Is rolling out Affordable Care Act comparable to Apple rolling out an iPad?

Disclaimer: Ask the programmer is a guest post by a friend of the blog.

Question
Mr President is quoted as saying, "There is no doubt that in implementing the Affordable Care Act, a program of this significance, there are going to be some glitches. ... That's true, by the way, of a car company rolling out a new car. It's true of Apple rolling out the new iPad." Is this true? Can we compare rolling out the ACA to Apple rolling out a new iPad? Also, in the same article Rand Paul says it's illegal to delay the employer mandate of the ACA. How does the President get punished for doing something illegal? Let's ask The Programmer.  

Answer
No one can foresee all the consequences of a law, I'll grant him that, and adjustments are sometimes required. However, the fact here is that the consequences were unforeseen because of the way he and his lieutenants handled the legislation in the first place. They treated it like Roosevelt's request for a declaration of war on Japan (what an antiquated concept, this notion of asking Congress for a declaration of war!) - something that had to be acted on right now for the good of the country. The truth is, the only reason it was "urgent" to pass Obamacare was because the Dems feared losing their Senate supermajority before they could get it through, and even then, they had to resort to every parliamentary tactic and "incentive" (i.e. taxpayer funded bribes to Nebraska and Louisiana) to get it done. Forget the smaller changes like tort reform and eliminating barriers to competition between insurance companies across state lines. Those had more support and would have brought eventual price drops, but why do something that will work eventually when you can blow up everything in the course of a few months on a scheme that nobody knows will work because nobody has read it?

Further, when adjustments to legislation are required to combat unintended consequences, they are implemented in Congress, not the executive branch. If the law said that the executive branch could enforce these mandates at its discretion, he'd be within his rights to do what he's doing, but it doesn't. It gives a date certain, and he is openly acknowledging that he's going to flout that because he deems it necessary (without any input from Congress) in violation of the oath he swore when he was inaugurated. Not to mention, these "unforeseen" consequences were not "unforeseen". They were legitimate objections raised by conservatives during the push to pass the law and summarily dismissed and steamrolled by the Obama PR machine, including the mainstream media. Now they want to delay the consequences they were aptly warned about until a "convienent season", like Felix in Acts 24. (How'd that work out for him?) So really, it's a false analogy, which invalidates any conclusions he might use it to support.

As for what will come of it, the answer is nothing. Is it impeachable? Possibly, but you know Congress as constituted won't take that step. I suppose it could go to the courts, but by the time the appeals wound up, Obama would be out of office anyway and any decision would be mostly moot. Not to mention that I lost faith in the court system years ago. The namby-pamby establishment politicians don't want to call Obama on the unconstituionality of these actions because when "their guy" gets in, they want him to be able to do it, too, but it's a really dangerous precedent. Seems only constitutionalists like Paul understand that. The American public sure as heck doesn't, and the lame-stream media isn't about to give them a civics lesson.

- The Programmer

Source article: ObamaCare cap on out-of-pocket costs delayed, Sen. Paul calls illegal