If the ACA is delayed a year. Let's say in order for the government not to shut down

[Cleita]

Obama and the Dems cave in and allow the House bill to become law to save the country so to speak, what can President Obama do now? Unfortunately, the President isn't the spiteful person I would be if I were President.

If I were him under those circumstances, I would sign an executive order, as a stopgap measure, lowering the eligibility age for Medicare to zero, for one year until the ACA can be implemented again. Those who could afford a token premium would pay into it and those who couldn't would get subsidies or get it for free if they couldn't afford anything.

http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/InfoByTopic/Reform/Reform_08_12.04.ExecutiveOrders.htm

Since 1789, more than 13,000 executive orders have been issued by presidents to clarify or guide the implementation of statutes and the Constitution. In general, executive orders apply and extend existing protective federal policies to groups, individuals, agencies, and contractors. The use of executive orders has varied widely. President Washington, for example, issued a proclamation insisting that the militia put an end to the Whiskey Rebellion. President Lincoln used executive orders to carry out the Civil War and to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued multiple executive orders to help implement his New Deal legislation, and President Truman integrated the armed forces through an executive order.

This Alert explores how executive orders have been used in the past and offers suggestions for their use as President-elect Obama and the nation work to reform our nation's health care system.

Legal Authority

There is no Constitutional provision explicitly giving the president the power to issue executive orders. Article II, Section 1 ("The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.&quot and Article II, Section 3 ("he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed) have been cited as a grant of this power. Even so, presidential executive orders have the legal force of law if made pursuant to an Act of Congress. The authority for such orders can be either inherent or implied. The power is inherent when the executive order is derived from the powers conferred upon the President as commander-in-chief or, in international situations, as head of state; the power is implied when the order represents a reasonable interpretation of the powers expressly granted to the President under the Constitution.

Form and Scope of Executive Orders

An executive order can take different forms. The president can issue a general executive order to direct federal agencies. The president may also issue National Security Directives, which are often classified or sealed due to their content. An executive order can be issued by proclamation and in the form of a ceremonial or symbolic declaration.

Often, presidents will issue executive orders that contain the same or similar language found in previous orders, to extend, follow-up, or reiterate the earlier order. Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson, issued orders which prohibit discrimination by government contractors against racial and ethnic minorities. Eisenhower's Executive Order 10479 was a follow-up to President Truman's Executive Order 10308. President Truman's order has been amended and superseded by at least four subsequent executive orders that protect civil rights in furtherance of Constitutional goals.Form and Scope of Executive Orders

Of course once people experience Medicare they won't want anything the privateer insurance companies have to offer and the ghouls on the GOP will have succeeded in shooting themselves in the foot again.

[bunnies]

1. Thats some pure awesome right there.

Seriously.

[Zorra]

2. I like it! nt

[duffyduff]

3. Send that post to the president

I like the idea myself.

[PoliticAverse]

4. The ACA is not going to be delayed for a year. n/t

[Warpy]

55. It's already been delayed FIVE YEARS

so that insurance companies and states could both have time to make the transition.

Unfortunately, red states didn't bother trying and insurance companies were only half hearted even in blue states. They've had five years to do nothing, thinking the Clown Congress would overturn it or the Supreme Court would declare it unconstitutional, anything to keep them sucking blood out of the sick.

Given this, the worst thing Obama could do is cave. That would mean he'd cave on the debt ceiling, too, and on down the line. We wouldn't be in this fix if he hadn't caved over and over again.

Which is probably why he will cave tomorrow.

[MrsKirkley]

5. Could for-profit health insurance companies go out of business within that year?

After a year of Medicare, no sane person would want to go back to for profit health insurance. Many businesses wouldn't want to go back to the expense of providing for profit health insurance to employees. Could the president actually do this without being impeached? Does he have the power to go that far?

[Cleita]

6. According to my link he does have the power.

Executive orders traditionally only extend or improve laws or policies already in place and Medicare meets that standard. The tea baggers are trying to impeach him anyway, so

[Loudly]

22. I posted previously suggesting signing a repeal bill in exchange for Medicare for all.

I didn't even think he could unilaterally lower the eligibility age.

Excellent move if legal!

[Cleita]

23. It's actually a gray area, but if he does and no court of law

overturns it, it's a done deal then. The article state that only two executive orders in history have been overturned.

[Loudly]

20. For-profit insurance can continue as the supplemental Medi-gap business

and as administration mills processing claims and payments.

[frazzled]

7. Then what happens when they put Medicare on hold, as hostage for the next budget

or for the debt-ceiling vote? Or after that, when they decide Social Security should be suspended?

There has to be a limit put to this kind of hostage-taking, and it has to start now. The ACA is a bill that was duly enacted 4 years ago and fully tested in the Supreme Court. You don't get a do-over by making threats. If you want to change an enacted bill, you have to propose a change and then have the Congress vote to enact that change. We cannot, however, allow them to operate by taking the government or its full faith and credit hostage.

[Cleita]

8. They can't do those things unless they revoke the statutes that enable

Medicare and Social Security. They are stupid but not that stupid.

[calimary]

13. Seems to me you might be giving that side more credit for intellect than you need to.

NOTHING SO FAR has stopped the teabaggers from their precious stupidity. They just figure out a different way to look at it that fits their pretzel logic and twisted worldview.

[Cleita]

15. Maybe, but things that affect the populace more directly like

Medicare and Sec. Sec. Are much harder to get support for ending than upending Glass Steagal for instance that the average voter isn't concerned about at first until it directly affects them. Then it's too late.

[frazzled]

19. The law that enables Obamacare is already in force

Delay is of course an option in its execution--by the Executive Branch, which executes the laws, but not by Congress-- but probably so are many aspects of, say, Social Security (changing dates of checks or the means by which they are issued).

I repeat: NOTHING is safe if this is allowed to become a part of Congressional actions.

[Cleita]

21. I agree with that. We are in perilous times where our

very security in being able to have a quality of life is endangered.

[BlueDemKev]

32. Agreed 100%. Obama CANNOT cave on this

[Snotcicles]

56. If they agree to delay it a year, I will be delayed forever. nt

[Iliyah]

27. Yes they are - Cleita

and very hateful. Stupidity and hatefulness - two combination that are very very dangerous.

[Schema Thing]

9. The ACA is not going to be delayed for a year.

[GeorgeGist]

10. And mint a couple trillion dollar coins to pay for it.

Hell,it's kabuki anyway.

[Cleita]

11. There isn't more money needed than will go into the ACA anyway.

Also bringing healthy younger people and their premiums into Medicare will give it a money boost it needs. Also Medicare has only 2 to 3 % administrative cost compared to private insurance. It's able to deliver medical care for a lot less than the private sector.

[SheilaT]

34. Healthy young people who are working are already paying into Medicare.

They're just not getting their health care that way.

I do believe we should have Medicare for all.

What we all then pay into the system will have to be increased, but that increase would be offset for almost everyone by a decrease in the premiums they're currently paying for the system that's now in place with the for-profit insurers.

[Cleita]

35. They are also paying into health care.

That money could be used instead for Medicare and complete coverage for them. it's the insurance companies that would lose out. Good riddance.

[SheilaT]

48. Exactly.

[johnd83]

12. I suspect that any increase to pay for it would be lost in the noise margin anyway

nobody really noticed the payroll tax reduction when it was in effect.

[Cryptoad]

14. "Im going to hold my breath and stomp my feet until,,,,"

Geez ,,, will the GOP will let the government shutdown for a day then CR it for another year. That way they can tell all the teabagging assholes back home that they did all they could do. so vote me in again....!


But Medicare for everybody would be a good thingy!

[AgingAmerican]

16. If Obama folded and delayed it for the Republicans

...it would never ever be implemented. Their extortion would only escalate.

[Cleita]

18. Then I guess Medicare for all would have to be extended

indefinitely, one could hope. It works for me.

[AgingAmerican]

49. Yeah that would be cool

nt

[randr]

17. They would be back in a year with more terrorist threats

[Cleita]

25. I think terra, terra has worn out its welcome as a fear tactic.

Otherwise we'd be bombing Syria right now.

[Flatulo]

24. That is an absolutely fiendishly brilliant idea. nt

[Cleita]

26. Too fiendish I believe for our President, who likes to

get along with all the different political factions, no matter how many times they spit in his face. I'm not as nice as he is.

[Flatulo]

31. You're right, of course, but one can dream...

[nashville_brook]

28. fantastic idea -- i like.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. That's too bold a move for this president

Nothing he's done so far makes me believe that he has the guts to do an end run around the Republicans.

[Cleita]

30. I don't think so either. I was throwing out a possible option.

Instead they are playing political chicken with the possibility of a government shutdown a looming reality. The fact is it it doesn't hurt either side directly right now so they don't care about whom is going to suffer in the short term.

[tritsofme]

33. Medicare eligibility is defined by statute. Presidents don't rule by fiat.

Such an order would be clearly unconstitutional. Regardless the ACA will not be delayed.

[Cleita]

36. Actually the executive order strategy was touted as far back as 2009 by

various Constitutional lawyers as a solution to getting universal health care passed in spite of our intransigent Congress. So there is a solid basis for it. I happened to remember talk of it years back which is why I looked it up.

I do agree with you, the ACA will move forward and the govt. will probably shut down.

[tritsofme]

39. That would be completely lawless. The president does not get to unilaterally rewrite

laws to his liking, he is not king. How would it even be funded? You are mistaken, there is no basis.

[Cleita]

41. Actually there is a lot of opinion about it out there that

is in disagreement with you. But you have a right to your opinion on the matter.

[tritsofme]

43. This isn't just us disagreeing. You are either misremembering

or you read some very silly analysis. Medicare eligibility rules are clearly spelled out in federal law. I just want to be clear, zero ambiguity.

[Cleita]

46. I said you are entitled to your opinion.

There is no point in arguing this any further because I have my opinion.

[tritsofme]

50. And you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Do you think the president can unilaterally rewrite any law without congressional input? What are the limits? Why even have Congress? I'm not trying to be rude, just hoping to help you understand why this is not possible.

[Cleita]

51. It is possible just unlikely and I recognize that.

However, George Bush made taking executive orders to the edge possible and got away with it. There is that historical precedent. Too bad Albert Gonzalez isn't around to show them how to bend the rules.

[tritsofme]

52. Yes, it would be possible to issue that order, or any order, but it would be unlawful.

That is the reason it is unlikely to happen, presidents, especially good ones, don't like to issue unlawful executive orders. There would be no way to fund the program, the president couldn't unilaterally raise revenue to cover the cost of the program, and that's just the beginning of the problems. This would be even a bridge too far for the Bush gang, it would be akin to a Republican president cutting or eliminating taxes or eliminating social programs through executive order.

[treestar]

57. Did even he try to make one that contradicted statutory law?

[Rex]

37. Never negotiate with terrorists.

The GOP is a domestic terrorist organization that uses economic terrorism over the masses instead of the bullet and bombs.

[Cleita]

47. If only we could get HS to start treating them as such.

It would do a lot to end their hubris.

[JDPriestly]

38. From the point of view of political strategy, if I were in President Obama's shoes, I would let the

irresponsible Republicans stop the funding for the government and hold steady. I would wait and reassure people that I was doing everything I could.

Once the public realized what stopping the government means (especially Republicans who are government contractors), I would ask Nancy Pelosi to count the votes among Democrats for a bill funding the government. Once I had that number, and I suspect it would be unanimous, then I would go on TV and get all my surrogates to go on TV and radio and point out loud and clear that if the Republicans abandoned the Hastert Rule and simply brought funding to the floor, Democrats on their own could be within 17 or 18 (at the most) votes of a majority for funding the government. It would be easy to swing 17 Republicans to vote to fund it after a short period of no funding. (Wall Street will be the first to scream.) THE HASTERT RULE IS THE PROBLEM IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY.

It is better for Obama to get this fight about the deficit and debt funding over now rather than later. 2014 is an election year. This issue needs to be decided right now, very soon.

The Republicans want a showdown. They want something dramatic to rally their troops in 2014. President Obama should not give it to them. He should not waiver. Sooner or later the Republicans are going to show off and try to end the government. If not now then in the future.

We are less engaged in combat in the world now than we have been for some years. The economy is very weak, but having the Republican campaign to worsen it continue beyond December would be more detrimental to the economy than just getting the unnecessary pain that these Republican shenanigans will cause over right now.

The Republicans are trying to make a philosophical point -- that we don't need government and would be better off without it. They are completely, utterly, 100% wrong about that. It's time to silence that theory altogether. Let them answer for the damage.

We Democrats need to stand strong behind our president even though the Republicans are very, very determined to destroy his administration.

I do not mean that we cannot criticize the current administration when we think it is wrong. I just mean that we should not encourage the President to try to save the day now. The moral burden and the burden of public relations is on the Republicans. They want headlines. Let them have them. This crisis is totally of their creation. Republicans voted for the budgets throughout the 2000s. They funded the war in Iraq and numerous boondoggle programs around the world. They failed to watch the housing market. The crash occurred on GWB's watch.

Obama should not take upon himself the burden or the pain that will occur when the government funding is slashed for important programs or funding is cut off altogether.

This is not the time to "compromise" unless the Republicans promise not to play this game again especially when the debt ceiling bill needs to come to the floor.

How many more Americans will die due to lack of healthcare, the inability to pay a doctor, if we delay providing broader healthcare coverage one day further?

The Republicans argue that companies will cut the hours of employees if the ACA is implemented. Companies have been moving toward hiring workers part-time and firing at will and frequently for years now.

Our prior employer-provided healthcare system worked because employers retained their employees for years. It was not uncommon for an employee to work for a company for 20-30 years and keep on working there until they reached 65 and went on a pension and Social Security.

The trend toward quick employee overturn and part-time work has been growing for years now. The ACA is RESPONDING to that trend, not causing it. Employers do not suddenly decide to cut back on hours for their employees in the middle of a busy season where there is lots of work to do just to save on healthcare costs. That is absurd.

The Republican arguments are nutty. They do not deserve to be honored with a compromise. The Republicans of today cannot think logically. No, you do not bargain with people who cannot think logically. You cajole them. You trick them. But if you ever had to deal with a person who was truly cracy, you know you cannot argue or bargain with them. The Republicans are truly crazy. They are obsessed with the idea of shutting down the government. Let them do it and let them suffer the result.

[Cleita]

40. I totally agree with you, however, with Harry Reid and Pres. Obama's

past history, I'm fearful they might cave in is all. The rest is a what if...proposal.

[JDPriestly]

44. Thanks.

[Barack_America]

42. I was going to propose writing in the public option...

...and sending it back the House, but I like your idea better.

[Cleita]

45. Mine would amount to a public option because it would be a buy

in program for most and a social safety net for those at the bottom of the economic ladder to be able to get the same health coverage as seniors. Many people who already have health coverage would continue under those plans if they like them, well until they realize what a sweet deal Medicare would be for them.

[PDJane]

53. The ACA allows people to be registered to vote at the same time as they apply for coverage.

Sounds like a good reason for the GOP to delay implementation until after 2014. I think it would be a really bad move to do that.

[truedelphi]

54. Although your idea is awesome,

Anyone familiar with history would have to go back to the summer of 1963, to see JFK using the Constitution to enable himself to write an executive order that helps the American people. so that the Fed Reserve would die a slow but sure death.

In Kennedy's case, he wrote out Executive Order 11110, which once fully employed, would have allowed for the slow but certain death of the Federal reserve. It is important to consider that Kennedy died within just a week shy of six months of doing this. Although still on the books, this Exec Order has never been implemented.

Since then, most Presidents have been far too beholden to, and controlled by the Powers that Be, to consider for even a minute the portion of the Constitution allowing themselves to actually act on behalf of the American people.

Do I hope Obama will do this? Yes.

However given his stance on giving the middle class wealth over to the Bernanke/Geithner duo and their buddies in Big Finance, and also his enthusiastically embracing their "Too Big To Fail" "Too Big To Jail" Bailout policies, also Monsanto's Gm policies, his stance on the MIC/Surveillance state, etc., I am not holding my breath.