Emperor Obama just created a new Obamacare rule and penalty without approval from Congress

The New York Times just reported:

Many employers had thought they could shift health costs to the government by sending their employees to a health insurance exchange with a tax-free contribution of cash to help pay premiums, but the Obama administration has squelched the idea in a new ruling. Such arrangements do not satisfy the health care law, the administration said, and employers may be subject to a tax penalty of $100 a day — or $36,500 a year — for each employee who goes into the individual marketplace.

Obama’s actions here are illegal. There is nothing in Obamacare that gives Obama or the IRS the power to prohibit employers from dumping employees onto Obamacare exchanges, or for fining them $100 a day per employee for doing so.



May 25, 2014. Tags: , , , , . Barack Obama, Health care, Politics.


  1. hmichaelh replied:

    Of all the harmful and devastating actions (or inaction) of Ohbongo and his Administration, the most damaging to America is the total and complete disregard for the Law. Here we have one more example. It is this violation of Laws which will be the ultimate undoing of the United States of America.

  2. David Farrar replied:

    So who is suppose to enforce the enforcers if the people are unwilling?

    ex animo

  3. EaglesGlen replied:

    Consistent with Obama is that Obama got caught asking for and receiving tax free “donations” to Obama or democrat party (or other) from business; and is that also why Obama cut business out of ObamaCare to grab donations from each business for business exemptions or business will have to pay full business price!
    Very consistent statement twisted by Obama side to blame others in this case it businesses.
    Really? Carefully read between the lines on the whole statement.
    And, oh yes, business can’t afford ObamaCare and that is the cover story except people can’t afford ObamaCare EITHER!
    No surprise.

  4. AWC replied:

    I just read this on the NYT and about halfway through the writer kept using the word, “ruling,” For example, “this ruling will prevent” or “this ruling means” – so I thought I missed something. I went back and re-read the article from the top, and nowhere did it say there was any type of “ruling” which we of course associate with a legal ruling, as if a judge and court had reviewed this. Nope. The article simply pointed out the desires of the Obama administration in the first paragraph or two, and from then on referred to those desires/mandates simply as the “ruling.”

    How much clearer can it be? When Obama “wants” something to happen, it becomes a “ruling.” So……is he a God or a King, because without a court, they are the only ones I am aware of that can decree rulings.

    • AWC replied:

      Ah. I see it now, “ruling by the IRS.” Well, there you have it. Why deal with all the gobblygook of constitutional law when you can just ask your puppet Federal agency to pencil up a quick ruling on the back of a napkin so it can become the law of the land. Fascinating tyranny.

  5. Constitution Believer replied:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Trackback URI

%d bloggers like this: