Obama just caved on healthcare.

[Shagbark Hickory]

Supports leaving it up to the states. Grants waivers and extensions.

Congratulations to the nutbag governors, you got what you wanted.

(Speaking on MSNBC now)

edit: I'm paraphrasing... "If states can find a more cost effective way to provide healthcare for it's constituents then I think it's reasonable to let them implement their own plan."

It was in a speech about the need for cutting budgets.
And as we know, the best way to (warning sarchasm ahead) cut budgets is to cut services.

I don't know why he continues to make consessions to the RW. The bill passed. Somebody should remind him that.

[LAGC]

1. Does this mean the mandate won't be enforced in many states? (n/t)

[Badfish]

34. The OP is spinning.

Leaving up to the states is IN THE BILL ....come 2017 , if the state has a better way , that saves more money (like single payer)..they can go ahead with it.

The OP is spinning.

[Shagbark Hickory]

53. If you think states are going to go with a single payer plan, you're dreaming.

This plan is a victory for the majority of the states, which are RW and insurance cartel strongholds that want to water down this bill until nothing left exists of it.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Badfish]

84. Come 2017 states can 'trade up'

They can't get rid of 'Obamacare' unless they are replacing it with something stronger.

It's all in the bill.

But today you chose to be outraged ?

Stop already

[Shagbark Hickory]

88. "trade up" = "take away"

Conveniently when there's probably going to be a republican in the whitehouse.

That's how I see it.

[JuniperLea]

92. Bullshit

They still have to abide by the rules, and they still have to provide something equal to or better than the current HCR bill.

[Javaman]

110. Then you need new glasses...

the bill clearly states that the original healthcare bill stays in place "unless" it is replaced by a better one.

While I'm not happy with the original bill, stirring the pot with a "non-trovercy", helps no one.

[Badfish]

117. Total bullshit.

see post #135 ...or..

Just read the fucking bill you are so upset about.

100% fail

[liskddksil]

97. have you seen whats going on in Vermont

single-payer could be there well-before 2017 if they can get a waiver.

[shimmergal]

134. It'll only take 2 or 3 states

making single payer work to start a tidal wave in that direction.

[KittyWampus]

156. CA & NY might very well go for Single Payer. Your OP is disingenuous at best

[Exultant Democracy]

68. Hahaha, some more 3d chess by Obama, back door single payer... Yeah right

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deep13]

2. Huh? When was that? nt

[elfin]

3. They cut the feed -- back on now

He was just explaining the bill. Parts we here disagree with, but the things govs are whining about are actually in the bill, albeit in 2017.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TicketyBoo]

5. Means that my

son will not be helped in 2014. Not in Nebraska.

Maybe he can move to Hawaii like my sister's son did. He's there for the health insurance. He told me anyone who works 20 hours or more a week is entitled to health care.

Maybe we should all move to Hawaii?

[Pirate Smile]

37. They still have to provide coverage to the same number of people. The OP is wrong.

[Trey9007]

71. BTW...Hawaii's HC is so much better because.........

they currently are opted out of our exisiting HC laws. Hawaii has been opted out for years.

[Pirate Smile]

95. Here is what it means:

Obama to States: If You Can Do Health Reform Better, Go For It

Under this system, states would receive their share of insurance subsidies and administrative funding in blocks to implement their own reforms. In order to be granted a waiver to do this, a state would need to show its plan would:

* not increase the federal deficit
* provide insurance to as many people as the ACA
* provide insurance as least as comprehensive as that called for in the ACA
* provide insurance that's just as affordable

While Obama is proposing the state opt-out plan now in order to appear responsive to Republican governors complaining about the ACA, the “Waiver for State Innovation” is already a part of the health reform law. It's just now slated to become an available option for states in 2017. The Wyden-Brown plan – also championed by Democratic Sen. Mary Landreiu – would move that date back to 2014. That's the year most the ACA is scheduled to begin.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/28/obama-to-states-if-you-can-do-health-reform-better-go-for-it/#more-41368

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[closeupready]

7. Again? Isn't the first time. Nor the second.

n/t

[remember2000forever]

8. Guess we will all be moving to Vermont.....

[Mass]

16. Well, VT would not be able to implement single payer without the waiver.

Sanders is the sponsor of the bill the OP is criticizing.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

45. come on up.

[remember2000forever]

145. Actually I went to Green Mountain College In Poultney

It was in the 60s. All girls school. We used to call it "Whore House On A Hilltop" Beautiful State!

[TicketyBoo]

9. Won't it take

Congress to pass such a thing?

I doubt the Senate will pass it.

[Mass]

10. Not what it said. In addition, the waiver is already in the bill. It allows states to implement it

differently as long as the coverage is the same as in the bill. Bernie Sanders supports the waiver, which could allow VT to implement single payer.

[SidDithers]

13. +1...nt

Sid

[Shagbark Hickory]

32. Well good for Vermont and all 600 thousand of it's residents. There's 300 million more of us that

live in RW states, bought and paid for by the insurance cartel.
They're going to get waivers to delay coverage until the year 2000 and never.

[Mass]

48. The waiver is in the bill already.

What Sanders is asking for is an ability to ask for waiver EARLIER than in 2014, not later.

. http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=2bdb32a3-4c32-4ecb-98cf-9642d61ef52b

Under the provisions of the so-called "state innovation waiver" in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act authored by Sanders, individual states could solicit the U.S. Health and Human Services Department for approval to implement a pilot health care system by 2014. Plans for each state would have to remain as comprehensive and affordable as the federal model in order to qualify for the waiver.
States interested in seeking a waiver would have to offer the same quality of affordable coverage and ensure it would not cause the federal government to incur more health care costs.
...
The waiver provision will work as follows if accepted: - The state passes a universal access model and sends it to Washington, D.C.
The Health and Human Services and Treasury departments will review it to determine if the plan is as comprehensive as federal standards, is at least as costeffective and covers an equivalent amount of people.
...

And here.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestateguy]

12. Meaning Vermont is free to adopt single payer

nt

[Rex]

14. Amazing how he caves to just about any demand made by the

opposing party. :eyes:

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[disillusioned73]

15. Well, the American people need things to get much worse..

then single payer may get some discussion.

[Contrary1]

29. And things will get much worse...

Once the unions are done away with, corporations will have the green light to slice up or do away with all workers' benefits.

So even the non-union "good guys" will have to pay more for health insurance, or do without it altogether. Let's see just how long Republicans are willing to go down that road.

[TicketyBoo]

17. Wow.

Thank goodness that was a false alarm.

[FreakinDJ]

18. AND he didn't get any thing in return

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shagbark Hickory]

57. Right. It was all so Vermont can get single payer. n/t

[Pirate Smile]

98. The base line stays in place:

Under this system, states would receive their share of insurance subsidies and administrative funding in blocks to implement their own reforms. In order to be granted a waiver to do this, a state would need to show its plan would:

* not increase the federal deficit
* provide insurance to as many people as the ACA
* provide insurance as least as comprehensive as that called for in the ACA
* provide insurance that's just as affordable



Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/28/obama-to-states-if-you-can-do-health-reform-better-go-for-it/#ixzz1FHD1PKFv

[jaxx]

19. That isn't what he said.

He said in 2017 the states would have the option to deliver their own health care....if they kept with the current laws and did not raise the deficit. They can improve on the Act, but they can't undercut it.

Cave? Not hardly.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

25. +1...nt

Sid

[elleng]

35. Exactly, Thanks. And said may do it in 2014 instead of 2017.

The 2017 option already exists in the law, and he said that fact is not much noticed.

[phleshdef]

20. You have no clue what he said even means, do you?

Not only does this open the door for states to implement single payer, but it also reinforces waiver options that WERE ALL READY PART OF THE PASSED BILL.

LEARN WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE YOU POST.

[still_one]

27. The only states that will implement single payer or a public option with be blue ones /nt

[JuniperLea]

132. One other states see how well we do it...

They will want to do it as well.

[Little Star]

22. If this lets states do what Bernie has planned in Vermont it might

be a good thing. I really believe the only way we will ever see single payer is through the states.

[cali]

52. It's Peter Shumlin's plan.

[Pirate Smile]

62. Yeah, a couple of states do it. It is cheaper and more effective. More states jump on the bandwagon.

[Little Star]

120. It's how it started in Canada. Province by province.

[CoffeeCat]

23. delete

[Godhumor]

26. For the love of, this is not caving

It looks like a lot of other responses are covering the reasons why, but chief among them is the idea of equal or better health care can be implemented by the states (i.e. Vermont's single payer). There is not a provision for weakening health care so they do not have to implement changes.

[Shagbark Hickory]

28. Um yeah. He was talking about vermont.

Get real.

[Javaman]

113. Um no.

If Vermont wants to trade up in 2017, then they can.

Obama nor the bill claim nothing about going backwards.

The bill allows a state to trade up, if they have a better plan. If not, it remains in place.

[still_one]

30. and there are states are asking for waivers which have less coverage /nt

[Mass]

31. And the law expressly forbids it. Let's be real. Sanders wrote the law he was talking about.

[still_one]

82. appreciate the edification /nt

[phleshdef]

38. They have to prove they can cover just as many people to get the waiver.

[polmaven]

144. Then they won't get them..

n/t

[Pirate Smile]

33. BS. He is just ok with moving up the waiver from 2017 to 2014. It means Vermont can

go straight to a single payer. It means the states can vary how they create their HC system but they still have to meet the minimum already set re how many people to cover, must cut costs so much, etc.

He moved up the waiver that was part of the Wyden Plan by a couple of years. That's it.

[Shagbark Hickory]

61. Well good for Vermont and all 600 thousand of it's residents. There's 300 million more of us that

don't live in Vermont.

[Javaman]

116. Honestly, stop spreading the BS.

it's getting tiresome.

It allows states to trade up if they have a better plan. If not, the healthcare bill remains in place.

You are not doing anyone any good by continuing to spread this non-sense.

and I will refute each of your replies on this thread.

You are doing more to help the repukes than helping by reenforcing this BS.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pirate Smile]

41. Stop spreading garbage if you don't understand what is happening.

[SidDithers]

42. Sounds a bit like Canadian health care...

Health care in Canada is administered and set by the Provinces, but whatever system they create must meet the national standards set out in the Federal Canada Health Act.

Sid

[Shagbark Hickory]

47. At the time was there a

corrupt system of buying politicians in Canada?
If not, then that is the big difference in this case.

[bluestate10]

138. If some states want to screw their citizens, let them try it.

During the meantime the waiver allows states like Vt and Ma to solidify their HC systems and provide affordable HC to everyone. Once people in red states realize how they are being screwed by their POLs, change will come to those states.

[cali]

43. good. waivers are what VT needs to implement single payer.

[JuniperLea]

58. I think CA stands a chance at this too...

This was one of my favorite parts in the HCR bill. I think it's one of the stronger pieces, actually.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dappleganger]

46. So what's the fucking point if you just leave it up to the states?

Seriously, all that fighting for NOTHING. :shrug:

[Godhumor]

49. From the waiver language passed in the HCR

The legislation would allow states to opt out earlier from various requirements if they could demonstrate that other methods would allow them to cover as many people, with insurance that is as comprehensive and affordable, as provided by the new law. The changes also must not increase the federal deficit.

Quote from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/politics/01health.html?_r=1

[HereSince1628]

54. Easy, it kicks the can out of your court.

It's a doable thing. Lawyers are always looking for doable things. It makes them feel like they've done something when they kick the can into someone else court.

It was Harvard Law wasn't it?

[cali]

55. Seriously, inform yourself.

[Inuca]

63. Nah... too difficult n/t

[SDuderstadt]

56. Do you REALLY need this...

explained to you?

[EC]

51. No, this is what a lot of us wanted too.

This is so individual states can opt for Single Payer.

[Shagbark Hickory]

64. If you think states are going to go with a single payer plan, you're dreaming.

Get your head out of the clouds.

[Inuca]

67. Pay attention!

Some states may, in time, most won't. But the point is that the federal law establishes a lower limit for what must be offered. If the states can do better (single payer or not), fine, else they must obey the federal law. Algorithm clear enough now? NOT caving, and NOT new.

[cali]

69. Vermont will. California may very well. Other states will follow.

[Shagbark Hickory]

86. LOL. Ok

I'm not going to hold my breath that my state will but as long as the bluest of the blue states will, then ok.

[cali]

91. it's a start. Know how the Canadian system started?

[SidDithers]

105. ...

:thumbsup:

Sid

[polmaven]

146. If your state will not

implement single payer, or a system that offers better access and cost, then they will not be eligible for a waiver, will they?

[EC]

80. Don't be so cynical.

I know repubs that want single-payer and I know Walker just distroyed the repub party here - so since our congress was looking into single-payer for years now...I'm more hopeful.

[TorchTheWitch]

149. PA has also been looking into it

There was the Rendell plan and another plan slightly better being debated. One or both even included dental, vision and mental health. Of course, now that we have a Repub governor it will probably be shelved.

[HereSince1628]

65. In my most optimistic moments, I wouldn't expect that in WI

I thank you for your hopefulness.

I just feel a thoroughly purple state like we live in, with a terrible economy, is going to go for ANY path that gets rid of the mandate. In this climate, I don't think single payer can make the cut here.

[EC]

74. Once they see it is cheaper

they'll fold in a way to make it look like their idea.

[HereSince1628]

122. Maybe if they see its something that is both cheaper and of benefit to THEM

THEY might fold and make it look like their idea.

I have doubts about the success of such a thing in Wisconsin. It's not the frontier anymore, but pride in self-reliance, and a belief in the goodness of self-reliance is as much a part of us as is our sense of the goodness of community. That's a tough dialectic, it makes us a bit multiple 'personalitied'

[Trey9007]

59. People forget that....

Federal Law usually sets a minumum standard that states must meet. States always have the right to do things their way, as long as the state meets the minimum standards set by the Federal government.

These waivers included in the HC law, are exactly why I never understood the big controversey about the bill. If a state feels the HC law is bad, and a state feels they can do it better, the waivers in the HC law gives them the oppurtunity to do things their way.

[Shagbark Hickory]

66. So when Tim Pawlenty is in the whitehouse and a RW governor says ...

"Down here in our state we got a better way."
What do you think President PAwlenty is going to say?

[Godhumor]

70. The waivers have always existed...always, right from the very beginning

This is not some sudden change from Obama--the only difference is 2014 vs. 2017.

[Shagbark Hickory]

73. A critical difference when you think about it.

[Godhumor]

78. Right, 2014 means it will happen in Obama's second term while 2017 is an unknown

Again, this is not a cave--not even remotely close.

[Trey9007]

83. Correct...

Hawaii has had a healthcare Federal waiver for years.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Inuca]

75. What on earth does this evan MEAN?

The governor will not "say" anything, certain standards will have to be met or not. And president pawlenty (knock wood) won[t say anything either, he won't be able to. Unless of course things get so bad that the law is actually repelled....

[Trey9007]

81. I dont think you understand how things work...

The federal min wage is whatever it is now. States can set their min wage higher than the Federal min wage, but they can't set it lower. The Feds can say you are allowed to put "x" amount of pollution in the air. A state can set a law allowing "y" amount of pollution, just as long as y is not more than x.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tallahasseedem]

77. unrecommended

Seriously, you should be embarrassed.

[Edweird]

79. The 'individual mandate' is FAR right policy. The sooner we get away from that the better.

[Shagbark Hickory]

85. Fair enough but.

What happens to the subsidies and exchange when there is no mandate?

I see this as a way to water down the bill, something the conservatives have vowed to do publicly.

[Edweird]

89. How does Canada do it?

[Shagbark Hickory]

93. Canada is not as corrupt. Their politicians are not in the pockets of the insurance cartel

alhtough I will add that if you watch any of the canadian political op ed you might start to think that giving provinces the ability to create separate plans will unravel the system by privatizing parts of it.
I for one see it as a huge liability.

[Edweird]

106. That didn't address the question. How does Canda fund their healthcare

without an 'individual mandate'?

[Shagbark Hickory]

124. Sorry I got confused with all the sub-threads. n/t

[SidDithers]

99. Canada allows the Provinces to run health care...

Health Care in Canada is a network of 10 Provincial and 3 Territorial plans, jointly funded by the provinces and the federal government, all of which must meet the federal standards of the Canada Health Act.

Sid

[Edweird]

104. That didn't answer the question. How does Canada fund their healthcare without a 'mandate'?

[SidDithers]

108. "jointly funded by the provinces and the federal government"...nt

Sid

[Edweird]

109. The provinces and federal government get the money for it from?

[SidDithers]

111. Taxes...nt

Sid

[Edweird]

115. Bingo. It took a while but I finally got it out of you :)

[Javaman]

121. How else would the fund it? nt

[Edweird]

125. Well, there's always this:

http://health.newamerica.net/blogposts/2008/reform_newt_gingrich_on_free_riders_and_the_individual_mandate-18127

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

127. But this thread is about program administration, not funding...

Obama is saying to states that if they can do better, and still meet the federal standards set our in his HCR legislation, they can now do it in 2014 instead of having to wait until 2017.

And that is how Canadian health care is administered, by provinces meeting federal standards.

Sid

[Edweird]

128. You're claiming the individual mandate isn't funding? Seriously?

[SidDithers]

131. The only things I'm claiming are that Obama is allowing states to improve on his HCR...

earlier than originally planned, if they so choose, and that a network of state-run plans which adheres to federal standards is similar, in administration, to the network of Canadian provincial plans.

Anything else that you think I'm claiming is you misinterpreting what I'm actually saying.

Sid

[Edweird]

163. Keep tap dancing. You're giving Fred Astaire a run for his money.

"this thread is about program administration, not funding..." :rofl:

[SidDithers]

169. Canadian health care is administered by the provinces and must meet federal standards...

Obama proposes to let states administer health care in 2014 instead of waiting until 2017, as long as they meet federal standards.

Please, tell me where funding is mentioned in those statements. :shrug:

Sid

[Edweird]

170. It allows them to opt out of the 'individual mandate'. This is about FUNDING and not much else.

[lumberjack_jeff]

141. Yes, and we all know that taxes are not mandatory. n/t

[Edweird]

162. Taxes distribute the burden more fairly.

[lumberjack_jeff]

166. That wasn't your problem statement.

I think the distinction between "premiums" and "taxes" (look at social security for an example) isn't so fundmental.

Participation in any "universal" healthcare system must be mandatory to be functional.

[Major Hogwash]

164. I did not know that.

This never would have happened if Canada would have stayed a part of the British Empire!

I can hardly believe this.

[phleshdef]

94. LOL. Caving to Bernie Sanders is now considered "making rightwing concessions".

I think you need to just admit that you spoke on this statement without understanding what it means. Your edits aren't doing your claims any further justice.

Telling states that if they have something better they can do it (3 years earlier than they were going to be allowed to anyway) as long it still covers the same number of people is not caving to any right wing demands.

All the new insurance company regulations are still in place (pre-existing coverage, recission bans, lifetime limit bans, 80/85% premium spending regulation, etc).

The exchanges that provide the subsidies for insurance purchase are still in place.

The elimination of the wasteful Medicare part D stuff is still in place.

I could list about 10 other awesome parts of the ACA that remained unchanged. Undoing those things would be "caving to rightwing demands".

[SidDithers]

100. Amazing, eh?...nt

Sid

[Shagbark Hickory]

112. If those regulations are still going to be in place

then I will concede to have over-reacted.

I'm not convinced they will remain in tact however. Especially when states like mine have vowed to water down or dismantle "obamacare" as they put it.

[Godhumor]

123. Just concede. You're now embracing hypotheticals unrelated to the speech today

HCR remains entirely intact except from allowing states to try to better their own health care in 2014 as opposed to 2017.

[Arkana]

155. But...but OBUMMER!

[SDuderstadt]

101. You know those signs on amusement park rides that say...

"you must be this tall to ride this ride"?

Maybe we could do something similar along the lines of comprehension.

[lamp_shade]

102. GOOD SWEET JESUS... PLEASE READ POST #46.

[JuniperLea]

107. Best post on the thread!

:thumbsup:

[KittyWampus]

157. it's been deleted. The disruptors' mission has once again been accomplished on good ole DU.

[emulatorloo]

103. You are way THE HELL OFF on your interpretation. See this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x528714

There is NO FUCKING WAY any of those asshole Republican Govs can meet the challenge.


Obama to States: If You Can Do Health Reform Better, Go For It

Under this system, states would receive their share of insurance subsidies and administrative funding in blocks to implement their own reforms. In order to be granted a waiver to do this, a state would need to show its plan would:

* not increase the federal deficit
* provide insurance to as many people as the ACA
* provide insurance as least as comprehensive as that called for in the ACA
* provide insurance that's just as affordable

While Obama is proposing the state opt-out plan now in order to appear responsive to Republican governors complaining about the ACA, the “Waiver for State Innovation” is already a part of the health reform law. It's just now slated to become an available option for states in 2017. The Wyden-Brown plan – also championed by Democratic Sen. Mary Landreiu – would move that date back to 2014. That's the year most the ACA is scheduled to begin.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/28/obama-to-states-if-you-can-do-health-reform-better-go-for-it/#ixzz1FH3xzqHE

[Shagbark Hickory]

114. I realize that but what kind of plan do you think my state is going to come up with?

And who do you think they're going to have to answer to when they find some loophole for leaving people out?

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Godhumor]

119. You're creating objections from wholecloth

States don't have licnense just to opt-out and put something else in place. If they try to use "loopholes" to cover less people than they stay on the federal plan.

[Shagbark Hickory]

126. Can you understand my frustration?

Who gets what they want more of the time?
Democrats or Republicans?

All I see at this point is Captain Compromise working out differences with governors. These people who have vowed to dismantle the bill.

[SDuderstadt]

129. Dude...

This has been explained to you over and over.

People have lost patience with you.

[Godhumor]

130. Can you understand our frustration in this thread? You're inventing a non-existent narrative

This is not a waiver saying "Gee, you guys have complained so much that I guess you don't have to do it" its is much closer to "look, to all the states complaining, you have a better way to do this? Go do it. But you have to cover the same number of people with the same level of care and the same level of availability. Also, you're not allowed to add to the deficit. Can't do it? Fine, shut up and use the federal plan."

[bluestate10]

133. I agree with giving states a role in health care reform, with control parameters

that will drive states to perform well at insuring their citizens excellent health care and reducing costs down. I favor health care combines being formed by like minded states. Why shouldn't Massachusetts and Vermont, two states that are near the same place on providing health care to their citizens, pool their populations and invite in health care companies that adhere to high standards of patient care at affordable prices? So if some states like Ma, Vt, Ca, Wa, Or want to combine their populations and form an enormous health care buying pool, I am all for them doing so. If states like La, Ms, Ok, Nb, Ut, Az want to stick their heads in their asses and keep the current system, I am all for that because ultimately their citizens will see how they are being shafted and vote the republican bastards that lead those states out of office. President Obama is being smart, call the hands of bastards and then allow them to cut their own throats.

[Safetykitten]

136. He said...What is the point? It's a failed system out of the gate, with so much garbage

attached and all manner of insanity that makes sure people will NEVER have insurance.

Who cares what he said?

[Godhumor]

137. So you should be happy that he is letting states improve it since it is so bad n/t

edit: word error in subject

[Safetykitten]

142. In 2017 when we have 100 million uninsured, will it all matter?

[lumberjack_jeff]

139. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

In the law, states have some latitude to create their own public option.

[defendandprotect]

140. kr

[cali]

143. lol. informing yourself before reccing is always a good thing.

you should try it sometime.

[Warren DeMontague]

148. That is the exact opposite of a "Cave". In fact, it might get us Single Payer sooner.

If the state plan achieves the same goals as the federal law, that's the part you left out.

[onenote]

150. Now that Bernie Sanders has endorsed the President's approach

will the OP and those agreeing with the OP finally give it up?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x620468

[BzaDem]

151. What utter baloney. This is not a concession at all -- for states to opt out, they would have to

achieve the same coverage goals as the bill provides. There is simply no way to do that unless you have everyone in the system, which means (absent single payer) each state would need their own individual mandate.

This doesn't hurt the bill at all - it simply moves the date where states could "opt out" (if they provided near-universal coverage) from 2017 to 2013.

[Modern_Matthew]

152. Perfect if you live in a state like Vermont, but...

I have a Democratic governor that doesn't even support a single-payer health care system.

I'm sick of playing states' rights when it comes to getting health care recognized as a RIGHT for ALL Americans.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

153. Skeptical me...saw it as a gauntlet.

Granted, it's center-right throwing down a gauntlet to the center-far-right...but hey!...it IS a gauntlet...


:think:

[Arkana]

154. That's not what happened at all.

He told the states "If you can come up with better ideas for HCR in your state that won't add to the budget, then by all means go ahead and implement them. But the federal law WILL be enforced."

[SidDithers]

159. +1...nt

Sid

[grahamhgreen]

158. How is this bad?

[Shagbark Hickory]

168. I still maintain this is bad news for red states.

Great news for bernie saunders states of course.

[AtomicKitten]

160. "Bernie Sanders delighted by new waiver date."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x620468

[Badfish]

161. wow , it's rare to see a thread with so many replies ...

and not one rec.

[Ignis]

165. Jayzis, this thread is a clusterfuck of personal attacks.

I don't agree with your analysis, but I'm not going to call you a poopie-head over it, nor accuse you of nefarious motives.

:puke:

(Edit: grammar)

[Shagbark Hickory]

167. thanx. Appreciate the civility. nt