You seem to a bit hazy on administrative law which is constitutional. In fact, most of the day to day rules we live by are a product of administrative law. This is nothing new.
There is no such thing as administrative law. Any change to a law that the Executive Branch wants, must be written as a new law. That change to an existing law must be passed by Congress to change the law. What this President and his people are doing is clearly un-Constitutional and lawless. Two Federal Judges have said so this month.
Ironside, you are wrong on the issue of administrative law. Administrative law is both legal and constitutional. If you want to take issue with Congress for abdicating the role of spelling out the minutiae of the laws they pass, have at it. But don't erroneously call it unconstitutional.
Take the specific example of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. It is replete with sections which state something along the lines of, "The Secretary (Treasury) shall make such..." and here you may insert rules, regulations, procedures, or other term for ADMINSTERING the laws passed by Congress.
All proposals are published in the Federal Register and subject to public review and comment.
But, if not withdrawn or modified, the are incorporated into the guidelines and procedures for adminstering the law as passed by Congress and signed by the President.
And if you don't like it and are impacted by it, you can sue through the Federal court system.
So give up on tilting at windmills that don't exist and talk about specifics you don't like. Bring the conversation to a discussion of content and not be a blatherskite.
And, as to the title of your post; I fear there will be more than one event which will make "Obamacare" pale in comparison. (My prediction)
It started out being as you point out a process of inserting rules, regulations, forms to use, procedures, or other term for Administering the law. It has now Progressed (Thanks to the Progressives of both Parties)to writing the law we must follow. Your example of the of the IRS Code, the Secratary (Treasury)shall make such...is done alot, and that is how Nancy Pelosi wrote the Healthcare Bill. That is why she famously said "We have to pass the law to find out what is in the law". However, just because they do it doesn't make it Constitutional. This is what happens when you pass massive omnibus type bills. Simple, concise, bills that the common man can understand is what is needed to stop this process of un-Constitutional laws written by un-elected people working for the Executive Branch that write the law that we must follow. It is "taxation without representation" is it not!
Nope, you have representation. Although neither you nor I may care for it very much. I agree these massive omnibus bills (which have been around for quite some time and have unfailingly been used to attach earmarks as well as other non-related amendments) are no way for our representatives to be attempting to enact meaningful legislation. I personally favor Federal reform so that legislation would have to be like Georgia laws: one subject only. No unrelated amendments just address the specific problems.
I realize we live in a complex world and many aspects are interrelated. But that doesn't mean we have to have massive bills that no elected representative is able to read and comprehend - yet is still expected to make an informed vote.
But back to my original point. What specific parts of the Affordable Care Act cause you such heartburn? How has your pocketbook or daily life been impacted? For myself (who is fortunate enough to have employer subsidized - and excellent - coverage), the amount of my rate increases has slowed dramatically specifically due to ACA. Will this continue long term? I don't know but I do know they (rate increases)were substantial and consistent every year prior to 2012.
I have lived under government socialized healthcare my entire adult life. My military service put me under socialized medical care.The military had two ways to control cost that Obamacare doesn't have. 1. It had it's own doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel on fixed salaries. They followed the orders of the military chain of command and were held accountable for how the system fuctioned. Only in the military, are government employees held accountable for their work. 2. Freeloaders, those who abuse the system are held accountable because everyone including a service members' dependents are subject to the military chain of command. Obamacare will be like all other government programs that have no accountability. Cost will bankrupt our nation in less than 10 years. Once you establish in the minds of people that they are not paying for it, they abuse the system and will demand more and more coverage. You must fall into one of Obama's priviledged groups (those who Obama says get a subsidy) to be saving money under Obamacare. Have you looked at your deductable out of pocket payemts? Finally, I see this law being repealed in Jan 2015 by a new Republican controlled Congress. Now that the holidays are over, and Americans must deal with Obamacare for their doctor visits and other health needs, the revolt will build to a historic swing in political forture in a negative way for Democrats who gave us Obamacare.
Ironside, once again you dodge the question of what specifics of the ACA do you dislike. You simply revert to the tired old diatribe of "freeloaders" and "abuse the system" yet you offer nothing of substance about the impact upon you.
And your presumption that I fall into "one of Obama's priviledged groups (those who Obama says get a subsidy)" is false. It also shows how little substance your argument contains. I do not and probably will never qualify for a subsidy under the ACA. My deductible remains the same, as does my catastrophic out of pocket limit. The rate of increase in my premium has decreased significantly, however.
I dislike un-Constitutional laws that this one is. My reference to "freeloaders" and "abuse the system" is what I observed in the Army. Human nature is what it is and you and I and all the politicians can not change it. Government Medicaid and Medicare are frought with waste, fraud, and abuse, so lets add hundreds of million more people to a government system and you have a recipe for bankrupting the nation. Finally, Obamacare is not about providing a better healthcare system to all Americans. It is about government control over our lives. I would like to hear from you 12 months from now after you have accessed your new Obamacare health plan to see how things went.
"...add hundreds of million more people"
Since the total without insurance and with less than comprehensive medical insurance is around 36 - 42 million (choose your source) from whence come these multitudes?
And the law was passed by Congress and signed by the President and upheld (in specifics - those specifics which have been adjudicated) by the Supreme Court.
How much more Constitutional can you get?
Ironside, I’m quite weary of your relentless perverting of that remark by Pelosi. Not that I’m any great fan of hers, but contrary to what you seem to think, not liking someone is no excuse for using words they never said to attack them for a position they never took!
Pelosi was speaking to the National Association of Counties annual legislative conference. After talking for some time about the problems with the current system and about the goals and benefits of the ACA, she said the following (note the wording of the ACTUAL quote):
“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention — it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”
She was not saying that they needed to rush the bill through, nor that it was too big for anyone to read. I frankly don’t understand what motives you’re ascribing to her in your latest misquoting rant, but I’m quite confident that she wasn’t saying that either. She was saying that the benefits of the bill were numerous, but the political sideshow that had come to surround the bill would make it hard to appreciate them until the bill was passed. Whether one agrees with her assessment is irrelevant; that’s what she was saying, and it smacks of dishonesty to suggest otherwise.
The entire population has now been added to Obamacare. Sense we have 320 million Americans give or take a couple of million, yes we have added hundreds of millions more to an already corrupt system of government healthcare.
What Nancy Pelosi passed was an outline of a bill. It was like writing a book with only chapter headings in it, with instructions under each chapter’s title “Will be written after you buy the book by another author“. In the case of the AHC Bill, she wrote “that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will” for most of the important and controversial parts of the bill, to be written after it was passed. She did it this way because if what we know now, was written in the bill at the time it came to a vote, the American people would have rejected it as they have consistently done in poll after poll sense it was passed. That is why the President lied to the American People over and over and over again to get it passed. I can read the Constitution, and nowhere does it say that an un-elected employee of the Executive Branch can write law that you and I and all Americans must follow. Just because they did it, doesn’t make it Constitutional or legal. What the President signed is nowhere near what has been written into the law after the fact, and further changed by Presidential un-Constitutional decries by Obama. Today’s law looks nothing like the law the President signed, and none of the changed have been voted on by the only legal body that can Constitutionally write law. CONGRESS! It is an abomination and shows a total disregard for our Constitution and the rule of law. If this law stands, we have no rule of law and we have no Representational government. We have an Executive Dictatorship.
Finally, the American People get to vote for themselves whether they like it or not. They are now forced to sign up for it, in essence, vote for it, and that is why the sign-up numbers are so low. The American People don’t want anything to do with except those that the Democrats have decided will get a break at the expense of everyone else. The problem is there are ten times as many people who will be hurt by this law then helped by this law. These numbers will show up at the polls to vote, and the 2014 election will be the second time the American people will be allowed to vote whether they like it or not. One of our political party’s will not survive this second vote.
Ironside, just because you write un-Constitutional over and over or SHOUT it out in all caps does not make it true. And, believe it or not, I have not been "added" to the ACA.
And your continuous decrying of administrative implementation of legitimately passed Constitutional laws simply reveals your distaste for the ACA and perhaps the current President. Go find a law of which you approve and read it (not one from 1822, of course) and see if it does not likewise contain language such as, "The Secretary shall create..." prpocedures or regulations necessary for the administration of the aforementioned law.
The Executive Brance can add administrative instructions which the employees of the Executive Branch will use to administer the law. Example: IRS filing forms and instruction booklets. But, they can not change the amount of tax percentage (tax tables)that Congress put into the Bill for that year. Here we have a law ACA in which Nancy Pelosi did not write the (Tax tables). Instead, she inserted "The Secratary shall create the (Tax Tables). I use this as an example of what Pelosi and the Democrats did in the ACA Bill. Time and time again Pelosi left it up to Kathleen Sibelius to write into the law after the fact, who had to sign up, what type insurance policy you could get, what it would cost, who could qualify for a subsidy, when you would lose your private or employer health insuance, and on and on and on. These are matters of substance that affact hundreds of million Americans. They are not matters of adminisrtive instructions to Executive Branch employees. What do we need Congress to do if this is how and who will write bills in the future.