Executive Order "Minimizing Effects of ACA"

[presence]

Executive Order - Minimizing The Economic Burden Of The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal January 20, 2017

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.
It is the policy of my Administration to seek the prompt repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), as amended (the "Act"). In the meantime, pending such repeal, it is imperative for the executive branch to ensure that the law is being efficiently implemented, take all actions consistent with law to minimize the unwarranted economic and regulatory burdens of the Act, and prepare to afford the States more flexibility and control to create a more free and open healthcare market.

Sec. 2.
To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies (agencies) with authorities and responsibilities under the Act shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.

Sec. 3. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the Act, shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to provide greater flexibility to States and cooperate with them in implementing healthcare programs.

Sec. 4. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the head of each department or agency with responsibilities relating to healthcare or health insurance shall encourage the development of a free and open market in interstate commerce for the offering of healthcare services and health insurance, with the goal of achieving and preserving maximum options for patients and consumers.

Sec. 5. To the extent that carrying out the directives in this order would require revision of regulations issued through notice-and-comment rule making, the heads of agencies shall comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable statutes in considering or promulgating such regulatory revisions.

Sec. 6. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.






DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 20, 2017.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=122251




As expected, no mention of the license, prescription, regulation, approval, mandate, and patent schemes that have given rise to the spiralling cost of US healthcare.

[goldenequity]

[Anti Federalist]

MAGA!

[staerker]

Literally Hitler.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...rden-obamacare

Meanwhile, Trump's Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, has also sent a memo to all federal agencies to initiate an immediate freeze on all new regulations.

Press secy @seanspicer also says WH Chief of Staff Reince Priebus directing federal agencies to initiate immediate regulatory freeze.

— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) January 21, 2017

[timosman]

Will the IRS still be collecting penalties for not signing up for it?

[TheTexan]

Hopefully he keeps the good parts

[enhanced_deficit]

Photos of DGPcare singning few years back were runied by Biden's excessive PDA, good thing he is not in above photo where Trumpster starts undoing of DGP's "signature" mess

[timosman]

Photos of DGPcare singning few years back were runied by Biden's excessive PDA, good thing he is not in above photo where Trumpster starts undoing of DGP's "signature" mess

Another hypocrisy of the left - pretending Biden is not a creep.

[CPUd]

He should sign a EO to make MAGA mandatory.

[seapilot]

Pelosi does not look too upset by the changes, probably does not know what they are. She did look nervously down at her watch like she wanted to get it over with and get out of there.

[Brian4Liberty]

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=122251

As expected, no mention of the license, prescription, regulation, approval, mandate, and patent schemes that have given rise to the spiralling cost of US healthcare.

I'd guess that none of those schemes came about or were signed into law with Obamacare. An Executive Order can not repeal those laws.

I suppose section 3 and 4 could be construed to do some of those things, but the caveat on those, "to the maximum extent permitted by law", pretty much would require compliance with existing law (as it should be).

The Congress needs to address those issues. Better send a message to Rand, as he apparently has some input on the replacement legislation.

[Zippyjuan]

The order calls for the government to:

ensure that the law is being efficiently implemented,

It states a goal of replacing it but it doesn't change a thing by itself. A symbolic order.


http://time.com/money/4642125/trump-...ecutive-order/

Trump cannot fully repeal the law by executive order. And Friday night's order offers no concrete policies or rules, so it's impossible to say exactly what will happen, or on what time frame.

In an interview with Vox, Levitt said the executive order was a symbolic indication that Trump isn't waiting on Congress "to start making big change."

[presence]

An Executive Order can not repeal those laws.

which branch of government is the FDA that regulates hospitals and approves medications and procedures?

which branch of government is commerce that grants patents for pharmaceuticals and medical devices?

states grant medical licenses but only to graduates of colleges accredited ala 20 U.S.C. 1099b via department of education which is which branch of government?

executive, executive, executive


the whole mess that is US healthcare has nothing to do with legislation and everything to do with executive regulation


with one swipe of the pen the potus could unravel everything that is the spiralling cost of US healthcare


but he won't

because it PROFITABLE for fascists to deny people access to medicine through EXECUTIVE regulation

[Brian4Liberty]

I will defer to Rand (and Amash) as to what can and can not be done via Executive Order.

As I stated before, there may be some leeway, but there is applicable law in play.

I suppose section 3 and 4 could be construed to do some of those things, but the caveat on those, "to the maximum extent permitted by law", pretty much would require compliance with existing law (as it should be).

[angelatc]

Will the IRS still be collecting penalties for not signing up for it?

I read an article today that mentioned that the penalties against businesses who do not comply have never been enforced. As usual, it's the little people getting hosed.

[timosman]

I will defer to Rand (and Amash) as to what can and can not be done via Executive Order.

As I stated before, there may be some leeway, but there is applicable law in play.

He could have instructed IRS not to take money from people pockets for not buying this nonsense.

[CPUd]

I got a letter from the IRS yesterday saying if I pay as little as $75 a month I won't have to pay the Obamacare tax. Does the EO mean this is canceled?

[angelatc]

I got a letter from the IRS yesterday saying if I pay as little as $75 a month I won't have to pay the Obamacare tax. Does the EO mean this is canceled?

That does not make sense.

[CPUd]

That does not make sense.

They claim healthcare.gov has plans for $75 a month and they want me to go there and sign up before January 31.

[Brian4Liberty]

They claim healthcare.gov has plans for $75 a month and they want me to go there and sign up before January 31.

Funny thing is that the ad on this page right now says "plans from as low as $29/month".

I wonder if this is a poison pill by the Left. Sign up a bunch of people right now at ludicrously low rates, so that they can claim that it's GOPs fault that these people will lose these plans.

[timosman]

Funny thing is that the ad on this page right now says "plans from as low as $29/month".

I wonder if this is a poison pill by the Left. Sign up a bunch of people right now at ludicrously low rates, so that they can claim that it's GOPs fault that these people will lose these plans.

$100k deductible?

[CaptainAmerica]

Will the IRS still be collecting penalties for not signing up for it?

I think they won't be required to now.

I was issued a letter that threatened a penalty for not enrolling.

[Zippyjuan]

I think they won't be required to now.

I was issued a letter that threatened a penalty for not enrolling.

The Act has not been repealed yet. It still applies.

[RJ Liberty]

I read an article today that mentioned that the penalties against businesses who do not comply have never been enforced. As usual, it's the little people getting hosed.

Yep!

I wish Trump all the luck in the world in reducing the harm the ACA has caused for so many. But I suspect the real power players (Big Pharma, the Medical-Industrial Complex, and the insurance corps) already have plans to keep the revenue flowing into their pockets.

[CaptainAmerica]

The Act has not been repealed yet. It still applies.

I will not enroll regardless.

[phill4paul]

I will not enroll regardless.

Yep. Nor will I pay a penalty.

[angelatc]

Yep. Nor will I pay a penalty.

Me either. THe problem, as I see it, is government.

OK, we all know that the law does not give the IRS the authority to collect the penalty, but if we think that the government will allow that policy to stand indefinitely, we're idiots.

If I was a greedy evil liberal commissioner at the IRS, I'd start applying the tax payments I receive to the penalty first, then go after the regular methods of collecting the outstanding "taxes." I would anticipate this being challenged all the way up to SCOTUS, who invariably would side with the government.