It doesn’t quite work that way, pal. Here, maybe this will help.
It didn’t work that way, until Obama. Now Presidents have total discretion over what laws they will execute and which they won’t.
As for the “millions” who will benefit from the law, you’re dreaming. Let’s see how many people actually sign up.
Are you going to finally take Civics this semester, adaher?
Then explain why the President can just refuse to implement key parts of the law, and why that also wouldn’t apply to his successors.
And just so we don’t forget: “If you like your plan, you can keep it.”
Lie.
A guy was 26¢ short on a COBRA payment. Even though the payment wasn’t due, the man’s former employer instructed the company collecting payments not to accept any payments from him.
ACA is a poor substitute for a proper single-payer system, but it’s a step in the right direction and isn’t going to let someone die over a quarter and a penny.
It’s really time for Democrats to stop the denial. NBC reports that yes, people are facing serious hardships due to the incentives created by the employer mandate. And now the head of the food workers union confirms it:
The White House dismisses such examples as “anecdotal.” Jason Furman, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisors, said, “We are seeing no systematic evidence that the Affordable Care Act is having an adverse impact on job growth or the number of hours employees are working. … [S]ince the ACA became law, nearly 90 percent of the gain in employment has been in full-time positions.”
But the president of an influential union that supports Obamacare said the White House is wrong.
“It IS happening,” insisted Joseph Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which has 1.2 million members. “Wait a year. You’ll see tremendous impact as workers have their hours reduced and their incomes reduced. The facts are already starting to show up. Their statistics, I think, are a little behind the time.”
In a letter to Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, Hansen joined other labor chieftains in warning that the ACA as presently written could “destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the backbone of the middle class.”
NBC News spoke with almost 20 small businesses and other entities from Maine to California, and almost all said that because of the new law they’d be cutting back hours for some employees – an unintended consequence of the new law.
“Wait a year.”
Yep, anecdotal. When even the one interviewed is talking about “Maybe” it is even worse, I put it again in the same column of your peculiar dictionary definitions.
LOL- that’s gonna be popular. My child will be a college junior and you’re not only not gonna let me keep her on my insurance, but leave her uninsured as well? Thanks. 
I addressed this issue earlier when the employer mandate delay was first announced.
In short: More demagoging, more sky-is-falling predictions, more bullshit. Nothing bad has actually happened.
When you have the union leader saying to “wait a year” and the article itself referencing holier-than-thou nameless small business owners who intend to cut hours because of the law, you have lost all of your credibility. Assessments can’t be made based on far off future fears that may or not even happen or employers’ fucking intentions. Give me a break.
Move on.
I can’t find the text of the letter that adaher refers to, but if it is about union leaders complaining about the ACA, my guess is that it has more to do with protecting “Cadillac health plans” than anything else: link.
Conservatives remember what Cadillac health plans for unions are, right? Those are the things that are forcing cities into bankruptcy, making American businesses fail, the living embodiment of union corruption, etc.?
ETA: oh, now that I read the REST of the article, the union is complaining both about Cadillac health plans AND that the unions propose to LOWER the minimum hourly requirement for employer coverage from 30 hours to 20 hours… in effect, the union that adaher quoted as being against Obamacare is complaining that the ACA should cover MORE employees!
Yep, the article on the whole does refer to the president of that influential union affirming in the end that they still support the act, once again, the point on that post from adaher was misleading.
My experience has been that usually an article that is fair is pointed out by right wing nut sources with spin added that claims that people like a union president was against “X”, unfortunately the spin is misleading the subject actually approves of “X”. Then some guys that do not mind getting “burned” (I think some have no shame whatsoever) then post them here with the spin that the right wing site (or email) gave to it.
Gee, what could possibly go wrong with untrained people, with no criminal background checks, being given access to Americans’ Social Security numbers and tax info?
Not to mention the simple fact that this is the same kind of data collection that gets condemned when it’s for terrorism prevention. But for health care, well, that’s okay, Americans shouldn’t expect privacy in that case.
What a piece of garbage this opinion article from NR is.
There are many corporations and private companies that use prison labor and overseas help desk that have access to social security number information and others, with even less pay.
http://prisonmovement.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/prison-labor-exposed/
What the sorry NR piece forgets to mention is that there are safeguards that are deemed effective and known already for years in cases like that.
What I pointed out already is enough to declare this piece of FUD complete garbage, but the writer had to go to mention ACORN, implying that the people hired will come from the same full of scandal groups, but recently the source that created the scandal that shut down ACORN had to pay a worker that lost his job as the evidence demonstrated that O’keffe slandered the workers, turns out that the reason why that organization was shut down was bogus.
Using simple logic tells me that at the levels the jobs at the hub will be paid for it means that security checks and other features are already included, at those rates it is unlikely that we are talking prison labor or overseas help desk. Once again, FUD and garbage.
again, just FUD and basically a repeat of the already mentioned
Ran of of edit time,
Again, that piece was basically just FUD and it is basically a repeat of the already mentioned issue of the setup of the exchanges that is made more complicated thanks to several states not helping. As I pointed before, it is really dumb for conservative politicians to act innocent when the problem they complain is in great part related to what they are doing to prevent the law from being implemented.
Major problems with your argument, although I’m grateful that you made one this time.
First, corporations gather data from people voluntarily. If you choose to trust a business with your data, you do it at your own risk. the public has no options with the Federal Data Hub.
Second, the data in the hub is much more extensive than what the average corporation has. Corporations may have your SS#, but they do not have your income in most cases, or any of the other things the data hub tracks to determine your eligibility for ACA subsidies.
Third, your defense is that the government is no worse than your average corporation? Excuse me, but most corporations do criminal background checks. Those that don’t, post them here, because I’m sure people would like to know who NOT to give private information to.
Fourth, it’s unnecessary to give community organizers access to the Hub. If people want health benefits, they’ll go get them. They don’t need to be recruited. It is simply not a necessary invasion of privacy.
Useless point as I mentioned that it is the security levels what are the important ussue here.
And the IRS and many other government orgs already do, once again the issue is with the levels of security, your argument that it is voluntary or not is not much relevant is just a smoke screen.
I worked on both private and government settings, at my levels of pay you bet I got checked on my criminal background as I had and have access to private records.
That is one of the issues I identified as garbage** as there is no evidence of this presented in that article**.
Once again, the article is just offering a guess, it is garbage as it ignores what happens to people that even makes $15 to less than $20 that has access to private information, fingerprints checks and other backgrounds are common.
And that is example #10,000 of why one should not rely on the National Review, I have seen so many examples of sorry FUD pieces coming from them that it is better to not use them as a source, specially when it is an opinion with ignorance built in.
We’ve been seeing this line of argument before: it hasn’t happened yet, this is only speculation, then when what is predicted happens, “Does it even really matter?”
Only that it is not, your argument has no evidence. Worse, as the ACORN bit should had told you, the NR writer forgot to tell you the lies that were committed to get rid of it. IMHO they are not mentioning the recent settlement that O’Keffe and buddies had to make as it does not fit the narrative of “corruption” they want to make. And they do not want to call attention to the fact that they are using the same false smears with the ACA.
As they are on the record of also being climate change deniers the NR is just about the last place I would go for opinions, as they are very easy to shot down as they indeed add the ignorance in spades to their opinion pieces, they really did go to the toilet after William F. Buckley’s death.