O-B-A-M-A-C-A-R-E, the president's signature first-term legislative achievement, may spell another round of political trouble for many Democrats, who have some new explaining to do, thanks to the White House.

Whether employers are eagerly sidestepping a key provision for another year (as many learned they would after a concession Tuesday night from President Obama) or House Republicans persist in voting to repeal the whole law (which they’ve done nearly 40 times), it’s clear the Affordable Care Act continues to exist under a cloud more than two years after its enactment.

“This is a setback for the administration and for Democrats,” Jim Manley, a former senior communications adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, told RCP. “It puts the Democrats in a little bit of a bind. …What you’re going to see is Republicans seizing on this for everything it is worth.”

Indeed. Republicans on Capitol Hill predicted that by bowing to complaints from the business community about burdens within a complex law, Obama opened a door to the possibility of delaying the implementation of the ACA as it affects individuals, who are required by January to buy insurance or pay penalties in 2015.

“What is a Democratic candidate supposed to say in light of this: 'Yes, I supported Obamacare but thankfully we delayed it to protect you from how bad it is’?" asked Brad Dayspring, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Administration officials, who this summer embarked on a campaign to encourage young, uninsured Americans to sign up for health coverage after Oct. 1 through new state-based insurance exchanges, said the individual enrollment required through January will proceed. But Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, in a statement posted on the White House website Tuesday, said the administration wanted to show flexibility as a law initially passed in 2010 will continue to take effect in 2015.

“As we implement this law, we have and will continue to make changes as needed,” Jarrett said.

“As needed” may have more to do with politics than the substantive changes Obama’s decision may have on the law, its defenders conceded.


LINK

The prez looks an awfully lot like Valerie Jarret at the link

“What is a Democratic candidate supposed to say in light of this: 'Yes, I supported Obamacare but thankfully we delayed it to protect you from how bad it is’?" asked Brad Dayspring, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Obama handed Republicans the club with which to beat Democrats over the head!

{I also believe this blunder by Obama damages the amnesty bill's prospects.}

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #4

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #2

---

Only the 'pubs and their speaker, the clown

---

Amen. This bill is a disaster and the GOP leadership can't even bring themselves to defund one dollar of this thing. The Rats are laughing their asses off everyday over it because for all the votes they may lose over Zerocare, the GOP is losing votes for not doing what they promised.

---

From the National Journal article:

"While there are programs under the new law that require discretionary funds from Congress, many of the major overhauls of the system are funded with mandatory spending."

Didn't Boehner and crew attempt to drain one of Obama's discretionary slush funds a few months ago and people around here freaked-out?

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #9

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #8

---

From the National Journal article:

"While there are programs under the new law that require discretionary funds from Congress, many of the major overhauls of the system are funded with mandatory spending."

Didn't Boehner and crew attempt to drain one of Obama's discretionary slush funds a few months ago and people around here freaked-out?

---

Nice spin. Did or did not Boner say he would defund Zerocare and then go ahead and fund it. This would be a dead issue now if the House would have not funded this bill with the CR.

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #11

---

Zitat

---

discretionary spending rules. This is where the GOP plans to make their stand - assuming they gain control of both houses of Congress.

---

That is utter bullshit. The framers designed the government so that one body has the power to spend. The one that had the only office holders elected by the general population. That would be the HOUSE. If the House wants to not fund something, it is dead regardless of if the law is on the books or not. The Senate has nothing to do with that.

Even taking your flimsy argument as the truth, it still doesn't absolve your pal Boner from promising to defund Zerocare and then funding it 2 years later.

---

Nothin' personal, Frank, but I think I'll go along with Forbes on this one.

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #14

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #12

---

but I think I'll go along with Forbes on this one.

---

Of course you you will. Because you are a Statist, big govt', establishment lackey. That is why you are citing an article written by a devout Marxist to buttress your argument...

Defunding Obamacare- A Campaign Promise That Won't Be Kept

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/20...t-wont-be-kept/

And here is the best part. Look who the opinion writer is...

Zitat

---

Rick Ungar, Contributor

I write from the left on politics and policy.

---

This writer wouldn't know the Constitution if it bit him on the ass. Know why? Because he was originally a comic book salesman. That is who you have arguing your point for you.

---

You do make a valid point, Frank: A former comic book salesman has a firmer grasp of political reality than you do.