Inquiring minds definitely wanna know. Especially after this news:
Breaking: Obama administration will allow non-Obamacare compliant plans to stay in the market through 2016.
— Sarah Kliff (@sarahkliff) March 5, 2014
That sounds suspiciously like … a delay:
https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/441322357916180481
While Dems slam GOP for working within the law, Obama arbitrarily makes another change to Obamacare. http://t.co/x6FpwSs2WR
— Charles Hoskinson (@cehoskinson) March 5, 2014
Telltale sign of the health care law's political potency — when the latest delay goes past the NEXT presidential elex.
— Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) March 5, 2014
https://twitter.com/seanagnew/status/441323581344321536
https://twitter.com/JayCaruso/status/441323729994670080
“The law” is such a fluid thing, you know?
https://twitter.com/NoahCRothman/status/441325267844616192
Sad, but true. At this point, we’d be shocked if there weren’t any new changes to the law. Arbitrary delays are now just par for the course.
ObamaCare was passed under the pretext that Americans would die without it. So… they've delayed it until 2016… seven years after passage
— RBe (@RBPundit) March 5, 2014
Another Obamacare provision delayed. But don't worry, it's just a flesh wound! http://t.co/0rC9i4KWgV
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) March 5, 2014
Good thing Obama threatened to veto the Keep Your Plan Act. Lawful changes bad; on-the-fly, illegal rewrites good. https://t.co/mfi7Z4gbTK
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) March 5, 2014
https://twitter.com/Cameron_Gray/status/441324524207087616
I don't know about you, but I'm totally a fan of a law that passed in 2009 but has had most of its provisions delayed until like 2016.
— RBe (@RBPundit) March 5, 2014
The fierce moral urgency of, well, maybe in 7 years.
— Matthew DesOrmeaux ⚜ (@authoridad) March 5, 2014
https://twitter.com/BecketAdams/status/441326178209910785
A couple of questions from the Washington Examiner’s Phil Klein:
If they keep extending cancelled plans, why will they ever expire? And how can a two-teired system be sustainable? http://t.co/o1RBXeOfIJ
— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) March 5, 2014
How is this "enforcement discretion" — effectively indefinitely delaying central part of Obama's law, legal? http://t.co/o1RBXeOfIJ
— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) March 5, 2014
NRO’s Charles C.W. Cooke has the answer:
It’s not. RT @philipaklein: How is this "enforcement discretion" — effectively indefinitely delaying central part of Obama's law, legal?
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) March 5, 2014
Bingo. And that’s just fine with the Obama White House. There’s definitely an endgame here:
Call it as it is: Obama hopes he can keep the law alive long enough for it to be irreversible while not losing full control of Washington.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) March 5, 2014
Or maybe it’s as simple as this:
Obama figures if he can delay Obamacare until after his presidency is over, they'll have to name the disaster after someone else.
— jon gabriel (@exjon) March 5, 2014
We honestly wouldn’t put it past this president. It’s all too clear that he takes us for fools.
The Affordable Care Act is as stable, predictable and clear as an improv troupe.
— Jim Geraghty (@jimgeraghty) March 5, 2014
But maybe in the end, we’ll get the last laugh:
https://twitter.com/Matthops82/status/441325453245448192
We can only hope.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member