ObamaCare delayed: A GOP opportunity
The Obama administration just jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire with its abrupt Tuesday decision to delay a signature provision of ObamaCare.
Not only is the move to delay, until 2015, implementation of a mandate that larger employers (of 50 or more workers) provide health care insurance for their employees or face a $2,000 fine for each nakedly political — it postpones an onerous diktat with backdraft political implications until after the 2014 midterm elections — the administration's arbitrary decision to flout the law is patently illegal. Only Congress can change the terms of respective laws.
Ah, but in the executive's illegality lies an opportunity for Republicans in Congress.
The GOP should hold the president's feet in the fire of his own making, force him to come before them to seek a legal postponement, then exploit the moment to scuttle ObamaCare in its entirety.
It's a tactical move that can't come soon enough, given that the law's individual mandate remains in effect and how that could drive even more folks to seek coverage through state exchanges — whose formation and formulation already are plagued by serious problems — and explode taxpayer costs.
Says Ken Klukowski, a lawyer involved in ObamaCare litigation and a legal columnist for Breitbart News, “The White House is beginning to sense that when Americans realize the price of ‘free' health care, they're likely to take a swift vengeance on those responsible.”
And for America's sake, the swifter the better.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Thursday wrap
- James Foley, 1973-2014: Fighting on
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer
- Another LCB fumble: The status-quo stupor
- Another carbon credit scheme