The “fix” is in

The “fix” is in

Isn’t it intriguing how a law can be changed without additional legislation to benefit a political party? The president can, on his own, decide to enforce or ignore, implement or delay, whatever is needed for his political purposes.

Extra-constitutionality.

Here are 2 examples.

1) Obamacare rule eased in states with website difficulties.

Because 3 1/2 years isn’t enough time to put together a functioning website. It’s interesting to note that the states that benefit from this rule change have governors who are Obama-supporters. Hmmmm.
www.cbsnews.com/news/obamacare-rule-eased-for-states-with-website-troubles/

2) Obamacare's "keep your plan" fix to be extended

www.cbsnews.com/news/obamacares-keep-your-plan-fix-to-be-extended/

Officially labeled as the top political “lie of the year” (politifact 1 and 2 years in a row?) the promise that voters could keep their doctor has caused much political grief for the administration.

I would generally give the president kudos for trying to keep a promise (as if he had a choice), except...

It’s a half-baked attempt at a fig leaf. 

He extends the ‘fix’ for a little while (1 year). Then he extends it again to get past the next election cycle (clearly with a self-serving political motive). Why not just honor the promise, (“period”). 

And why do California officials get to ignore the extension? Because it’s not a legal requirement to do so. And they choose not to do so. Why? Because it doesn't fit their economic model. Because anyone who chooses to keep their doctor and their health plan isn't part of the new slush fund.

It’s not just a lousy law--it is applied unevenly. 

There are so many exemptions and special favors. Members of congress voted to subject themselves to the law. But when they realized the impact and cost on their staffs, they choose to add extra subsidy of 75% (reducing the cost for congressional staffers to 1/4 of what you or I would pay).

Some individual employers received ‘waivers’ for provisions of the law. Some states received ‘sweeteners’ to basically buy their representatives’ vote to pass this close and contentious legislation.

The law even applies unevenly based on race. Certain races get to change their plan every month, not once a year like everyone else. And they have no co-pays. Wait, what?

Even when the law works as intended, the results can be incomprehensible and infuriating. But that is a story for another day.