Why is it we need three branches of government?


I have two questions that maybe some of your more liberal readers can answer. I just heard that the president has delayed the employer mandate portion of ObamaCare until after the 2014 elections.

Question No. 1. Since ObamaCare is supposedly the greatest piece of legislation in history, assuring affordable health care for everyone, why the delay?

Question No. 2. Does the president have the authority to delay implementation of the law?

OK, it’s three questions:

Question No.3. If the executive branch has the authority to implement or not implement laws willy-nilly, why do we need the other two branches in the first place?

Just askin’

Dan Glaspell

Walla Walla



fatherof5 says...

Mr. Glaspell, here are some answers to your questions:

1. Why the delay? According to Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy Mark Mazur, it will give the government more time to simplify new reporting requirements, and it will give businesses the added time they requested to become compliant. Both reasons should benefit businesses.

2. On what authority? Mazur says the decision is "an exercise of the Treasury Department's longstanding administrative authority to grant transition relief when implementing new legislation." It is thoroughly explained in [this letter][1].

3. Why not rid ourselves of the other two branches if the executive branch can do whatever it wants? This is a rhetorical question. Its premise is flawed. A one-year delay in one component of the law is not a "willy-nilly" failure to implement the law.

PS. For what it's worth, while you didn't specifically address executive orders, your overall theme implies a concern over whether or not the current administration is disregarding the will of Congress. Obama has issued 149 executive orders thus far. [Bush II issued 289][2].

Hope that helps!

[1]: http://democrats.energycommerce.house...
[2]: https://www.federalregister.gov/execu...

Posted 10 July 2013, 5:42 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

The day is July 4, 2025. President Chelsea Clinton has proclaimed that this Independence Day is for a celebration. Headlines for the day: unemployment rate has dropped .1% to 76.4%, Climate Change has been brought to the forefront with icecaps having thickened by 10% with no warming trend in sight, inflation has caused the combo (horse and buggy - harness and horseshoes not included) to rise by 4% in cost and petri dishes for food cultures in high demand, while gasoline prices have dropped 10 cents to $18.99/gal!


Posted 11 July 2013, 9:21 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

You want to tackle the question of why the government has decided to accept, without verification, self-reporting of qualifications for the exchange subsidies, because they can't put in place effective verification systems in time? Given Treasury IG findings that fraud is pervasive in other subsidy programs (21-25% fraudulent payments on the Earned Income Tax Credit, costing $25 billion a year), and claims that fraud, waste and abuse cost the Medicaid system about $30 billion a year, and who knows how much for the Medicare system, we really don't need another program of honor-system 'self-reporting' because the government is too incompetent to administer it.

Isn't it obvious by now that the Administration bit off far more than it can chew? The intricately complicated 2000+ page bill is now being effectively amended piece-meal because it's too complicated to adminster, and the effect of each of these amendments on the whole package and its costs is truly unknowable.

But then, my theory always has been that the bill was never intended to work, but instead was intended to destroy the remaining private elements of our health care, so that the true goal, fully socialized medicine a la UKs NHS, would be inevitable.

Posted 11 July 2013, 8:39 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

PearlY, I don't agree that the destruction of our current system was the goal of Obamacare, but we can dream.

Imagine someday eliminating the insurance company middle-men who currently stand between us and our doctors. Yes, we can dream. :)

Posted 11 July 2013, 9:18 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

I happen to like my insurance company. I picked it myself 35 years ago, and we've gotten along fine ever since. Don't know why I'd want someone from the IRS or some other federal agency standing between me and my doctor, instead. Why on earth would you?

I've been audited three times by the IRS (with them ending up owing me a few bucks each time) but never by my insurance company.

When I want to talk to someone at my insurance company, I get a live person within less than 30 seconds. When I need to talk to the IRS, I've been on hold as long as two and a half hours before ever speaking with someone.

Even before I meet my deductible, my insurance company saves me money by negotiating discounts with my doctor, but if it gets carried away and too aggressive, my doctor can threaten to leave the provider network, and so far, although it's come to the brink at least three times that I recall, they always negotiate a compromise they can live with. What's the success rate of government agencies actually saving people money? And when's the last time Medicare or Medicaid negotiated with doctors who are threatening to drop their Medicare or Medicaid patients? Answer: Never.

But at least I finally got you to admit that socialism is exactly what you're aiming for!

Posted 11 July 2013, 9:48 p.m. Suggest removal

ImJustSayin says...

It was delayed until what...2015? How convenient for the Dems running for the Senate in 2014 who will get it handed to them for backing the "you have to pass this bill before you can know what's in the bill".

Posted 10 July 2013, 8:01 p.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment