Today it was declared, apparently by executive fiat, that implementation of Obamacare will be delayed for businesses in order to give them time to navigate through the labyrinthine regulations. Individual Americans aren’t so lucky.

Will Obamacare be delayed for the rest of America too? Stay tuned, peons of Obama’s America!!

  • $6565218

    The dems crammed it down our throats and now it’s time to ram it down theirs. It needs to be completely repealed or go as scheduled.

    • Jazzee

      where is the dumb GOP????????? HOP on this idiots
      it is all about 2014 elections why he did this has nothing to do with ‘business’ and if they don’t have to comply why the hell should the rest of us?????????????????????WAKE UP GOP …………………do something

      • TugboatPhil

        They are doing something. They’re trying to get 30 or 40 million illegals legalized so the system can crash immediately.

      • ObamaFail

        They’ve tried to repeal it multiple times but the Senate killed every attempt. What they need to do now is defund the damn thing.

    • nc

      Whatever happened to “Repeal and Replace?” The Dems have already mucked up the system so badly we can’t just stop and do nothing. And we certainly don’t want to let it go on “as scheduled.” Damage has already been done. A new solution is needed. Maybe Dr. Carson’s idea of the HSA or some variation of that.

      • Carolyn Palacios

        Yes, actually, we could do nothing. If we slowly pulled government out of what it shouldn’t be involved in, it would be terrific for the economy.

    • Richard Wayne

      Hell, at least defund and obstruct the darn thing at every turn. Our squishy house members are too busy over complaining about de facto amnesty while touting outright amnesty. Primary the lot of them…

      • Carolyn Palacios

        That’s untrue. The house has voted for repeal several times.

        • Richard Wayne

          You’re correct. I’m not sure if you are being subtly sarcastic, but that is a token measure since it will die in the senate and if by some miracle it passes there it will die by veto. They have real power to obstruct it in other ways.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            They have real power to obstruct it in other ways.

            By submitting a bill to defund it that has to go to the Senate and then to the President, you mean?

          • Richard Wayne


            “The upcoming continuing resolution, which funds the government, is one such place. House Republicans have the power, should they choose to use it, to shut down Obamacare through the appropriations process–the power of the purse laid out in the United States Constitution.”

          • mike_in_kosovo

            It *still* has to go through the Senate, does it not?

          • Richard Wayne

            To sum up below, no it does not have to go through the senate.


            Defunding: A Routine Policy Tool

            Congress is not required to fund Obamacare or the myriad new programs that it spawned. As with every other federal program, the level of funding can be adjusted—even zeroed out—by the current Congress. Special provisions in the health care law will complicate the process, but the propriety of defunding as a rightful tool is unquestionable.

            Congress’s standard protocol involves a two-stage process. First, authorizing legislation is passed, creating a program or an agency. Then, separately, the appropriations process determines how much funding, if any, will be allocated to that purpose, which must compete against other programs that also seek funding. Despite the vast amount of federal spending, more programs are authorized than can or will actually be funded.

            As noted by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “Congress is not required to provide funds for every agency or purpose authorized by law.”[6] Defunding is a legitimate use of the power of the purse that the Founding Fathers wisely granted to Congress.[7] As James Madison said, “This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”[8]

            The White House routinely proposes zero funding for many federal programs. In 2010, the Office of Management and Budget published an overview of President Barack Obama’s efforts to defund disfavored federal programs, stating:[9]

            In his 2010 Budget, President Obama sought to end or reduce 121 programs for a one-year savings of approximately $17 billion, of which $11.5 billion was on the discretionary side of the Budget. The Congress then acted and approved cuts that produced a net savings of $6.8 billion, nearly 60 percent of the discretionary cuts proposed…

            …for the 2011 Budget, the Administration is proposing 126 terminations, reductions, and savings of more than $23 billion in 2011 alone. The proposals include 78 discretionary terminations and reductions….

            So when a repeal is blocked, defunding is the obvious next approach. In the case of Obamacare, that is tricky because the law is designed to be difficult to uproot, just like a plant with an elaborate root system. This paper details some of the “how to” questions relating to defunding.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            I believe you’re misinterpreting the paper – while all bills of appropriation must originate in the House, your link says nothing of the bills bypassing the Senate *and*, in fact, states that:

            “Although praiseworthy from a good government perspective, efforts to de-link certain programs—and place them in a larger number of more narrowly focused spending bills—might limit the leverage the House will have with the Senate and the White House.”

            Additionally, if you look at, for example, HR2217, Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, you will see where it is currently waiting on the Senate Committee.

            Therefore, I believe that I am correct in stating that a defunding bill *would*, in fact, have to pass Congress and the President.

            Of course, this doesn’t mean that the House can’t pass a defunding bill and refuse to authorize funding.

  • b_truit

    You made you bed numbnuts, now lie in it. Screw em, let’em rot.

    • nc

      But we’re rotting too.

      • CatHerder

        It’s going to hurt and hurt bad, so we might as well get some use out of it. Enforce on schedule. Let the Ds try explaining it away then.

  • linnicy

    Dems worried about the train wreck that is Obamacare. Know that it will hurt them in 2014 elections. Slippery snake oil with forked tounges

  • CO2 Producer

    Obamacare Individual Mandate Syndrome (OIMS)

    Most susceptible: the unemployed, underemployed, and the self-employed

    Symptoms: no previous health issues of note, but now suffering from insomnia; nausea; panic attacks; rapidly graying hair and baldness; lingering to constant worry about how to pay for something you can’t afford; unpredictable rise in blood pressure stemming from being forced into having to choose between paying the rent/mortgage/food/utilities/transportation and paying for health insurance; depression from guilt caused by the knowledge that if you can’t afford to buy health insurance, others will likely be paying it for you; suicidal thoughts; and nagging, justified fear/anger that citizen-paid thugs will fine you then throw you in prison if/when you do not play along with their BS edict

    Remedy: repeal Obamacare immediately, burn it entirely, put its ashes in a vault, and drop the vault in the Marianas Trench so it is never seen nor heard from again

    • nc


  • HARP2

    I was going to send this to Obama and then realized that the NSA can just forward it to him later.

    • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

      The “One-Finger ‘Heil Obama'” Salute… Jawamax 8<{D}

    • Kevin Williams

      Oh, I thought you were pointing at a drone that is directly overhead…

  • OldmanRick

    My oh my, are the dims so afraid of obummerscare that they want its implementation delayed until after the midterms? You bet. They want to save as many dim seats in the house and retain control of the senate. They figure and rightly so that, if the obummerscare fiasco is held at bay until after the elections their base of sheeple, useful idiots, lemmings, and the gimmedat crowd will vote them back into office. If implemented before the mids, the jackasses stand to lose more seats in the house and control of the senate.

    It would be such an embarrassment to the administration were a conservative controlled congress to thumb its nose at the Marxist occupying the oval office and his trolls – particularly his buddy in the department of jerks. Oh the shame of it all. Such an action would be horrendous since the childish brat’s only recourse, when opposed, would be to run in circles, whine, snivel, scream, and shout, like the spoiled, narcissistic child he is.

    • Kevin Williams

      And issue an executive order.

      • OldmanRick

        Which orders states do not have to follow. The House can also use the power of the purse to withhold funds, and the Senate can deny any appointments and commence recall proceedings if they have the brass to do it. Currently, however, congress seems to be nothing more than a herd of elected eunuchs.

        • Kevin Williams

          I know. But, I fail to see why we don’t simply require that all incumbents run under the “Incumbent Party” and forbid the other parties from directly endorsing any incumbent. So, any incumbent would be running against a GOP nominee and a Dem nominee. At least those who don’t study the issues and just vote right down party lines would end up voting to replace whoever was there during the election. {dastardly smile}

          • OldmanRick

            Actually, a better idea is to enter all eligible voters’ names who are 30 years of age into a national database and randomly select those needed to fulfill the duties as senators, representatives, and federal agency heads. These individuals would each serve four years after which their names are withdrawn from the database and a new drawing, etc., etc., etc.

            For president 2 names are randomly drawn from the database and voters electronically select one. Winner serves a single six year term after which his/her name is withdrawn from the database.

            SCOTUS judges serve a 20 yr stint. After which, as above, 11 new names are drawn, etc, etc., etc. All federal judges serve for 10 years and…

            States on the other hand use current balloting methods for selecting their town, city, county, and state representatives.

            Probability theory indicates that over the long run we have a .5 probability of successful selection at the federal level.

          • Kevin Williams

            Yes, the same general idea as the original Greek method.

            Problem is that there are now too many people who lack enough basic education to actually be able to make a good decision about important things (like the economy), so the selected officials would just be puppets. Much like some presidents of the past have been, totally contained by their administration. That said, I think that Obama has almost no understanding of the economic condition or how to fix it, so perhaps he is part and parcel evidence that a puppet for president is a better choice than a bumbling-idiot-cum-out-and-out-liar that ill informed people believe in just because of his lies.

            Of course, with the current level of media involvement in slanting the actual news in either direction and further partisan bickering that .5 probability begins to approach 0 since the 50% probability assumes that the decisions are made in a vacuum and without media distortions.

            However, it would be an interesting study to see what happens if a group of people were given simple, individual problems to solve in a vacuum (without outside interference) and then the public is allowed to select the solution or set of solutions that work best for themselves. That would be most telling, I think. It would show how well we educated our kids while at the same time at least minimizing the possibility of the total corruption that is currently exhibited.

          • OldmanRick

            Based on what I have seen over the years with past and our current crop of reps and senators, it might be better to just chose names randomly out of a phone book. Besides growing fat and lazy while in public office these porkers don’t even read the legislation anymore before passing it. Ergo, I’m willing to take my chances with a database or phone book group.

            The motto of those in public office should be “Do no harm”. However, over the years these parasitic, bottom feeders seem more interested in keeping their rice bowl filled and their cushy job with all its perks and their constituency be damned except when it comes to renewing their stay in spin city east. Only then do they seem interested in the opinions of the voters. However, it more than likely is nothing more than a facade to keep the voters happy in their ignorance.

  • tops116

    “Gee, I don’t see how this could backfire on us horribly.”
    –White House Staffer, 7/2/13

    “Son of a bitch!”
    –Same White House Staffer, 11/4/14

  • therantinggeek

    Hmm. Nothing from our “dear comrades” on the other side of the political aisle? :) #sarcasm

  • Jason

    Anything to keep political power. That’s the real creed of the democrat party.

    Take away their political power, and they shrivel up like slugs in salt. They can not stand the idea of losing control over the people they’re supposed to be working for.

    Side note: Not impressed with the republicans and their lack of aggression on this matter.

  • waterytart

    Actually, my take would be to now DEMAND Obamacare to move forward, in every possible way. Make them then explain why it’s not working. Rather than cheering the delay, we should be forcing their hand on implementation, we can’t let them shelve this until after midterms.

  • EyesWideOpen

    “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” Abraham Lincoln

  • RedSoloCup

    I’m still exempting myself. Come and get me IRS bitches!

  • TocksNedlog

    Surely they can’t think that forcing people to purchase individual policies next year — at significantly increased rates — will help them in the midterms.

    Then again, it’s a long time between the first Tuesday in November and April 15, 2015, when the first ‘mild’ fine/fee/tax/30-pieces-of-silver-in-exchange-for-John-Roberts’s-soul is due.

    Uncle Sam wants YOU to be good little sheeple and acquiesce.

  • © Sponge

    Owebama administration = corruption and graft.

    This is embarrassing.

  • Clorinda Madsen

    So if companies don’t have to provide it for another year, could they all dump their policies and make their employees have to buy the individual policies because the individual mandate still stands? Then they’d have a year of savings to build up for providing it or paying the fines.

  • ELC

    I just want to take this opportunity from the bottom of my heart to thank John Roberts who sits on the Supreme Court for screwing all Americans. If the idiot didn’t agree- Odumbo’s disasterous Obamacare wouldn’t be up for discussion now. So again, thanks John Roberts.

  • ELC

    I just want to take this opportunity from the bottom of my heart to thank John Roberts who sits on the Supreme Court for screwing all Americans. If the idiot didn’t agree- Odumbo’s disasterous Obamacare wouldn’t be up for discussion now. So again, thanks John Roberts.