Once again, the executive branch has unilaterally announced a change to the Affordable Care Act, this time by granting yet another delay to the mandate requiring certain-sized employers to offer health insurance. Per the Wall Street Journal:
Under the new Treasury rule, firms with 50 to 99 full-time workers are free from the mandate until 2016. And firms with 100 or more workers now also only need cover 70% of full-time workers in 2015 and 95% in 2016 and after, not the 100% specified in the law.
The new rule also relaxes the mandate for certain occupations and industries that were at particular risk for disruption, like volunteer firefighters, teachers, adjunct faculty members and seasonal employees. Oh, and the Treasury also notes that, “As these limited transition rules take effect, we will consider whether it is necessary to further extend any of them beyond 2015.”
Quite simply, the Treasury cannot do this. Most citizens of the libertarian or conservative persuasion do not need to be informed that this is the case, knowing that the legislative branch is granted the ability to legislate. The Founders were clear on this — it’s not just the ambiguously purposed “Congress,” but “the legislative branch.” Accordingly, the uproar has been steady from the right regarding each one of the president’s issuances that have successfully changed the enforcement of the ACA.
But citizens of a leftist slant — and most importantly, this population includes the majority of what we refer to as popular culture, in addition to the executive Branch and the Senate — have responded to the lawlessness based on whether or not the decrees appear sensible. Note the latest from Ron Fournier of the National Journal, an ACA cheerleader:
Advocates for a strong executive branch, including me, have given the White House a pass on its rule-making authority, because implementing such a complicated law requires flexibility. But the law may be getting stretched to the point of breaking. Think of the ACA as a game of Jenga: Adjust one piece and the rest are affected; adjust too many and it falls.
If not illegal, the changes are fueling suspicion among Obama-loathing conservatives, and confusion among the rest of us. Even the law’s most fervent supporters are frustrated.
How could Mr. Fournier believe that the involvement of the legislative branch in the changing of a law is dependent on whether or not the bill is “complicated”? To whom? It’s an illogical, irrational stance.
“The law may be getting stretched to the point of breaking”? Huh? To Mr. Fournier, the enforcement of our nation’s laws — all of which should exist to defend the individual’s life, liberty, and property — do not commence until a critical of mass of leftists say: “Dude. Enough already.”
Culture encompasses more than entertainment. Obama has successfully altered a law without a congressional vote and without fear of judicial action because our culture cannot produce the will to secure the individual’s rights in these instances. Law enforcement is hamstrung by culture and always will be; the only solution is to foster a culture of laws, not men.