The consequences don’t matter. Do we live in a nation with rule of law, or rule of men?
You tell me, I guess then you do not approve of the underhanded methods used to refuse implementing the law. Compare this with the IRS tax review incident, even the democrats in congress agreed that even if not law was broken what took place was inappropriate. In this case it seems Republicans like you do not care that the spirit of the health care law is refuted constantly and the attempts to subvert it are to be praised.
But regarding this specific item, The Republicans cutting off their noses to spite their faces is amusing.
Which side is attempting end runs around SCOTUS?
The Democrats. They didn’t read the bill they passed, it says stuff they didn’t mean it to say, and now they want SCOTUS to rule on what they would have passed had they read the bill.
Ok, now you are beginning to sound like the tax evaders and their gold fringe flags, as I understood, it is not unprecedented to get issues like that and have the courts in the end side with the intention the makers of the law had in mind and was assumed it was.
One of the changes with Obamacare is that plans like this are going to become less common. Not just because the exchanges have higher OOP expenses, but because the Cadillac tax is going to start hitting plans with good, as opposed to generous, benefits before too long since it’s indexed to regular inflation as opposed to healthcare inflation. Trying to reduce utilization by increasing costs is one thing I don’t like about it, since most people don’t think it’s fun seeing a doctor I don’t think this will have a big effect at reducing healthcare costs.
So if the law says one thing, but they meant it to say something else, SCOTUS should amend it for them, thus saving them the need to vote on an actual amendment?
Anyway, more fuel for the fire: 42% of small businesses have frozen or reduced hiring as a result of the law according to a poll of small business owners.
So most businesses will increase hiring as a result of Obamacare. Yeah, that’s some fire.
Actually, only 9% said that Obamacare would have a positive effect on them. 39% said no effect.
So, can you say that most businesses foresee no negative impact on hiring as a result of Obamacare? Really, I mean it; can your fingers type those words?
As The Professor of law pointed you are grasping a very tenuous straw. And as Fear Itself pointed, you are only doing FUD, and it is really more fuel to the fire of not trusting anything of what you are claiming.
Wow, really defining success down. Slightly less than half of our small businesses will be negatively affected! Victory!
It is even sadder that the article ends with the point that most of the opinion the small business have is based on the fear mongering coming from the Republicans, likely to be wrong, as you usually are.
Why would it be wrong? Does ACA increase costs for small businesses, or doesn’t it?
If a law against flogging employees negatively affected 42% of small businesses, would you support or oppose that law?
It depends if you look at it narrowly, what you show here is indeed what many Republicans claim that they are not doing, in reality they miss the big picture and end up causing more harm than good, and more costs.
(PDF)
Ah, so the government knows better than those ignorant businessmen. Gee, never heard that one before.
Anyone want to take any bets on whether the federal exchanges will be up and running on schedule?
Nope, the point stands, most are being misled by the propaganda of an industry that does want to keep the gravy train going.
So you understand their problem, which is that they’re not being treated the same as everyone else?