HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Was the ACA Changed nine ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Oct 9, 2013, 09:28 AM

Was the ACA Changed nine times without Congressional approval?

Yes, I am in one again

8 replies, 911 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply Was the ACA Changed nine times without Congressional approval? (Original post)
LaydeeBug Oct 2013 OP
LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #1
wercal Oct 2013 #3
leftstreet Oct 2013 #5
alc Oct 2013 #2
Proud Liberal Dem Oct 2013 #4
SidDithers Oct 2013 #6
Bandit Oct 2013 #7
DireStrike Oct 2013 #8

Response to LaydeeBug (Original post)

Wed Oct 9, 2013, 09:33 AM

1. Oh, please let me say this is bullshit...how could they change something without approval?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaydeeBug (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 9, 2013, 09:45 AM

3. Well the employer mandate was delayed a year.

This gets into the seam between law and regulatory authority.

I happen to believe that, no matter which party is in the executive office, that congress has relinquished too much power to regulatory authority. The late Robert Byrd agreed with me.

Now it starts with the language of the laws as they are passed - many leave themselves very open to later modification by regulation. As an example, I write reports to comply with the 1973 Clean Water Act. The requirements change every few years...and the EPA actually re-certifies the states every 10 years, with a new list of requirements that were unheard of in 1973. The law was written in a manner that allows this, which I think is a disservice by congress..

Same with ACA...the employer mandate was supposed to be in 2014, now its delayed by HHS action. Was that the intent of the congress that passed this just 4 years ago? Probably not. The law should have explicitly prohibited such modification.

(BTW my objections to the Clean Water Act are nuanced, and its a very long story, but the way municipalities react to the regulations are based in what is defensible in court, and creates a system where hundreds of smaller property owners are required to do measures in an unorganized way, and makes it unfeasible to pool resources and create large scale wetlands, etc. Short story - instead of the new business district in your town having a 20 acre wetland at its downstream end, each new business will have a pathetically small and ineffective 'bioswale' behind the building...and the methodology of enforcement steers us towards that reality).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wercal (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 9, 2013, 11:33 AM

5. Out of Pocket Caps on Costs - also delayed

Published: August 12, 2013

WASHINGTON — In another setback for President Obama’s health care initiative, the administration has delayed until 2015 a significant consumer protection in the law that limits how much people may have to spend on their own health care.


The limit on out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and co-payments, was not supposed to exceed $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family. But under a little-noticed ruling, federal officials have granted a one-year grace period to some insurers, allowing them to set higher limits, or no limit at all on some costs, in 2014.

The grace period has been outlined on the Labor Department’s Web site since February, but was obscured in a maze of legal and bureaucratic language that went largely unnoticed. When asked in recent days about the language — which appeared as an answer to one of 137 “frequently asked questions about Affordable Care Act implementation” — department officials confirmed the policy.

The discovery is likely to fuel continuing Republican efforts this fall to discredit the president’s health care law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/us/a-limit-on-consumer-costs-is-delayed-in-health-care-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaydeeBug (Original post)

Wed Oct 9, 2013, 09:41 AM

2. delaying employer mandate is all I can think of

There were many waivers the first 2 years. And regulations may have been written in unintended ways. And the supreme court decided that some of the requirements on states were unconstitutional. These could all be considered changes but are pretty standard as legislation gets implemented.

What people thought they were promised is different from what we have but those things can't be considered changes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaydeeBug (Original post)

Wed Oct 9, 2013, 11:30 AM

4. I don't know about 9 times

Do the people you're conversing with have references/sources? Do they know whether or not President Obama had the ability to approve those changes (i.e. descretionary power). If he acted inappropriately, why haven't the Republicans filed suit or launch an investigation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaydeeBug (Original post)

Wed Oct 9, 2013, 11:37 AM

6. Ask them to list the 9 changes...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaydeeBug (Original post)

Wed Oct 9, 2013, 11:48 AM

7. A delay in implementation is not a change..Delay means just that

A single aspect of the LAW has been delayed, but the LAW has not been Changed...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaydeeBug (Original post)

Wed Oct 9, 2013, 12:38 PM

8. Can I also ask about an argument: the ACA being passed with "dirty legislative tricks"?

I'm not sure what this is about. Why would any "tricks" be required with 60 D senators and a majority in the house?

Also "pass it to find out what's in it." What's with that?

Edit: I looked into the pelosi quote above. Basically there was no senate bill at the time, and she was saying something had to be voted on before you can argue about provisions in the bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread