Another day, another Obamacare extension decided by the president himself—thus further justifying the fact that the law is called by his name.

The worst thing about this extension of the deadline to April 15 is, once again, the procedural overreach by Obama and the unconstitutionality of his declaration. The actual content of the change makes more sense than the March 31 deadline ever did because, pre-Obamacare, individual health insurance could ordinarily be purchased by the fifteenth of the month effective the first day of the next month.

The new Obamacare extension only applies to people who’ve had trouble signing up on the federal website, so I assume that people in states with functioning state websites still supposedly have to sign up by March 31. I suspect such a distinction would be unconstitutional, but isn’t most of what Obama’s been doing with Obamacare rule changes unconsitutional (not to mention Obamacare itself, whatever SCOTUS says)? The deadline change is also on the honor system, which would make it almost humorous if this weren’t a very serious business indeed.

I’m with Boehner here:

“What the hell is this, a joke?” Boehner said at his weekly press conference.

…The Speaker called the move “another deadline made meaningless,” adding it to a litany of unilateral changes that the administration has made to the law.

“This is part of a long-term pattern of this administration manipulating the law for its own convenience,” Boehner said. “It’s not hard to understand why the American people question this administration’s commitment to the rule of law.”

The Speaker mocked the use of the “honor system” to determine who was eligible for an extension after the administration said it would make no effort to ensure that people had actually begun the process of signing up by March 31.

“Why don’t they just say, ‘We’ve moved the date to April 15’? Because that’s in effect what they’ve done,” Boehner said.

Boehner said, “It’s not hard to understand why the American people question this administration’s commitment to the rule of law.” However, I would amend that to read: “It’s not hard to understand why Republicans question this administration’s commitment to the rule of law, and why conservatives and Jonathan Turley (strange bedfellows) realize that he has none.”

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]

 
 0 
 
 3