The Imperial Presidency strikes again.

The Treasury Department rolled out Monday afternoon more tweaks to the health care law’s requirement that all large employers–those with 50 or more workers–provide insurance coverage to their workers. This is the part of Obamacare was supposed to take effect at the start of 2014, but was delayed by the White House this past summer as the White House was facing significant push back from employers.

In today’s final rule, the Obama administration is essentially relaxing the employer mandate for 2015–in a big way for medium-sized businesses, and a smaller way for the largest employers. Here’s a rundown of the key changes.

1. Employers with between 50 to 99 employees get another year of transition. The Obama administration will give medium-sized businesses another year’s pass on providing insurance coverage to workers. Treasury estimates that about 2 percent of American businesses fall into this category, but does not have numbers on how many people work for businesses of this size. For these companies, the employer mandate does not take effect until 2016. [...]

2. Employers with 100 or more workers aren’t required to cover everyone. Previous regulations had required large employers to offer coverage to 95 percent of full-time employees to be considered in compliance with the employer mandate. Today, Treasury is ratcheting that requirement back: Large companies that offer coverage to 70 percent of their employees will be counted as fulfilling the employer mandate. This is a transitional measure and, by 2016, large employers will need to hit the original, 95 percent target. Treasury estimates another 2 percent of American businesses fall into this category, with more than 100 employees, but again, we don’t have numbers on how many workers those companies employ.

3. Volunteers won’t be counted as full-time employees. There had been some tussling on Capitol Hill over whether certain volunteers – mostly volunteer firefighters – would count as full-time employees, for purposes of the health care law. Today’s rule clarifies that they do not count as employees–which eliminates any incentives to get rid of volunteer positions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...ingtonpost

Again? He does this once a year and yet there's still mental idiots out there who support it and think it's just so great...

As laws have no meaning for the politicians, it will also come to pass for the people.

Thought laws could only be changed in congress?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(02-10-2014 08:03 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Thought laws could only be changed in congress?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I guess King overrules Congress.

Wait a minute. So it's IMPERATIVE we pass the ACA as sson as possible so we can A. See what's in it and B. know that people have to be covered by it ASAP,
but NOW it's not so imperative as elections are coming up
and WAL-MART is pushing back big time (according to a close relative who works there- the ACA would cost them more than their yearly profit if fully implemented on them, unless they do what?--Well, cut back their employees hours to under the weekly limit of course. Which means the very people who voted for this crap get screwed in their jobs by having their hours cut back so they make less money AND don't get healthcare at all! Brilliant!

All Hail King Zero! Next up Queen Hilarious (if you think Obama's laws were funny, just wait 'til she shows you what she can do (to you))!

"Obama’s New Delay of Employer Mandate Violates Plain Language of Law"

President Barack Obama’s Treasury Department issued a new regulation today that for the second time directly violates the plain and unambiguous text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by allowing some businesses to avoid the law’s Dec. 31, 2013 deadline to provide health insurance coverage to their employees.

Initially, on July 2, 2013, the administration unilaterally delayed the deadline for the employer mandate until 2015. Now, the administration is unilaterally delaying it for some businesses until 2016.

In its official summary of PPACA, the Congressional Research Service said: “(Sec. 1513, as modified by section 10106) Imposes fines on large employers (employers with more than 50 full-time employees) who fail to offer their full-time employees the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage or who have a waiting period for enrollment of more than 60 days.”

The text of the law itself describes an “applicable large employer” as follows: “The term ‘applicable large employer’ means, with respect to a calendar year, an employer who employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees on business days during the preceding calendar year.”

The final words in the section of PPACA mandating that employers with more than 50 full-time employees provide their employees with “minimum essential coverage” imposes a specific statutory deadline for doing so. It says: “EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.”


http://http://cnsnews.com/news/article/t...nguage-law

(02-10-2014 08:03 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Thought laws could only be changed in congress?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

My future Son in Law (Wake Law) explained that he can change the rules without Congressional approval...just not the Law. Sounds like the same damn thing too me.

(02-10-2014 09:25 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 08:03 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Thought laws could only be changed in congress?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

My future Son in Law (Wake Law) explained that he can change the rules without Congressional approval...just not the Law. Sounds like the same damn thing too me.

From what I understand is that the Obama administration can be challenged over the
refusal to enforce the entire law, but in this case of the ACA, no one wants to do it…
the Democrats certainly don’t want to take their guy to court, and the Republicans
get to sit back and watch the President dismantle a law that they (the GOP) couldn’t stop.

(02-10-2014 09:25 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 08:03 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Thought laws could only be changed in congress?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

My future Son in Law (Wake Law) explained that he can change the rules without Congressional approval...just not the Law. Sounds like the same damn thing too me.

Can you ask him what the difference is between a rule and a law - especially if breaking one/both ends up with a fine for law suit.

(02-10-2014 10:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 09:25 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 08:03 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Thought laws could only be changed in congress?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

My future Son in Law (Wake Law) explained that he can change the rules without Congressional approval...just not the Law. Sounds like the same damn thing too me.

Can you ask him what the difference is between a rule and a law - especially if breaking one/both ends up with a fine for law suit.

I did. Evidently the ACA is the law...but...the administration can change rules within that law such as time frames for compliance. Makes no damn sense to me..but..Ill defer to the legal experts. He said this exact subject was discussed by his Constitutional Law Prof.

If a Republican President tried this crap, the leftists would be rioting in the streets and screaming about their rights being abused.

Why not?

The whole thing is a crock of ****.

(02-10-2014 10:14 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 10:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 09:25 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 08:03 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Thought laws could only be changed in congress?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

My future Son in Law (Wake Law) explained that he can change the rules without Congressional approval...just not the Law. Sounds like the same damn thing too me.

Can you ask him what the difference is between a rule and a law - especially if breaking one/both ends up with a fine for law suit.

I did. Evidently the ACA is the law...but...the administration can change rules within that law such as time frames for compliance. Makes no damn sense to me..but..Ill defer to the legal experts. He said this exact subject was discussed by his Constitutional Law Prof.

The legislation is 2,000 pages. The supporting regulations (that were not even written when the law was passed) are tens of thousands of pages.

but the timing of the law -- it's effective dates -- we're absolutely written into the law itself. this isn't a matter of changing the underlying rules.

It's unprecedented.

. . . And deferring to "legal experts" almost always gets us into trouble. But it goes much deeper than that.

the law as implemented should at least vaguely resemble the bill of goods that was sold to us. It would have never passed if the penalty was referred to as a tax. It would have never passed if we knew everyone was going to get their plan cancelled. It would have never passed if we knew that the obamites were going to change the law a whim.

That's why everything has been such a secret.

ACA was passed under "special order" in the house, which bypasses all public hearings and committee participation, and is normally reserved for national emergencies -- like, say, declarations of war -- and THAT is why we knew NOTHING about it until they were ready to spring it on us.

(02-10-2014 11:26 PM)EagleX Wrote:  . . . And deferring to "legal experts" almost always gets us into trouble. But it goes much deeper than that.

the law as implemented should at least vaguely resemble the bill of goods that was sold to us. It would have never passed if the penalty was referred to as a tax. It would have never passed if we knew everyone was going to get their plan cancelled. It would have never passed if we knew that the obamites were going to change the law a whim.

That's why everything has been such a secret.

ACA was passed under "special order" in the house, which bypasses all public hearings and committee participation, and is normally reserved for national emergencies -- like, say, declarations of war -- and THAT is why we don't knew NOTHING about it until they were ready to spring it on us.

Where is the transparency in all that?

(02-11-2014 12:17 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 11:26 PM)EagleX Wrote:  . . . And deferring to "legal experts" almost always gets us into trouble. But it goes much deeper than that.

the law as implemented should at least vaguely resemble the bill of goods that was sold to us. It would have never passed if the penalty was referred to as a tax. It would have never passed if we knew everyone was going to get their plan cancelled. It would have never passed if we knew that the obamites were going to change the law a whim.

That's why everything has been such a secret.

ACA was passed under "special order" in the house, which bypasses all public hearings and committee participation, and is normally reserved for national emergencies -- like, say, declarations of war -- and THAT is why we don't knew NOTHING about it until they were ready to spring it on us.

Where is the transparency in all that?

None. Zero. It's the opposite of transparency. The obamites will tell you that they proceeded surreptitiously after ACA was passed in order to keep from giving the evil republicans ammunition about their disasterous bill to use against them -- and in so doing, they managed to keep the entire country from seeing the manifest, manifold perversities waiting in the bill and it's attending regulations. and they CERTAINLY weren't going to let the truth get out before the 2012 election.

While weazen harry reid was hyperventilating about mitten's hidden tax returns, the REAL hidden documentation story of the 2012 election cycle was the reams and reams of secret Obamacare regulations.

(02-10-2014 11:17 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 10:14 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 10:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 09:25 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 08:03 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Thought laws could only be changed in congress?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

My future Son in Law (Wake Law) explained that he can change the rules without Congressional approval...just not the Law. Sounds like the same damn thing too me.

Can you ask him what the difference is between a rule and a law - especially if breaking one/both ends up with a fine for law suit.

I did. Evidently the ACA is the law...but...the administration can change rules within that law such as time frames for compliance. Makes no damn sense to me..but..Ill defer to the legal experts. He said this exact subject was discussed by his Constitutional Law Prof.

The legislation is 2,000 pages. The supporting regulations (that were not even written when the law was passed) are tens of thousands of pages.

but the timing of the law -- it's effective dates -- we're absolutely written into the law itself. this isn't a matter of changing the underlying rules.

It's unprecedented.

I agree. It seems unconstitutional to me. It directly subverts the system of checks and balances that the document intended.

Can anyone with a straight face actually say that we do not have a dictator in Obama?

(02-11-2014 06:49 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Can anyone with a straight face actually say that we do not have a dictator in Obama?

We not allowed to use the phrase “straight face” anymore… it’s disenfranchising.