Representative Nancy Pelosi D-CA, was playing a word game, claiming there "was not a delay of the mandate for the businesses" in the new health care law. In response to complaints from the business community about the complexity of reporting requirements under the Affordable Care Act, and the need for more time to implement them, the Treasury on July 2 announced a one-year reprieve. The Treasury would also suspend the tax penalties for large businesses that fail to provide insurance to their employees - essentially the hammer behind the "mandate." The law requires businesses with more than 50 employees to provide health coverage to all of their full-time workers (those working at least 30 hours per week) or face a tax penalty of $2,000 per employee. Pelosi is correct that the change involved postponing reporting requirements, but if employers aren't required to provide that information, there can be no enforcement through penalties. Tax penalties are the "mandate."

An ad from Americans for Prosperity attacks Obamacare by asking misleading and loaded questions about its impact. The ad directs viewers to the website ObamacareRiskFactors.com, which is more misleading than the ad itself. The site warns of reduced wages and hours for those who work for small employers that aren't even subject to the law; "longer lines and delayed care," citing a doctor shortage, a shortage was predicted before the law was passed; and "failing to purchase insurance will result in a tax penalty of $695." True when the act is fully implemented in 2016.

But the AFP site tells half the story. It doesn't ask whether individuals already have insurance or not. It says nothing about opportunities for federal subsidies to help the uninsured buy coverage, or expansion of Medicaid eligibility. There are many unknowns about how exactly a law of this magnitude will play out, particularly its impact on those who buy their own insurance. But don't expect honest answers from a partisan anti-Obamacare campaign.

GOPUSA claims "More People Getting Government Food than Actually Working." The number of adults "actually working" was approximately 136 million in April, according to figures from the BLS. The number of adults and children receiving federal food assistance was 101 million. The GOPUSA headline is off by 35 million people. It's also a false apples-to-fruit-salad comparison and a fallacious dichotomy. The comparison is deceptive not only because it omits millions of productively employed government and part-time workers, but also because it compares adult workers to the total food-aid population, which is largely made up of children and the elderly. Children and seniors made up 54 percent of food stamp recipients in 2012. The national school lunch program serves approximately 31 million schoolchildren. The school breakfast program serves more than 13 million children. These food-aid programs overlap so it is uncertain how many of the estimated 101 million on one or more food-aid programs are children or are beyond normal working age. The comparison of children and elderly to working-age adults is inappropriate.

House Resolution 2642: Federal Agricultural Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 passed 216 to 208 along partisan lines. The Act would cut $20 billion from the SNAP program and terminate eligibility for approximately 2 million participants. States cutting SNAP assistance would receive additional federal funding. The Act authorizes states to cut off an entire family's benefits, including the children's benefits - and for an unlimited time - if the parents can't find a job, but the Act does not include new funding for job training.

http://factcheck.org/