As much as I dislike Obamacare and as disastrous as I think it will be for the Nation, I am almost as concerned with what it is doing to the rule of law in this nation. After finally recognizing that the roll-out was a failure and admitting that the millions of health insurance cancellations was a real problem, President Obama offered a "fix." He would allow insurance companies to keep in place for one more year those policies they had cancelled because the policies did not conform to the dictates of the new law.
By what authority could the President do that? If the law says that starting January 1, all policies must provide certain coverage and must conform to one of the four approved Obamacare insurance models, how can the President say, "Oh wait, you can ignore that for another year." The mandate that insurance polices offer certain coverage and have certain features was not an administrative rule, but a law.
When the President, said businesses, would have another year to meet the business mandate portion of the plan, where did that authority come from? Can the President arbitrarily say, he will delay enforcing a law for a year and allow people to ignore the law? Sometimes Congress or other legislative bodies pass policies with "goals" or "targets" or a program that grandfathers-in all non-complying entities and says that going forward such will be the law. That was not the case with the Obamacare act. It was a firm law.
President Obama is acting more like an absolute monarch or third world dictator than the President of a nation of laws. If President Obama can choose to ignore a law passed by Congress, what law may a future President choose to ignore? Could a future Republican President say the provisions of Obamacare are suspended indefinitely without seeking Congressional repeal? He would have as much authority to do so as President Obama had in authorizing insurance companies or businesses to ignore the law.
Top Stories
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment