sure doesn't help clarify anything, except that it's a mistake and a horribly implemented structure of a very flawed system that the nation isn't ready for. And it didn't "further" the law in any shape or form.

He's changing it "at will" for his own agendas, likely when he saw his approval rating plunging and amongst heavy criticism from his own democratic party and etc, etc, etc.

Once Dr. Kawa gets court standing, which if you listened to the two segments I posted - the journey will begin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There are other lawsuits, but none of which that is calling for the court to nullify Obama's EO. Dr. Kawa basically said that it was outlined by a judge, for him, how to get court standings. This guy is 100% serious and educated. I wish we could talk about HIM instead of the topics that are being discussed, but that too is something not within my power lol.

Quote from Abe Lincoln that Kawa used that I fell in love with:

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."

So many times people have tried to overturn it. So many times people have challenged it.

The exact same people who wanted delays got them and now cry foul.

Like an obsessive child stomping at the grocery store refusing to stop past the point of embarrassment.

Well, can't argue with what you said... as I agree BUT...

Kawa isn't looking to change/overturn it. Kawa isn't looking to "challenge" it. Kawa is looking for it to be ENFORCED, which is the duty of the President is to enforce the laws (not change them at his own convenience). Which may seem odd for someone who is against it and despises it. But when I think about it, it makes sense. Read the quote there, best way to repeal a bad law is to enforce it STRICTLY.

He may not get the outcome he is desiring, but really this could stir up troubles for Obama's administration.

You know, it seems that so much time, money and effort has been expended on this one issue from the opposition.

The Supreme Court has found the law to be constitutional. Countless time has been spent in our legislative branches trying to overturn it. At some point the only people this continuation is hurting, are the ones who continue it.

We do have differing views which I understand. I am a proponent of national health care, but this isn't really what I perceive national health care to be at all. It's simply shuffling the deck on what we already had.

However, at this point I believe continuing such a battle is hurting those who insist upon continuing it than hurting Obama. I believe at this juncture an ongoing fight is counter productive to what's it's attempting to accomplish.

The Supreme Court found the individual mandate to be Constitutional. They did not, and could not examine the entire law for Constitutional basis, because that is beyond the scope of their power. They have not examined whether or not the implementation of the law has been done in a Constitutional manner. Only the individual mandate aspect of the law was examined for Constitutionality, and it was judged Constitutional as a tax,

Oh I get that.

What I find to be most amusing, is those that tried to say the law was too imposing and wanted delays for small businesses and personal mandates got that.

Now they're the ones screaming about it the loudest. It appears to me that Obama tried to compromise by delaying the mandates and is now being lambasted for his attempt at compromise.

I'm not upset about this entire line of thinking at all. However, I do find it amusing at best.

JMHO

Well, that's political wrangling.

bro, they get about 7000 issues per year, and the house leader, or majority leader brings the issues to the supreme court.

thats exactly what the republicans did with obamacare, and they continue doing it now.

and so far...nothing.

constitution working as intended.

my bad. i should've made myself clear. sorry about that.

the republicans went through the means to request the issue to the supreme court.

now, the problem i have with the supreme court is that they only actually look at...what 80 cases? out of the 7000 they receive.

now a lot of that has to do with i guess, more importance over rhetoric. but obamacare and other stuff he has done has been ruled constitutional.

i really don't see why conservatives waste their time with this issue any more. obamacare is happening.

i guess my point is, conservatives are continuing to beat the dead horse with whatever the hell they find, instead of moving forward and focusing on other issues.

hell. there is still .'s complaining about obama's birth certificate.

Well, technically the group I mentioned brought the case, and then many state governments, having been granted standing, joined the lawsuit.

As far as Obamacare being ruled Constitutional, well, that's not entirely true. The individual mandate portion of the law was found to be a tax, and that tax falls within the taxation powers f Congress, and thus that one sliver was found to be Constitutional. The Supreme Court, in matters of Constitutionality, looks only at very narrow aspects. They did not look at the entire law. They looked at one particular aspect of the law, which they ruled to be Constitutional.

However, the Constitutionality of Obama's EOs has not been ruled upon. (or brought before any Court, that I know of) Each one that the Republicans want to contest would have to be taken to federal court, which would result in one side or the other bouncing it up as high as they could, up to the Supreme Court, if they chose to take the case. I wonder if the Supreme Court would take a case referencing a whole block of EOs, or whether they would want them broken down into individual cases. That might be interesting.

As far as the Supreme Court looking at a limited number of cases ..... well, how many can they look at? These are the most complex cases by the time they reach that level. They have days and occasionally even weeks of testimony. The Court then recesses to debate the issue and arrive at a ruling. The majority opinion of the Court has to then be written, as well as the dissenting opinion(s) . Sometimes a dissenting opinion will disagree with the overall ruling, and sometimes parts of it. Sometimes one Justice might concur with the majority on most aspects, but disagree on another, and thus write his/her own opinion. These opinions are typically heavily researched, with precedent listed, The Justices have judicial interns to help, but it still takes time.

Rounding things off, there are 52X5 = 260 weekdays of the year .... minus holidays. 80 cases at 2-3 days each, with a day or 2 to write opinions, plus allowing time for the Justices to review cases brought to the Court .... well, that would be about the maximum.

As far as why Conservatives (and I'm not even sure how many there are in DC) continue to fight Obamacare, well, the same reason liberals continue to try and add new gun control laws despite the 2nd amendment. Because that is what their constituency wants. If they are the representatives of the people who elected them, then they should try to represent what those people want.

As far as Obama's birth certificate ...... I heard Donald Trump beat that one during the last election, but that's really about the only national figure I can think of who brought that up.

yea man i've been trying to work on the way i post, but its hard, guess thats just the...E-personality? lol whatever.

anyway, i'm not saying everything he does he thinks is the right thing to do. not at all, but on THIS topic, obamacare, he does.

j/c... I tried to read this thread, I really tried but the more I tried, the more I realized... I just don't care. I used to care, I used to care a lot then I realized one thing about politics, the more I cared the more depressed I became.

The list of who is at fault for the state of our political process is long, in fact it's so long that I doubt any group has clean hands.. Presidents, congress, media, citizens.. and on down the list.. all share in the blame.

I don't really like Obama's policies but I honestly feel bad for the guy. He is trying to do what he thinks is right.. if you don't agree with him, elect somebody else.

If I had to weight my blame right now as to who is making things worse as opposed to better.. I would start with the junior tyrants of both parties that are ruining.. I mean running.. the house and the senate. I believe that most of the gridlock and animosity begins right there.... they are the ones who set the agenda for what gets discussed and voted on and they are the ones who set the tone for how that discussion will go and I think the entire lot of them are failing miserably... they are failing their respective bodies, they are failing the president, and they are failing you and me....

I wish more people could wrap their minds around that basic and accurate concept.

jc

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04...kusaolp00000592

Obamacare Just Made Americans Richer Without Anyone Noticing

Glenn Beck once said Obamacare would mean "the end of prosperity in America forever." But so far, it turns out President Obama's 2010 health law is actually putting money in Americans' wallets.

To be exact, President Obama's 2010 health law was responsible for about three-quarters of a surprising January rise in U.S. consumer spending and American income growth, according to calculations by the Wall Street Journal.

While not exceptional, the gains were significant: a 0.4 percent rise in consumer spending ($45.2 billion) and a 0.3 percent rise in personal incomes (up $43.9 billion), according to new figures released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The growth came in spite of the expiration of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed and all that horrible winter weather.

So what exactly did the Obamacare rollout do to cause such a rise? For one, it expanded the Medicaid program, a critical and highly controversial aspect of the law, by adding up to a $19 billion in benefits in January. On top of that, health care enrollees additionally received another near $15 billion in the form of tax credits as a result of the rollout, according to the BEA.

Together the two changes have freed up many Americans to spend money that would have gone towards health care premiums on goods and services instead.

The benefits of the Obamacare rollout thus far also appear to throw cold water on the idea that the law will hamper the economy -- especially when considering last January. Back then, both consumer spending and personal incomes had their worst month in years and fell by several percentage points after the battle in Congress over the so-called "fiscal cliff" ended with payroll taxes shooting up across the board.

Overall, that tax hike resulted in an $700 per worker tax increase on average, according to the Tax Policy Center. Who's killing the economy again?

______

interesting.

Swish am I reading this right? It looks to me like it says the government paid out $34 billion in the form of expanded Medicaid and tax credits so that individuals would have more of their own money to spend on other stuff...

As I said in a different thread, as long as the government is willing to keep printing and spending money and racking up debt, they can make a lot of problems better... for now.

That's what I got out of it. Government spent 34 billion while spending gained 43 billion. Net gain of 9 billion.

JC

Well, I really didn't want this thread to become a "Obamacare is good/bad because of this/that", I really wanted it for people who was interested in Dr. Kawa's mission and goal regarding it.

But... nobody wants to discuss that so I will say I pay less of a premium but now Lord help me if I need to get treatment or go to the drs cause my plan now offered by my company (changed to support Obamacare's forced standards) has an astronomical deductible. Like a deductible large enough that unless I need something extremely hardcore/major, it won't kick in to help cover any expenses. So basically all check-ups, etc are/is money directly outta my own pocket now.

So yeah, it's money back into the pockets of those "who don't need to go to the doctors/healthy individuals", but many have undergone the same situation I did with their employer who was conforming the company insurance for ACA, and it's by far a bank breaker if you do need to go to the docs with the plans the company is offering now because of the ACA standards being forced on businesses.

To/for me and my situation, it seems a negative than a positive. I'd rather pay an extra 50 bucks a month and not worry about my checking account being obliterated if I need to make a visit to the doctors than I would paying a lesser premium but getting raped by the deductible. Thankfully I am extremely healthy and don't go to the doctors and my company opened up a HSA account and invested $500 bucks (which still is nowhere near to cover the deducible of a visit) if I ever do need to go. For those co-workers who make doc visits regularly, I can only feel sorry for them.

the deductible is THAT much?

jesus...i'm not calling you a liar, i believe what you're saying. but damn..

Yes, it really is that much man. I don't feel like digging through my desk to find the details cause I just to had to dig up my 2011 tax returns to make an offer on a house and everything is scattered, but my memory wants to say it is around 2000 dollar deductible.

It virtually makes it pointless to go to the doctors UNLESS YOU SERIOUSLY have to. Which basically makes healthcare almost pointless cause my goal, in terms of health and body, is to prevent problems before they come problems, not deal with it after it's become a problem. If I continued to get checkups as I did with my other plan, my dreams of buying a house is then a joke cause it'll deplete my cash storage very quickly.

Don't want to argue with you about it though Swish... I promise you it's the truth. And it's just isn't me with my company, a lot of my programmer friends also have been swept away with their employer's plan they did like, to one they have absolute zero positive to say about, all b/c Obamacare. Take it as you will.

nothing to argue about. i take you on your word. i truly had no idea about the deductibles. it kinda sucks because i got 2 daughters, 5 and 3, and we all know how kids are, they get hurt all the time doing dumb stuff. so thats actually a big worry for me now.

I know my Mom took my brother to the Docs so much, the assistant/clerk, Doctor and even a janitor we'd see there often knew him by name lol.

So I'm not rambling with unknown facts, I dug up my plans details for my SuperMed Plus HSA P2500/100 plan:

Deductible:
Individual = Network $2500.00, Non network $3000.00
Family = Network $5000.00, Non network $6000.00

They're brutal, very very brutal... I miss my old plan...

my wife is german, i just asked her how the insurance worked over there before we got married.

she was saying that you if you worked, about 3-5 percent of your paycheck(they get paid once a month in germany) goes to healthcare, and if you have kids, all kids under 16 is completely free, no matter what type of care is needed, so if they need a booster shot or some type of surgery, kids are completely off the hook financial wise.

for the adults, if they have a job, they pay 10 percent of the medication cost. so if the meds cost 100 euro, they only pay 10 euro at the pharmacy.

why they hell can't we have something like this.