Obamacare

Trump May Use Obama's Executive Branch Power Grabs to Destroy Obamacare

Trump's new executive order signals his willingness to use the expansive executive branch powers built by the previous administration.

|

Credit—Kevin Dietsch/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Just hours after taking the oath of office last Friday, President Trump signed an executive order instructing federal agencies to provide relief from Obamacare to both individuals and states. The vaguely worded rule offers only hints as to how the Trump administration might unwind the federal health care law. But it provides the first real clue to how Trump will govern—by wielding the expanded executive branch powers that President Obama relied on while in office.

The order itself looks as much like first day symbolism as a direct strike at the heart of the law. When Trump's Press Secretary Sean Spicer announced it on Friday, he said only that agencies would be directed to "ease the burden" of the law, and did not provide any specific actions that the administration might take. The actual text is not much more clear: It does not identify any rules or regulations that the administration should alter or eliminate, but instead directs agencies to use their discretion and authority to "waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement" under Obamacare that imposes a burden on states, families, individuals, insurers, or others in the health care arena.

In other words, it is an order that does not tell agencies what to do. Instead, it tells them to figure out something to do.

The vagueness of the order means it could result in very little, and that it essentially serves as a toothless statement of the Trump administration's opposition to the law.

But it is also possible, and even likely, that it could be interpreted in a way that gives agencies quite a lot of flexibility to upend Obamacare's implementation—in part because of the dubious way that the Obama administration chose to implement the law.

For example, it could be used to gives states more flexibility to implement the law's Medicaid expansion. Indiana and several other states are already participating under a waiver negotiated with the federal government, and this order, which explicitly mentions providing relief to states, could result in an even more leniency in terms of Medicaid carve outs.

It's also possible that it could be used to weaken, and perhaps effectively eliminate, the law's individual mandate, as well as its essential health benefits.

The Obama administration has always offered an array of exemptions from the individual mandate, including a broad and nebulous "hardship exemption," which at least in theory allowed for the administration to waive the tax penalty associated with the mandate for just about anyone. Now that the Trump administration is in charge of drawing up regulations governing the enforcement of the mandate, it is possible that the hardship exemption, or something like it, could be expanded to effectively cover everyone.

Indeed, Kellyanne Conway, a senior Trump adviser, has already raised the possibility of declining to enforce the mandate. That's far from a promise, of course, and given Trump's history of vagueness and flip-flopping on health care, it's not at all certain that this is the approach the new administration will take. But it is within the realm of possibility.

If that were to happen, it's reasonably likely that health insurance carriers, already on edge about Obamacare, could simply pull out of the program, decimating the marketplace in the process. The big insurers are losing money in the exchanges set up under the law, and most have already scaled back their participation. If the Trump administration takes steps to undermine the mandate—which insurers have repeatedly asked to be strengthened—few would have much reason to continue offering coverage in the exchanges.

A mass exit of insurers from the exchanges would leave millions suddenly uninsured, creating exactly the sort of health coverage chaos that the Trump and his advisers have repeatedly promised to avoid. Republicans could blame the Obama administration, arguing, as they already have, that the foundations of the law were weak and that it was doomed anyway. But Trump himself would have been the one to take a wrecking ball to its structure, and thus would almost certainly have to absorb most of the political fallout.

In theory, this would all be done through a slow and deliberative process. The order instructs agencies to follow the Administrative Procedures Act, which means going through the lengthy federal rulemaking process, which can take months in the fastest of circumstances.

However, the Obama administration has paved the way for much more aggressive executive action. As Seth Chandler notes, the Obama administration created the hardship exemptions without the requisite notice and comment period. The Obama administration also delayed the enforcement of the employer mandate and a handful of other insurance regulations in ways that even defenders of the law said were beyond the scope of its authority. The Trump administration could follow the same path, suspending enforcement of the mandate without going through the usual motions.

The Trump administration, then, could use the precedent set by the illegal actions the Obama administration took to prop up Obamacare to take the law down—turning the previous administration's expansive claims of executive authority against its signature initiative.

This was always the risk of the Obama administration's repeated decisions to short circuit the traditional regulatory process in order to keep the health law from falling apart—and the more astute supporters of the law recognized this. Even beyond the instances of executive overreach, the law is very much a product of the executive branch, which wrote thousands of pages of regulations determining how it would be implemented.

Trump can't repeal Obamacare from the White House, but he can take a sledgehammer to its foundations. Because Obamacare was held together with ad hoc executive orders, often issued under political pressure, it could be undone with the same. Essentially, as Politico's Dan Diamond writes, the new administration could use Obamacare to kill Obamacare.

But this is all a big if. Given Trump's history of confusion on health policy, and his stated desire to avoid the sort of insurance market disarray that an executive branch strategy would cause, it is just as plausible that Trump's executive order results in few if any meaningful changes to Obamacare, at least in the short term. Indeed, this could even be a way of signaling that he expects his administration to keep Obamacare alive and afloat while Congress tries to move forward on the repeal process. Notably, it instructs agencies to provide relief to insurers as well. The order is simply too open-ended to draw any definitive conclusions about what it means for the law.

It does, however, provide a clue as to how Trump is likely to govern: by aggressively leveraging the expanded executive powers left by President Obama, sometimes to undo Obama's achievements, and sometimes to advance his own agenda, whatever that turns out to be.

Obama, frustrated by congressional gridlock and inaction, frequently resorted to the sort of aggressive administrative action that effectively amounted to executive branch lawmaking. This latest executive order is a strong signal that his successor will do the same. And it will likely go far beyond Obamacare.

In the end, this may end up as Obama's most consequential legacy—not the policies he presided over, but the process by which they were put into place. Obama touted the power of the pen and phone, but now that power is Trump's to wield.

Update: For more on how the Obama administration's implementation of the health law could empower Trump's own executive order, see this helpful post from Josh Blackman.

Advertisement

NEXT: White House Hasn't Announced Any National School Choice Week Events

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But it provides the first real clue to how Trump will govern?by wielding the expanded executive branch powers that President Obama relied on while in office.

    Everything is Obama’s fault, isn’t it, Suderman?

      1. If it’s in the context of discussing *Obama*care, I think a bit of Obama-criticizing is in order.

        1. I mean, if we had people going on and on about Obama ruining the legacy of the glorious President Bush, then it would be appropriate to discuss whether Bush’s legacy was actually all it’s cracked up to be.

    1. Certainly a great deal is. And if we are talking about executive overreach and unconstitutional arrogance, then we beed to look at Barak Obama. And LBJ. And FDR. And Woodrow Wilson.

    2. Wait, it’s not Bush’s fault anymore? I thought everything was Bush’s fault. Obama kept telling us that.

    3. Actually, it is. Moron.

  2. And just when it was about to start working.

    1. ^This. That shining city on the hill is always just one five-year plan away. And those plans always fail due to obstructionism and stupid crackers not knowing what is best for them.

      1. I expect a lot of paeans for the golden age of healthcare under Obama within the next couple years, whatever Trump does. More people than ever were on Medicaid! Getting insured was as simple as visiting a website! Premiums were really low that one year!

        1. Of course. Also, the canonization will proceed as planned.

          1. Pity that “canonization” in this case couldn’t mean “fired from a cannon”.

    2. Yep. Great comment.

      It’s a human trait to keep tinkering, trying to improve something because you think you’re close. But often, it’s best to just start over with something else before you waste all of your time.

  3. “And there’s Waldo.”

  4. As much amusement as there is to be derived from this situation it is genuinely sad to see that under no circumstances will any future presidents be giving up the autocratic authority of the office.

    1. What a shocking development.

    2. Not no circumstances, you just need someone who’s actually principled enough to want to start reverting it back to a lesser role. Unfortunately the only person in American politics who’s even close to that is Rand Paul.

      1. Massie and Lee are chopped liver?

    3. At least he is using those powers in an attempt to grant relief from an unjust law. While capricious in nature, it’s obviously better when fewer people are affected by laws that infringe on their rights.

      1. Yes! Let’s not bend the swords into plowshares until the bad guys have been run thru.

    4. The ratchet only ever turns one way.

      1. Until the gearing breaks.

    5. Congress will have to claw that power back.

      1. But then they would have to take responsibility for things, and the cowardly shits will never do that.

        1. Bingo!

  5. Day 2: Issues executive order to Make America Great Again

    #winning

    1. “Mission Accomplished!”

      1. “Winning Accomplished”

  6. In other words, it is an order that does not tell agencies what to do. Instead, it tells them to figure out something to do.

    He had been a military man before being given this job as a kind of pension, and that was a bad thing in a senior copper. It meant he looked to Authority for orders and obeyed them, whereas Vimes found it better to look to Authority for orders and then filter those orders through a fine mesh of common sense, adding a generous scoop of creative misunderstanding and maybe even incipient deafness if circumstances demanded, because Authority rarely descended to street level.

    1. Unfortunately, we’re talking about federal bureaucrats here, not the Night Watch.

  7. Obama touted the power of the pen and phone, but now that power is Trump’s to wield.

    “You see Henry the pen, the pen is mightier than the sword.”

    1. “I’ll take ‘Penis Mightier’ for $400, Trebek”

    2. The dog’s name was Indiana

    3. Fun fact – Connery was playing Ford’s dad when he was only 12 years older than him in reality.

      1. Twelve-year-old Connery was a total lady’s man.

    4. Live by the pen is a sword, die by the pen is a sword, amirite?

      1. “My pen is a sword.”

        /Bill Clinton

  8. The bill was so poorly written that the Obama administration had to distort it beyond all recognition through the regulatory process to make it function at all. That gives Trump the power to effectively repeal it or make it into whatever he wants, without even going to Congress.

    1. “What do make of this?”
      “This? Why, I can make a hat or a brooch or a pterodactyl…”

  9. I say you guys just drop the whole premise of being a republic, and make Ivanka Empress of the Americas. Constitutional monarchy, the way of the future…also the past.

    1. Hey retard, it’s okay when our guy uses the power. That’s how it works!

      1. Crusty gets it.

    2. The real power rests with Congress. If Congress won’t use it, then we are in trouble. Congress needs to repeal Obamacare and change the law regarding regulation to make it impossible for any President to do the things Obama did. Sadly, Congress is probably not up to the task.

    3. make Ivanka Empress of the Americas. Constitutional monarchy

      And in place of an Orange Lord you would have a Queen. Not orange but beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Treacherous as the sea! Stronger than the foundations of the earth! All shall love her and despair.

      1. One hat to rule them all….

        1. So… the Hair is Gandalf and Trump is actually Saruman?

          1. And the WH is the ring, and Hillary is (was) Gollum?

            1. “You shall all perish in the Crack of Doom!”

              /Poster at woman’s march

    4. You’re quite the idiot, aren’t you?

  10. decimating the marketplace

    You keep using that word…

    1. I currently have a choice of one insurance company and four policies. My 2016 insurance policy has been removed from availability in my state at the end of each of the last three years. It’s _really_ hard to function as a private contractor when it comes to insurance right now…

      1. It’s almost like the insurance companies are losing too much money in certain states and pulling out of them in order to keep from going bankrupt or something.

        1. Man, if only there was some way to have foreseen a situation like this beforehand.

      2. See how ObamaCare has simplified your life? …… Just kidding.

  11. A mass exit of insurers from the exchanges would leave millions suddenly uninsured, creating exactly the sort of health coverage chaos…

    But no difference in the number of doctor visits no one can afford after premiums and deductibles have been met.

    1. “But no difference in the number of doctor visits no one can afford after premiums and deductibles have been met.”

      Actual health outcomes were irrelevant to the marketing message of ‘more insurance coverage’.

      1. “The Insurance Paper bestows good health and long life upon the Paper’s beloved. All hail the Paper!”

        *masses fall to their knees in worship*

      2. At least you and a few others understand that. Liberals, if they do understand, they won’t admit it.

    2. A mass exit of insurers from the exchanges

      began before Trump even started running…

  12. “But it provides the first real clue to how Trump will govern?by wielding the expanded executive branch powers that President Obama relied on while in office.”

    Really? In one order you can tell how the next 4 years (maybe 8) will go?
    I think you are making a lot of soup from one small potato.

    1. He said “clue” dipshit, not certainty.

      You’re the one making stone soup.

      1. Scarecrow, you are an idiot. Crawl back to your basement.

  13. A mass exit of insurers from the exchanges would leave millions suddenly uninsured

    If we force them into insolvency, that would also leave millions uninsured; but we can always just bail them out.

    1. Or, we could, you know, just admit that when it comes to insurance and health care the government doesn’t know sh*t from shinola.

  14. In the end, this may end up as Obama’s most consequential legacy?not the policies he presided over, but the process by which they were put into place. Obama touted the power of the pen and phone, but now that power is Trump’s to wield.

    Exfuckenactly.

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    In the past, it was that a succeeding administration would just continue and ‘honor’ the previous administration’s legislation (good or bad) and away we went. It just so happens what’s threatening Obama’s gamble (he spent all his political currency on Obamacare. By not making it bi-partisan he in effect left it to twist in the wind) is how he passed it and the fact they never envisioned a guy like Trump coming in; an outsider who could conceivably govern by ignoring all previous covenants (written and not) and smash things to bits.

    Next time don’t be an asshole and arrogantly pass things for the good of the people without ACTUAL SUPPORT.

    1. And by the way, as an outsider watching it, I was appalled by Obama and the Democrats for how they passed the law.

      1. One last point, as much as I’d like Trump to undo Obama’s legacy, the fact it’s Donald Trump doing it will only feed into the image and cult that is Obama in effect turning him into a martyr no matter if deserved.

        1. Meh. Personality cults gonna cult. I wouldn’t let it affect your thinking.

        2. Idgaf how he is remembered, as long as his shitty laws go away.

          1. Matt W had a good line about that. Along the lines of ‘the left will remember him as the Democratic Reagan, only without the obvious accomplishments.’

        3. Without the most important part of being a martyr.

          1. What would that be? : )

        4. Well, he’d hardly be the first, would he…

          *cough* *Kennedy* *cough* *cough*

          “It’s always tempting to impute, unlikely virtues to the cute”

          (I got it fro P.J. O’Rourke, but I think he was quoting someone else)

      2. As an insider, so was I.

        1. I can just imagine.

    2. “Next time don’t be an asshole and arrogantly pass things for the good of the people without ACTUAL SUPPORT.”

      As we could see this weekend, this is not the message learned by the left from this election.

    3. “Next time don’t be an asshole and arrogantly pass things for the good of the people without ACTUAL SUPPORT.”

      But then the Political Left would hardly be able to legislate at all and that would be Just Awful.

  15. I have never understood how politicians can be so consistently short-sighted with the power they create and abuse, how they cannot envisions its subsequent expansion and further abuse by their successors. They seem quite capable to figuring out what to do now to get more votes in a year or two or three, yet incapable of realizing what their opponents might do in the same interval.

    Politicians aren’t stupid, they are just power hungry control freaks, and I wonder what I am missing.

    But it is good entertainment. May as well watch the silver lining while getting drenched by the clouds.

    1. What you’re missing is that each one, at least lately, is convinced that they are on the verge of creating a majority governing coalition that will last decades, ensuring that subsequent administrations and congresses will pursue the same kind of goals as theirs. I think Obama truly believed that he was so amazing and beloved that his party would continue to hold executive office through his own force of will.

      1. Naw, they’ve been saying that as long as I can remember, so I suspect it goes back to the beginning. Besides, like I said, they seem to look far enough ahead to the next election, in fact, that’s one of their awful defining characteristics, always thinking ahead to elections and how many votes they can get or lose.

        Obama certainly believed he ought to win, but he also worked hard to plan ahead for winning. So why can’t they think one day further to when they term out and the other party comes to power?

        I can only imagine that they don’t care once they are out of office.

    2. Because they really don’t care. Their margin of vision ends at the end of the next election. The next election begins the day they win the current one.

  16. If that were to happen, it’s reasonably likely that health insurance carriers, already on edge about Obamacare, could simply pull out of the program, decimating the marketplace in the process. The big insurers are losing money in the exchanges set up under the law, and most have already scaled back their participation.

    Yea, I am sure if insurers pulled out of the exchanges it would be because of Drumpf, not the massive losses.

    Which, WTF, considering what I am paying (and presumably, other healthy people) for piss poor insurance that will never pay for anything (900/mo for a 13K deduct), how could they be losing money on this shite?

    1. “If that were to happen, it’s reasonably likely that health insurance carriers, already on edge about Obamacare, could simply pull out of the program, decimating the marketplace in the process.”

      We need O-care since the insurers will just sit on the sidelines as their investors lose money?
      I think there’s a mechanism that might solve this problem; let me think about it for a minute…

    2. Why the loss of the exchanges will collapse the insurance market is a mystery. Its just an online portal, ferchrissakes.

      Now, if you’re saying the cross- and other subsidies going away will collapse the market, well, is that bad?

      And perhaps the repeal of all the mandates that make these policies so expensive will change the market dynamic?

      Less “hot take”. More “research and analysis”.

      1. Letting insurance companies sell affordable health insurance plans again, might make them desirable to healthy people and keep the market from collapsing. What a concept.

      2. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that if a market will collapse without subsidy it has already in effect collapsed.

    3. Which, WTF, considering what I am paying (and presumably, other healthy people) for piss poor insurance that will never pay for anything (900/mo for a 13K deduct), how could they be losing money on this shite?

      Because of forced coverage of mandated bullshit like birth control, autism “treatments” and other government mandates including paying the cost of pre-existing conditions, which simply means picking up the tab for seriously ill people with expensive conditions who didn’t pay into the insurance pool prior to the onset of their condition. Otherwise known as “welfare”.

    4. If you gave $3 to every American, it would cost about a billion dollars. $972.356, 361 plus administrative costs and overhead, so safer to budget two billion. With $3, you can just about afford antacids.

      Now make it really big, let medical care providers charge $100 for an aspirin and tell people they’ll cage or shoot anyone who doesn’t fund their vision.

      Apparently math really is hard.

      1. The insurance industry pricing makes the military look like amateurs.

        1. It works best when the customer just hands over his card without a clue of how much it cost

  17. Before this article:

    “Reason hasn’t written anything about Trump’s EOs freezing ObamaCare regulations! It’s the most libertarian thing evah! They are just a bunch of progs and libruls!

    After this article:

    “Reason hasn’t written anything about Trump’s EOs freezing ObamaCare regulations that isn’t glowing with praise! It’s the most libertarian thing eva! They are just a bunch of progs and libruls!

    1. Getting rid of the individual mandate is pretty darn libertarian.

    2. Reason hasn’t written anything about Trump’s EOs freezing ObamaCare regulations that isn’t glowing with praise cribbed from DemOp talking points! It’s the most libertarian thing eva! They are just a bunch of progs and libruls!

      /yokel OFF

      Actually, after the throat-clearing assurances to the Consensus, its not a bad article.

      1. When you quote them, I still have to read their bullshit despite Reasonable.

  18. I have no problem whatsoever with Trump using EO’s to undo Obama’s EO’s.

    If and when he starts using EO’s to “get things done” then we’ll talk.

    My fear is that Trump won’t ever need to use EO’s because every time he wants something he’ll send Barron over to Congress to slap them around and tell them “hey, Dad wants this written up as a bill, and he wants it on his desk by 3:00” and the toadies in Congress will fall all over themselves to make sure it’s on his desk by 2:00.

  19. Judge Andrew Napolitano said this morning that President Donald Trump’s executive order on Obamacare – issued Friday right after he was inaugurated – was “truly revolutionary.”

    http://insider.foxnews.com/201…..p-promised

    1. “Moments before, Hemmer talked with Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who is introducing a replacement Obamacare plan called The Patient Freedom Act of 2017.

      A major part of the plan is health savings accounts, funded by tax credits, that individuals would be able to use for health care costs. ”

      Well, that would be welcome news indeed.

      1. On Friday, there was a headline about Rand Paul getting ready to release a replacement plan of his own this week.

  20. “Obama’s Executive Branch Power Grabs” have so little to do with Trump’s future uses of presidential power. If you’re concerned executive power is being misused then your beef is with the judiciary or the people who drafted the Constitution if you believe the judiciary is misinterpreting the Constitution. Obama use of presidential power may give Trump a political justification to also use every grain of presidential powers but Obama’s use did not make new law.

  21. In other words, it is an order that does not tell agencies what to do

    Actually, these are things to do:

    exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.

  22. I’ve been mulling over the fact that healthcare may indeed, as lefties love to suggest, be a fundamentally different animal that normal market forces aren’t able to contain. There’s a huge moral component baked into healthcare provision: we fundamentally do not like to see people die if we can help it, even if it means spending extraordinary amounts of money prolonging life by a few weeks or months. But more than that, it’s also a constantly evolving market wherein remedies for problems unthinkable last year may prove mandatory next year. Unlike, say, computer technology, the cutting edge is also the front line. Nobody in the consumer market is going to drop twenty thousand dollars on a state-of-the-art computer processor to get a marginal improvement over a $400 i7, but we all want state-of-the-art treatment, cost be damned.

    That’s not to say I don’t want the market operating in healthcare. Nor that I want the government mucking up the very real information supplied by prices. Just that maybe the sea change won’t come from government backing out of regulating healthcare and health insurance, but when we finally, collectively pull our heads out of our asses and recognize that unlimited spending on healthcare isn’t feasible and isn’t doing us any favors.

    1. Unlike, say, computer technology, the cutting edge is also the front line.

      Well, as long as you don’t need FDA approval, anyway.

      we all want state-of-the-art treatment, cost be damned.

      We all want state of the art everything, cost be damned. Mostly, people know better. We’ve been trained, leveraging the “moral component” you identify, into believing we are all entitled to state of the art treatment, though. And that is what will stop a true free market in health care from ever emerging from the swamp of control freak crony capitalism that is DC.

      1. I liken it to climate change in the following way: it’s a good problem to have, one I’d rather solve with the assets at our disposal now than trying to solve the problems that caused this problem with the tools we had a century ago. We spend great gobs on healthcare because we’re constantly devising new ingenious ways to deal with injury and mortality. In what possible sense is that a bad thing? And it’s always going to be that way as long as our economy continues to grow, because we’ll always prioritize health over wealth. The best thing we can do is get government to quit doing dumb things that exacerbate the “problem,” and to give patients a say in how money is spent. Transferable HSAs would go a long way toward engendering price sensitivity.

    2. I wish people would at least recognize that the primary drivers of healthcare costs in this country have been onerous regulations and unlimited liability.

      They talk about what “every other developed country” does but they never seem to address those two points. It’s all about the spending and never about the actual sources of costs.

      1. 20% of healthcare spending is on complications related to obesity.

        20% is related to complications related to smoking.

        30% of all Medicare expenditures are attributed to the 5% of beneficiaries that die each year, with 1/3 of that cost occurring in the last month of life.

    3. How does that make it different from, say, food? Housing? It’s not that healthcare itself is fundamentally different, it’s that our society’s approach to it is different. As RC says, we’ve been conditioned to think of it as a right while also being removed from the real market and subsequent decision-making. Really, the better model is how people deal with veterinary health. It’s very much a retail experience, and even if you have insurance generally you’re reimbursed for a percentage of cost; you’re still the person paying for treatment and judging value.

  23. Power Grabs
    NOT
    Pussy Grabs

    /feministweekend

  24. Meh. Unwinding previous EOs and “memoranda” hardly qualifies as an Executive power grab on the part of Trump. Seems like this was an article ready to go and just waiting for the first EO from Trump, whatever it was. It could have waited until he tried forcing his own agenda beyond standing law.

  25. I would assume that Trump is “empowering” the different agencies to come up with ways to carry out his wishes – and the successful agencies will be praised, and the people who run the agencies which botch the job will be fired.

  26. “by aggressively leveraging the expanded executive powers left by President Obama, sometimes to undo Obama’s achievements, and sometimes to advance his own agenda, whatever that turns out to be.”

    I appreciate the larger concern here about the expansive power of the President, but I’m also concerned about the even larger concern about the expansive power of the state–blessed by the Supreme Court.

    We have a short period of time to kill the individual mandate. If you’re gonna use the expansive powers of the president for something, using it to stick a stake through the heart of the individual mandate is a pretty good way to use it.

  27. I’m still not sure how “Affordable Care” NEEDS a hardship exemption.

    But I’m damned glad I got one.

  28. BarryCare is destroying itself……P#45 is just going to give it a shove in the right direction.

  29. UNCONSTITUTIONAL

    Executives Orders Explained..

    Reasons for Issuing an Executive Order
    Presidents typically issue an EO for one of these purposes:
    1. Operational management of the executive branch
    2. Operational management of federal agencies or officials
    3. To carry out statutory presidential responsibilities
    – –
    Revoking An Executive Order..
    Because executive orders relate to how one president manages his executive branch team, there is no
    requirement that subsequent presidents follow them. They may do as Clinton did, and replace an old
    executive order with a new one or they may simply revoke the prior executive order.
    Congress can also revoke a presidential executive order by passing a bill by a veto-proof (2/3 vote)
    majority. For example, in 2003 Congress unsuccessfully attempted to revoke President Bush’s
    Executive Order 13233, which had rescinded Executive Order 12667 (Reagan). The bill, HR 5073,
    did not pass.

  30. While I’d be glad to be rid of the ACA?not that an order can do that?I’d much rather him scrap executive orders because otherwise we need a principled president to show restraint. And even if Trump is that person, what happens with number 46?

    1. Obviously they’d still need orders, I just mean a scaling back of the power.

  31. Suderman says that like it’s a bad thing. It’s not.

  32. Interesting because over a year ago I had read an article from a liberal source considering this exact scenario. By looking the other way when Obama overstepped the limits to authority the precedent had been set and it is not limited to healthcare. When we don’t enforce our laws for some, we enforce them for none. Looking the other way because you favor the person in office will be the end of any limitations on government.

  33. The best part of work is from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week. Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more info Check the following link

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.moneytime10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.