Why are people forgetting about Donald Trump's ACA executive order?

[dude58677]

The executive order says you that the taxpayer cones first when it comes to Obamacare.

[jllundqu]

The executive order says you that the taxpayer cones first when it comes to Obamacare.

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder273/27586273.jpg?

[Dr.3D]

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder273/27586273.jpg?
https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fmetrouk2.files.wordpres s.com%2F2016%2F08%2Fad_217543198.jpg%3Fquality%3D8 0%26amp;strip%3Dall%26amp;strip%3Dall&sp=64df6197f601369c40db4c3ee13c20df

[silverhandorder]

It's brilliant, he accelerated the collapse. This is why repeal talk is bs. He did his job.

[Superfluous Man]

The executive order says you that the taxpayer cones first when it comes to Obamacare.

Because that was just a stopgap on the assumption that the law would change.

With Trump, Trump comes first.

If taxpayers came first he would want to cut federal spending.

[Superfluous Man]

https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fmetrouk2.files.wordpres s.com%2F2016%2F08%2Fad_217543198.jpg%3Fquality%3D8 0%26amp;strip%3Dall%26amp;strip%3Dall&sp=64df6197f601369c40db4c3ee13c20df

Cones.

I get it.

[dude58677]

Because that was just a stopgap on the assumption that the law would change.

With Trump, Trump comes first.

If taxpayers came first he would want to cut federal spending.

It is still in effect so now it s voluntary.

[Superfluous Man]

It is still in effect so now it s voluntary.

Yeah, it's not going to change for people still filing 2016 taxes. Just don't expect it to last for when you file for 2017.

[dude58677]

Yeah, it's not going to change for people still filing 2016 taxes. Just don't expect it to last for when you file for 2017.

Don't rule it out that it won't. Donald Trump will keep it in place just to be spiteful. Remember he has an ego.

[devil21]

I agree, gotta cone first when dealing with this mess.

http://www.stonerdays.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/cone-marijuana-joint.jpg

[enhanced_deficit]

It's brilliant, he accelerated the collapse. This is why repeal talk is bs. He did his job.

Interesting.

If it was "strategic ambiguity" on mandate , things should get clearer in time ahead.

[Anti Federalist]

Andrew Napolitano: Trump has committed the most revolutionary act I've seen in 45 years

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/26/andrew-napolitano-trump-has-committed-most-revolutionary-act-ive-seen-in-45-years.html

Within four hours of becoming president of the United States, Donald Trump signed an executive order intended to limit immediately the effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) in ways that are revolutionary.

With the stroke of a pen, the president assaulted the heart of the law that was the domestic centerpiece of his predecessor’s administration. How did this happen? How can a U.S. president, who took an oath to enforce the laws faithfully, gut one of them merely because he disagrees with it?

Here is the back story.

When ObamaCare went through Congress in 2010, all Democrats in Congress supported it and all congressional Republicans were opposed. The crux of their disagreement was the law’s command that everyone in the United States obtain and maintain health insurance -- a command that has come to be known as “the individual mandate.”

Republicans argued that Congress was without the authority to compel people to enter the marketplace by purchasing a product -- that such decisions should be freely made by individuals and that that freedom was protected from governmental interference by the Constitution. Democrats argued that the commerce clause of the Constitution, which permits Congress to regulate commerce among the states, also permits it to compel commercial activity on the part of individuals who make up a highly regulated component of interstate commerce.

To ensure compliance with the individual mandate, the law provided that the IRS would collect the fair market value of a bare-bones insurance policy from those who did not obtain and maintain one. The government would then take that money and purchase a health insurance policy for that individual who rejected the law’s command.

Though Congress did not call it a tax and the government’s lawyers uniformly and consistently denied in all courts where it was challenged that it was a tax and President Barack Obama rejected the idea that it was a tax and even the lawyers for the challengers denied it was a tax, a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court characterized the money collected by the IRS from noncompliant individuals as a tax.

This is profoundly significant for constitutional purposes because though Congress cannot regulate anything it wants, Congress can tax anything it wants, as long as the tax falls equally on those in the class of people who are paying it. This unheard-of characterization of a non-tax as a tax was necessary to salvage ObamaCare before the high court because a different 5-4 majority in the same case ruled that the Republican congressional argument was essentially correct -- that the commerce clause does not empower Congress to compel commercial activity.

All of this has been debated loud and long since the law was enacted in 2010, validated by the Supreme Court in 2012 and came into Trump’s crosshairs in the Republican presidential primaries and again in the general election campaign.

Trump argued that the government cannot compel commercial activity, even as part of a large regulatory scheme, because the Constitution protects everyone’s right to purchase a lawful good or not to purchase one. He also asserted that ObamaCare does not make economic sense because its regulation of the practice of medicine and its administration of health insurance have resulted in a diminution of choices for consumers, which in turn has raised premiums, as well as deductibles, and chased primary care physicians from the marketplace. The Obama mantra that you could keep your doctor and your health insurance under ObamaCare proved to be patently false, Trump argued.

When Trump promised that as president -- on “day one” -- he would begin to dismantle ObamaCare, some Republicans, many members of the press and most Democrats laughed at him. They are laughing no longer because the first executive order he signed on Jan. 20 directed those in the federal government who enforce ObamaCare to do so expecting that it will soon not exist.

He ordered that regulations already in place be enforced with a softer, more beneficent tone, and he ordered that no penalty, fine, setoff or tax be imposed by the IRS on any person or entity who is not complying with the individual mandate, because by the time taxes are due on April 15, the IRS will be without authority to impose or collect the non-tax tax, as the individual mandate will no longer exist. Why take money from people that will soon be returned?

Then he ordered a truly revolutionary act, the likes of which I have never seen in the 45 years I have studied and monitored the government’s laws and its administration of them. He ordered that when bureaucrats who are administering and enforcing the law have discretion with respect to the time, place, manner and severity of its enforcement, they should exercise that discretion in favor of individuals and against the government.

This is radical coming from any president in the modern era of government-can-do-no-wrong. It is far more Thomas Jefferson, the small-government champion with whom Trump has never been associated, than it is Theodore Roosevelt, the super-regulator whom Trump has stated he admires. It recognizes the primacy and dignity of the individual and the fallibility of the state. It acknowledges the likely demise of ObamaCare. It is utterly without precedent since Jefferson’s presidency.

Trump’s revolutionary act is a breeze of freedom on a sea of regulation. It recognizes something modern governments never admit -- that they can be and have been wrong. It is exactly as Trump promised.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.

[Anti Federalist]

Now that is all up in the air.

And IRS has made it clear, that while they will not automatically reject returns that leave line 61 blank, you are still on the hook for any ObamaCare fees and fines imposed.

[dude58677]

Now that is all up in the air.

And IRS has made it clear, that while they will not automatically reject returns that leave line 61 blank, you are still on the hook for any ObamaCare fees and fines imposed.

Yes, but the order is written the exact way that Irwin Schiff would write it.

[Jan2017]

It's brilliant, he accelerated the collapse. This is why repeal talk is bs. He did his job.
Clean repeal is in the air with that executive order, but even without it.
People may be confused by the executive order as the law of the land Obamacare was in effect for 2016.

Obamacare has resulted in a drop in life expectancy in the USA - never mentioned in yesterday's House debate by either side.
That's already a good enuf reason for everybody to opt out of any plan/scheme denying healthcare freedom.

As NY Times paper edition headline reads this am - GOP Revolt Sinks Bid to Void Health Law

I will argue that any clean repeal gets signed into law by Trump - no veto like Obama,
especially since Pence as President of the Senate will have already had to deem it a "reconciliation bill" needing only the GOP Senator majority.

Trump drains the cesspool of "F grade in liberty" Ryan and his misleading advice -
so 70 days in . . . and 4D chess has turned in to . . . checkers.

[dude58677]

Clean repeal is in the air with that executive order, but even without it.
People may be confused by the executive order as the law of the land Obamacare was in effect for 2016.

Obamacare has resulted in a drop in life expectancy in the USA - never mentioned in yesterday's House debate by either side.
That's already a good enuf reason for everybody to opt out of any plan/scheme denying healthcare freedom.

As NY Times paper edition headline reads this am - GOP Revolt Sinks Bid to Void Health Law

I will argue that any clean repeal gets signed into law by Trump - no veto like Obama,
especially since Pence as President of the Senate will have already had to deem it a "reconciliation bill" needing only the GOP Senator majority.

Trump drains the cesspool of "F grade in liberty" Ryan and his misleading advice -
so 70 days in . . . and 4D chess has turned in to checkers.

Given that the government stated that 6.5 million people are 112 years old. I don't expect them to be accurate when it comes to claiming how long we live but I do know the Obamacare is voluntary based on the executive order. There is no law that requires anyone to pay the Obamacare tax due to the Executive Order. There is no penalties regarding the Obamacare tax. Despite this people have suffered nervous breakdowns from yesterday all because of a tax that they are not required to pay.

[Superfluous Man]

Despite this people have suffered nervous breakdowns from yesterday all because of a tax that they are not required to pay.

Those people are the ones who thought this Trumpcare bill that went down in flames was a good thing.

[Jan2017]

Those people are the ones who thought this Trumpcare bill that went down in flames was a good thing.
Very happy here about how the GOP revolt against RyanRomneyCare went - the bloodbath vote would have been best.

Ryan SuperPAC spent how much (?) in radio/TV ads in GOP districts only to FAIL against the Freedom Caucus bloc - more good news.

Some nervous breakdowns from the GOP "yes" commitments yesterday are already reported - regretting that decision -
but they were already ripe for challenges from newly empowered healthcare freedom candidates in 2018 mid-terms.

All is swell, though champagne gets uncorked when Ryan is gone.

[otherone]

Given that the government stated that 6.5 million people are 112 years old. I don't expect them to be accurate when it comes to claiming how long we live

That number is accurate. It's just that they've been deceased for 30-40 years.
The government knows this because they are registered as Democrats.

[dude58677]

That number is accurate. It's just that they've been deceased for 30-40 years.
The government knows this because they are registered as Democrats.

Alot of them could be white collar criminals too. It puts the whole system in serious doubt.

[Zippyjuan]

That number is accurate. It's just that they've been deceased for 30-40 years.
The government knows this because they are registered as Democrats.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/death-stop-social-security-payments/


WASHINGTON — Americans are getting older, but not this old: Social Security records show that 6.5 million people in the U.S. have reached the ripe old age of 112.

In reality, only few could possibly be alive. As of last fall, there were only 42 people known to be that old in the entire world.

But Social Security does not have death records for millions of these people, with the oldest born in 1869, according to a report by the agency’s inspector general.

Only 13 of the people are still getting Social Security benefits, the report said. But for others, their Social Security numbers are still active, so a number could be used to report wages, open bank accounts, obtain credit cards or claim fraudulent tax refunds.

Basically Social Security paperwork is out of date with not all deaths being linked to their numbers.

[otherone]

Alot of them could be white collar criminals too. It puts the whole system in serious doubt.

That's what does it for you?

[dude58677]

That's what does it for you?

With a system of waste fraud and abuse is a reason alone it should be eliminated.

[eleganz]

Trump did a good thing with that EO, a move that liberty movement can really get behind.

Doesn't matter though, Trump dropped the ball by trusting Ryan to get the job done. AHCA was horrible.

The Trump that removed the ACA penalty tax is the one we're all looking for.