What Does Trumps Executive Order Against Obamacare Actually Do?

[elleng]

Last edited Sun Jan 22, 2017, 02:11 AM - Edit history (1)

'Donald J. Trump ran on a campaign promise to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. So it should not come as a surprise that he has signed an executive order urging his administration to fight it as much as possible.

But that order, alone, won’t allow President Trump to unwind the sprawling health law known as Obamacare.

Mr. Trump and Republican leaders in Congress are engaged in negotiations about legislation that might substantially undo or replace the health law. Even before the inauguration, Congress took a first step toward gutting major provisions.

But as that process underscores, major changes to health policy will require new legislation. The Trump executive order should be seen more as a mission statement, and less as a monarchical edict that can instantly change the law.

Mr. Trump has sent a strong signal that he intends to fight the health law, but he sent signals that were strong on the campaign trail, too, just in less legalistic language. And the order, crucially, notes that agencies can act only “to the maximum extent permitted by law.” (How the Trump administration interprets those permissions, of course, is yet untested.)

The order spells out the various ways that a Trump administration might fight the parts of the health law until new legislation comes: by writing new regulations and exercising discretion where allowed. Regulations can be changed, but, as the order notes, only through a legal process of “notice and comment” that can take months or years.

On matters of discretion, the administration can move faster, but there are limited places where current law gives the administration much power to quickly change course.'>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/upshot/what-does-the-order-against-the-health-law-actually-do.html?

[Warpy]

1. It's going to help teach the little emperor that he can't govern by fiat

Congress has to change the law. He either signs it or vetoes it when they're done with it.

[Igel]

2. Read the order.

The order says clearly that its constrained by law.

However, a lot of people miss that point. Even the writer makes this (all too accurate) point in stating in so many ways that the order is constrained. It's a "calm down people" article.

We saw the flip side in the last couple of years with people demanding that Obama issue EOs that would have been blatantly unconstitutional. And with fear over what Obama would do back in 2009. And what Bush II was doing with his signing statements.


We have a democracy in which "we the people" to a large extent are responsible for the government, but many don't know what a democracy is, don't know how the government runs, and some are even a bit fuzzy on who's actually included in the "we" that they claim exclusive right to.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. But Congress is largely on his side at the moment.

And he can certainly suggest to some of its members what he'd like to see in various bills.