THE LAWSUIT THE HOUSE GOP filed against President Obama on Friday opened a new front in the attack on the 2010 healthcare law, this time targeting the subsidies that reduce deductibles, co-pays and other out-of-pocket expenses faced by lower-income Americans. According to the complaint, the subsidies should not have been paid because Congress never formally appropriated the money for them. The claim is legally suspect, but more important, it misidentifies the party responsible for the alleged lawbreaking. It also puts Republicans in the position of making health insurance even less affordable for struggling constituents.
The case has been in the works at least since July, when the House voted to sue Obama for allegedly exceeding his authority as president when he implemented the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Half of the lawsuit focuses on the administration’s unilateral decision to delay the law’s mandate that businesses with 50 or more workers provide comprehensive health benefits — a mandate, by the way, that Republicans opposed. The other half focuses on the law’s requirements that insurers reduce the out-of-pocket expenses for lower-income customers, and that the government make “periodic and timely payments” to insurers to cover their costs.
The complaint contends that the administration asked Congress to appropriate $4 billion for these cost-sharing subsidies in fiscal 2014. After lawmakers essentially ignored the request, the complaint says, the administration went ahead and made the payments to insurers anyway in violation of the federal Anti-Deficiency Act. But the healthcare law compels insurers in no uncertain terms to provide the subsidies and requires the government to reimburse them. Congress has done nothing to change those statutory mandates or to alleviate the government’s obligation to spend the money. Besides, the Anti-Deficiency Act was designed to prevent an administration from creating obligations Congress hadn’t approved, not to excuse the government from fulfilling the ones Congress itself created.
As we’ve said before, the courts are likely to toss out the case because the dispute is political, not legal. Still, it’s worth noting how Republicans have sought to undermine and destabilize the Affordable Care Act by attacking the benefits it provides to Americans on the lowest economic rungs. This lawsuit, which would affect millions who earn near-poverty-level wages, follows a case brought by conservative activists that seeks to end insurance subsidies for more than 13 million low- and moderate-income Americans in 37 states. We get that Republicans are intractably opposed to the healthcare law, but it is particularly shameful that they should take it out on the Americans most in need of the help.

First, let's get this question of constitutional legality out of the way. I will do this simply by pointing to the precedence set by every single Republican president since Eisenhower who all used executive orders to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Here is a summary of 18 of these executive orders.

Pres. Dwight Eisenhower:

1956
By executive order, circumvented immigration quotas to allow 900 orphans to join their adoptive families in the U.S.

1956-1958
By executive order, allowed 31,000 Hungarian anti-Soviet insurgents to emigrate.

1959-72
By executive order, allowed 600,000 Cubans fleeing Castro to emigrate. [PDF]

Pres. Gerald Ford:

1975
By executive order, allowed 360,000 refugees, mostly from from Vietnam, to emigrate.

1976
By executive order, allowed 14,000 Lebanese nationals to emigrate.

Pres. Ronald Reagan:

1981
By executive order, allowed 7,000 Polish anti-Communists to emigrate.

1982
Allowed 15,000-plus Ethiopians to emigrate.

1987
By executive order, rescinded deportation of 200,000 Nicaraguans.

1987
By executive order, deferred deportation of undocumented children of 100,000 families. [JSTOR]

George H.W. Bush:

1989
By executive order, deferred deportations of Chinese students.

1989
By executive order, reversed visa denials of 7,000 Soviets, Indochinese.

1990
By executive order, deferred deporations of previously amnestied citizens’ 1.5 million spouses and children.

1991
By executive order, deferred deportation of 2,000 Gulf War evacuees.

1992
By executive order, deferred deportations of 190,000 El Salvadorans.

George W. Bush:

2002
By executive order, expedited naturalization for green-card holders who joined military.

2005
By executive order, deferred deportation of students affected by Hurricane Katrina.

2006
By executive order, enabled 1,500 Cuban physicians to seek asylum at US embassies.

2007
By executive order, deferred deportation of 3,600 Liberians.

Now, whether or not you think ALL of these orders are constitutionally illegal is a different, though respectable argument. On the other hand, if you're inclined to pick and choose which of the orders are justified, then you are surrendering the broad claim that President Obama does not have the constitutional authority to issue executive orders. If that's the case, you would have to shift the focus to whether or not his constitutionally valid order is otherwise unreasonable. This is the part I want to focus on here. In other words, constitution aside, what exactly is it that makes Obama's action so horrific?

The first such argument that appears most obvious is the extent of the order. Clearly, Obama's order involves a far greater number of immigrants than any of the orders before him. Perhaps that's worthy of concern, although personally I don't see it. Maybe someone needs to point it out to me. If these illegal immigrants were being granted citizenship then I would say it would be helping to dilute the democracy by decreasing the ratio of representatives to citizens, but Obama isn't granting them citizenship. That leaves us with the sociological and economic concerns of accepting 5 million immigrants into our system and this is where my opinion might grate on some nerves. I personally don't see any difference between native-born Americans and immigrants when it comes to basic human rights. Nor do I see any difference between them when it comes to their work ethic, criminal inclination or any other form of stereotyping. I don't have much tolerance for the whining about immigrants "taking" jobs from Americans either. As far as I am concerned, the only reason why an immigrant will take "your" job is that they're better at it than you are and if that's the case then good, because as a consumer, I would rather pay for goods and services provided by the best workers, than those provided by "privileged" workers and this is coming from a professional in a field that is saturated by foreign workers. I've been surviving by working hard and competing not by relying on the government to force employees to give the job to me just because I was born here.

The other response I have to this protectionist view is that immigrants are also consumers which means they will not only be taking jobs, they will be creating jobs too by virtue of increased demand. These five million immigrants are going to be shopping at Walmart, buying lunches at Taco Bell and if Obama gets his way they will also be buying insurance and paying for services, just like everyone else. I don't hear Republicans complain about the fact that there are already over 300 million people in what they take pride in saying is the largest and strongest economy in the world. So I don't understand how 5 million more is going to make any difference.

What does that leave us with? Not much. Of course there is the prejudice, racism and general bigotry which has always characterized the right, from the quiet undercurrents of conservative policy to the most outrageous antics of extreme fascism but Republicans know they can't win over the moderates on racism and bigotry alone. They HAVE to come up with something that at least sounds legitimate. So far they have a big fat ZERO, and apparently they are choosing to continue with a campaign of emotionally changed fallacy in hopes that enough voters will remain ignorant and infuriated to carry the bullshit movement.

I'd have more respect for them if they just said we hate Mexicans at least then they wouldn't be lying.

As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in this twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air-however slight-lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.
Justice William O Douglas
People, we have slept and that time has long passed. Nobody is listening to us anymore. I believe it is time for a peaceful, but armed revolution. This president has no interest in being president. He believes he is our ruler. He also believes that we will take whatever he gives us whether we like it or not. I say no, and so does the Declaration of Independence, "whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is our right, it is OUR DUTY, to abolish it. Believers in this great nation, please respond.

Let me see if I understand your perspective. You think it's fine to reward over 5.5 million law breakers? No problem whatsoever, correct? Is that the liberal outlook on anything a Democratic president does? He had two years when first sworn in to get anything passed. But it wouldn't be political so he has to wait and stoke his own ego at the expense of the blacks in this country. The blacks have the highest unemployment rate among any ethnicity and this is how "a good man" pays back the people who voted for him? I knew he was a fraud and all hat no cattle when he burst onto the scene. I did my own fact check about this bird. He isn't capable of running a chicken stand. But he is able in the minds of liberals to lead the most powerful nation in the world? And liberals want to actually boast that,( he got one over on the GOP), when all he did was make it harder on the blacks. Why for liberals act like they care so much about the black community and stand by and applaud when we're thrown under the bus? And the GOP will have the final say,( THANK GOD), about this law breaking, lying back stabbed. Remember if this was such a big compassionate thing with Obama he would of had it accomplished his first term. Its about trying to bring this country to it's knees. And I feel sad for all who can't see through this birds lies. Lets all laugh while America burns because we sure showed those GOP a thing or two. Now that's how a kindergartener looks at things, until he at least gets to first grade.

After the presidents immigration spreech, boehner and his kkklowns are scrambling around trying to figure out what the hell to do.

The contards are between the rock and the hard place, knowing that if they shut government down, they get blamed. If they try impeachment, they llok like fools, and they will lose. If the leadership does nothing, the wingnut extremists will cry and the in-fighting will continue, and nothing will get done.

And regardless of what the posters on OPP and the cut and paste freaks who visit rightwingnut sites daily to post lies and faulty opinions, want, boehner and magoo will be proven to be impotent as leaders of wingnuts.


http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-scramble-response-obama-081713746--politics.html

Embarrassing level of crying going on over this. As I watched Fox tonight, at points I could see Megan and later Hannity giving glimpses of tiring from keeping the show going. That's what entertainment is all about, good and bad. I wonder if they'll be able to keep a straight face if producers tell them to compare Obama to Hitler?

Megan and Hannity did a good job of focusing on the arguments in a righteous manner but there's only so much that can be dwelt on it before it is just whining and whining.

Maybe that is what the producers feel the viewers will want?

Calling Obama a dictator or emperor is bad acting...next week the so-called evil guy will be having lunch or playing golf with these RINOs.

Just be a man and say the truth:
we want a system that deports all illegals;
legal kids can keep their illegal parents until age 18 if the parents pay a fee and taxes but at age 19, the parents get deported;
libs can have the illegal Latino vote, we'll take the legal Latino vote disgusted how they had to stand in line while Obama lets others in the back door.

If general or specialized labor is a shortage, then dept of labor can recommend to congress every 2 years how many more applicants for citizenship should be increased.

Obama was clear in my mind over this as he was with last years budget. He will do what he says and won't hesitate to call draw, ending any more up ante's. If we wanted reform, we would have it but Obama's right, we don't really want it as much as we want Obama to think we want it.

I heard the speech. my heart went out to those who believed what he said..... he broke the law. PERIOD. the illegals broke the law .PERIOD... I don't care what their reasons were. close the border ,tight, then talk about these poor people who love this country and just want a better life for their family's......BULL. do it legally . what don't they not understand? are they so used to doing things like a criminal , they know no other way? He is illegal. They are illegal . the whole process is illegal.