Obama Endorses Senate Bill to Let States Opt Out Of Health Care Law Three Years Earlier

Obama paints the rotting wood that this monstrosity is built from.
The bill that Obama enthusiastically signed is so bad that Democrats are starting to wince when discussions of “Obamacare” arise, for fear that tying Barack to (what he earlier said was) his greatest achievement might cost him the election in 2012.
The individual mandate has already been ruled unconstitutional, and painting the timbers wont keep the house from falling down.
If Obama agrees that people in Alabama might not have the same needs as people in New York, then it should be easily understood that a family of five in the suburbs might not have the same needs as empty nesters in the inner city, even though they live in the same state and the same town.
So, let’s get rid of Obama’s “one size fits all” approach and start over.

Why not just give everyone a waiver until after the 2012 elections? So far the Obama administration has granted almost a 1000 waivers, covering millions of people, to Obamacare and its higher costs.
Today, Obama suggests that what he fought so strenuoously againsts when ramming the Obamacare through, amending this monstrosity, is a perfectly reasonable idea.
President Obama and Obamacare are both frauds. Nothing Obama says can be trusted or taken at face value.

If you have single payer,you will have rationing.

So, let’s get rid of Obama’s “one size fits all” approach and start over
———————
No let’s not. Let’s see the Republicans come up with an alternative plan which would expand coverage by a similar amount for the same cost before we even consider repeal. -And I pick the word “would” quite deliberately…for no matter what they come up with, I think it’s highly unlikely they will legislate it anyway. The Republicans have not demonstrated that they can be trusted to reform healthcare at all.

“Joe an Neophron…maybe you forgot there are more Judges..more judges have said YES than NO..but your just hear what you want to hear…
You are obviously both either healthy or covered…don’t worry about anybody else…do ya?” – Blackie
And only one judge in California ruled tht Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell was unconstitutional and it didn’t take long to change that law. It does’t matter how many are for or against… if just one declares it unconstitutional it needs to go to the Supreme Court.

Blackie I fail to see how someone suggesting a one size fits all plan is not a good idea obviously cares about no one else, maybe they care about everyone and that’s why they say it needs to be rewritten. Also, if you look at the UK’s single payer system there is rationing. People do crazy things like pull their own teeth or perform self circumcisions with finger nail clippers (true story) while they wait for care.
The simple fact of the bill is that too many things were passed at once, it all needs to be reviewed.
on a side note: I fail to see how either of those replies mean they are “obviously healthy or covered” but everyone is entitled to their interpretation

If enough states opt out how will Obamacare be paid for?Already Obama has exempted over 700 companies from Obamacare. If this bill is not good for business how is it good for the USA?

Guess this is his way of saying even he knows it is a bad bill. If it so good then force us to do it. Now it is opt out for the States and has been for the unions and other big corporations. Get rid of it before the congress and senate spend the money like they do on our social security and then blame us for it being out of money.

At 18 years old I was dragged into a high speed accident with a non citizen having no license, and no insurance.
20 years later I’m trapped in a chronic pain body and HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES FLAT OUT WILL NOT SELL ME COVERAGE.
That is the current situation in the U.S.A.

ANGIEB09 you just made the case fir repealing the bill.

Will states be able to repeal the UNCONSTITUTIONAL mandate TO PURCHASE health insurance?

What national health care law? I thought it was declared void by a federal judge

That’s all we need. New federally imposed mandates on the states. The House won’t buy it. Given recent court rulings, looks like Obama sees the writing on the wall.

So is it unconstitutional for states to REQUIRE YOU TO BUY CAR INSURANCE. you Repubs are such hypocrites. Sickening to the stomach
Its ok to spend BILLIONS of dollars subsidizing oil companies who dont need it but its not ok to direct federal dollars on sick people who work hard and just simply cant afford health insurance.
Who are you fighting for SMH

This is a concession to those who think the law does not go far enough, not to those who want to turn back reform. As such, it probably does not have much chance in the House.

“”"”"The Republicans have not demonstrated that they can be trusted to reform healthcare at all.”"”"”
Posted by: Skip
And you think this insurance legislation has anything to do with health care reform? OK, primary concern for health care in the US is cost. Obamacare does not even address actual health care costs. It doesn’t even stop insurers from raising premiums! It can’t, because you can’t tell insurers they have a limit when you didn’t address health care costs in the first place. Health care costs drive insurance premiums.

The healthscam law is in a slow death spiral…

Posted by: suzy | Feb 28, 2011 3:41:44 PM posted: “HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES FLAT OUT WILL NOT SELL ME COVERAGE.”
Right on Suzy. My brother slipped on ice and cracked vertebrae in his neck. Today he’s not ruled eligible for Disability, but no insurance company on the planet will offer him coverage. One more horror story because insurance companies “ration” care to only people who they calculate will be profitable. Here’s my best to you as our nation wades through this mess.
The battle over equitable health care is a glimmer of what Republicans have in plan for their utopia. No need for social programs or safety nets – Americans must trust in the “invisible hand” of the Free Market. What a bunch of lock-step, mindless and heartless automatons.
Where is their morality? In all the tea-soaked opposition to insurance reform, NO REPUBLICAN talks about what happens to the uninsured who suffer physically and financially due to lack of care.
We see Right Wing hysteria over the rights of the un-born, but after that baby arrives, the parents face rigid Republican lectures about being “responsible” and “self-reliant” when they cannot buy health insurance. What century do we live in?
They want to take “Obamacare” away from people who cannot get coverage. Fine, let’s all share the pain. Consider what it would be like to shut down Medicare. Everyone could pay for our aged parent’s health care costs, our own medical emergencies, and also give up the current big taxpayer subsidy for employer-paid health care. Let the Ayn Rand fantasy “invisible hand” rule.

California has had the ability to enact its own single-payer system for many decades, but has elected not to do so. Nothing in what Obama has said will affect their ability to impose such a system if they want it. They don’t, or they would have it already.

LOL!…Well, at least this is a whole lot better than the Republicans plan to just repeal the whole law. Whatever happened to that wasted effort anyway? Oh yah, they voted on it, and now it’s collecting dust on a shelf somewhere… LOL…typical republican action. More like “action for inaction”.

“Right on Suzy. My brother slipped on ice and cracked vertebrae in his neck. Today he’s not ruled eligible for Disability, but no insurance company on the planet will offer him coverage.”
Why should they offer him coverage? The risk against which he should have insured himself has already occurred. What you want for him is not “insurance” at all. What you want is for other people to be forced to pay for his medical care. You offer no explanation at all as to why they should do so.
Should they be required to insure him against the possibility that he will want to buy a house? A car? Food? Clothing? And when he wants those things, should the insurance company be forced to provide them for him?
His problem is that he didn’t insure himself, and any insurer that would take him on now would have to charge its other customers premiums that no one on earth could afford.

They’re not giving much, mostly lip service to quell the legal challenges.

FASCIST HOUND Said (regarding the Republican Repeal on Health Care): “Not exactly. The house voted on repeal and passed it.”
===============================
LMAO!…. Isn’t that what I said in my 9:20:29 post?……… yeah, they voted on it AND NOW?….it’s sitting on a shelf, collecting dust… LOL!
Oh sure, we’ll wait until 2013…while so many provisions of the law slowly get enacted… hehehehehe!
By the time 2013 rolls along, most people will not want the provisions of that law repealed.

“yeah, they voted on it AND NOW?….it’s sitting on a shelf, collecting dust… LOL!”
The house vote was on January 22. The Senate voted on February 2. The Senate will vote on the measure agian and again, as Sen. McConnell includes the repeal as amendments to future legislation.
I imagine there are dunces in the US dim-witted enough to consider this “sitting on a shelf gathering dust.” Otherwise the country would not have elected a community organizer to the presidency in the first place.

Of course Obama hasn’t said anything yet about how Democrat Jimmy Carter neutered the Federal employee’s collective bargaining ability back in 1978-79!!!

“employer-sponsored health care premiums increased by 131%”
The premiums increased because the costs of the events against which they provide insurance increased. Nothing in Obamacare will change that at all. It takes a genuine sucker to believe that it will. Paul Ryan’s plan would indeed lower the underlying costs by enabling insurers, insureds and providers to shop amongst competitors for the arrangement that best fits their needs. There are many, many Americans who are of course too dumb to understand any of this.

Constance Q —— Your story doesn’t tell the whole story — Here’s a better one for you —- “A unionized teacher with a master’s degree and 20 years experience, a “tea party patriot” and a State Governor are sitting at a table. Every year a plate of a dozen cookies were brought in and divided up between the three of them….. The Governor, with much foresight, sees that the union pension plan would devour more and more cookies each year… and if there are no changes, the state will either go bankrupt or they will be forced to fire teachers. To save the state, and the teachers from their own lack of foresight, the governor decided to re-divide the cookies so the state would not go bankrupt and he would NOT have to fire teachers! —- The teacher who wanted more cookies cries to the union bosses and they ship in union members from other states not even affected by this agreement to harass the Governor….. so lets hope the Governor stands his ground for the sake of the State, the tea party member (representing the other people living in the state), and the shortsighted teachers who don’t see their own jobs on the line!!!

There are many, many Americans who are of course too dumb to understand any of this
————————-
But even the dumbest of them would understand it if you told them Ryan’s plan expands coverage as much as Obamacare does for less cost…does it?

Obamacare is just another Federal welfare program expansion, nothing to do with insurance.
You can only tax the efforts of the responsible so much before it becomes obvious that irresponsibility results in greater freedom at a lower or no cost.
No government has or ever will be able to produce the irrational and unreasonable guarantees the U.S. government offers in return for the power those elected attempt to wield.
You can only put off until tomorrow for so long.

Blackie wrote:
“You are obviously both either healthy or covered”
Yes, I pay for health insurance for my family every year. And I do it on an income that is ‘below the line’ most years.
But I don’t buy cable TV, or a new car every couple years, or a closet full of new clothes, or the expensive name brands at the grocery store, or a vacation to Disney, or a big mortgage, or a flat screen TV or many of the other things people think they “have to” have.
Life is about choices. Check out the Census Bureau figures that show 50 million without insurance.
You will find that almost 18 million of them have incomes over 50k. Why do we need to make welfare cases out of 18 million folks that make above 50k?
(another 9.5 million aren’t even US citizens. And another 13.6 million have incomes that probably ALREADY qualify them for Medicaid, so why is another program needed to double cover them?)
Blackie, do some research before you talk to me about health care.

“Why not allow every individual American citizen to opt out of it altogether?” Because, as with every other Democrat social program, EVERYONE has to particpate to make the plan work because no one who is doing fine without it would voluntarily sign up for it. The argument goes that by having insurance companies cover people who can’t afford to pay for medical care or insurance themselves, or who have known conditions, (increasing the insurance companies’ expenditures) premiums that cover the costs of insurance will magically go down for everyone. Strike out the provision that requires people to either enroll or pay the tax (read: penalty) so that participation is purely voluntary and no one would object to it (except the proponents who wouldn’t be able to make the numbers even appear to add up).

Joe White, Even if the bottom 50% paid income tax at the rate of 90%, it wouldn’t make a difference.
Why? Because the bottom 50% owns less than 10% of the wealth of the country.
You want to balance the budget by making people who earn $20k a year pay 20k in taxes? Yeah, that’ll work.
BTW, just about everyone making over 20k pays about 40% of their income in taxes of one kind or another. What about all the wealth that isn’t income? What about all the income taxes corporations DON’T pay? – like Exxon, BoA, and others who aren’t paying a dime?
If you were really sincere, you would want to do something about that.

JOE WHITE, 1:39:42 AM, Said:
“We already pay for our aged parents health care costs….when we pay taxes. Hello? Where do you think the money comes from? Does it grow on trees? The question is, since we pay for our parents care already do we want to waste a large part of that money by running thru a Washington bureaucracy first?”
======================================
LOL!…of course, you leave out the entire idea of pooling money (i.e., Social Security, MEDICARE, private health insurance, etc.). Just because you pay into each of these does not mean that you’re absorbing the entire bill in regards to your parents health care.
…and regarding your comment, “…do we want to waste a large part of that money by running thru a Washington bureaucracy.” The answer is, YES! I’d rather the “Washington bureaucracy” get that money, than they payouts in “millions” of bonuses (also wasted) that go to a few crooked profiteers in the private insurance industry.

There are things I don’t like about the alleged “Affordable care act” that need to be changed, but now I’m hearing they are relooking financial regulation of Wall Street? Who is REALLY in charge, and do they have some kind of memory problem? Remember MADOFF, LEHMAN BROS. etc. etc.

Ha ha ha!
This is a play to reel in some states.
It is a sign that of weakness, a sign that even the President knows that YesWeCanCare™ is unconstitutional.

I think they’re doing everything they can to keep this law, with all it’s unconstitutional provisions, out of the courts.

J Welsh wrote:
“and regarding your comment, “…do we want to waste a large part of that money by running thru a Washington bureaucracy.” The answer is, YES! I’d rather the “Washington bureaucracy” get that money, than they payouts in “millions” of bonuses (also wasted) that go to a few crooked profiteers in the private insurance industry”
When Congress was debating the ‘public option’ the nonpartisan CBO ran the numbers and determined that the public option would likely result in higher rates than private plans.
That’s what you want, higher rates?
If rich Democrats like the Kennedys, George Soros, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jay Rockefeller, Claire McCaskill, Alan Grayson, Jane Harman, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Eliot Spitzer, the Hollywood elite etc are so concerned about insurance rates, why dont they buy a couple of insurance companies and slash the rates drastically (like they have been preaching that Insurance companies should do) and let anyone enroll at any time (like they have been lecturing us about) ?
Why? Because they’d lose their money quick, That’s why.
They know it.
I know it.
The only one who apparently doesnt know it is you.
If the profit motive is so evil, I trust that you would never go to a doctor who runs his practice on a for-profit basis, right?
And you wont go to a for-profit hospital, or buy medicine from a company that makes a profit, right?
I mean, you are walking the walk and not just talking the talk, right? You don’t support evil profiteers, right?
Don’t you realize that a government monopoly on health care is exactly the kind of thing that you know would result in high costs and poor service?
Do you really want a health care system with all the efficiency of the DMV and all the compassion of the IRS?
The great thing about the profit motive is that it causes people to work harder to please you. What motivation will a government monopoly have?
Do you really want medical resources like hospitals, medicine, staffing to be passed around as Washington pork barrel projects?
You do realize that’s what happens when you give the government control, don’t you?
Yes, I have very little trust of corporations, but at least I have a choice.
I trust government even less, because when they are put in charge, then choice is taken away.
You need to think this through,JWelsh.

I would ask J. Welsh to look around his house today–look at every chair, table, sofa, appliance, rug, toiletry, stereo, television, article of clothing, and the house itself. Everything.
Now tell us which ones were not produced by someone trying to make a profit.

Goddess, why should anybody else pay for your brother’s medical expenses, any more than they should pay for his food, clothing or housing?
Why didn’t he insure himself before he broke his neck?

“For 50 consecutive weeks, Rasmussen’s poll of likely voters has been asking Americans whether (and how strongly) they support or oppose the repeal of Obamacare. Fifty times in fifty weeks, the majority of Americans have said that they support repeal. In 49 of those 50 weeks, Americans have supported repeal by double-digits margins.
“It’s no small feat to find something that a majority of Americans can agree upon for fifty weeks in a row — and almost always by double-digit margins. The average tally across those fifty weeks has been 56 percent in favor of repeal and 38 percent opposed. Across the five most recent weeks, the average has been exactly the same: 56 percent in favor of repeal, 38 percent opposed.”

Fascist Hyena, you asked stands for what? You compared manufactured products to essential government services and left out services that pool money. Until I mentioned essential services you also left out basic needs over wants. Perhaps that was to oversimplify the conversation. I prefer rational conversations between adults that don’t dumb down the subject matter. One can live without a chair, table or car as it turns out; also without UPS and a local movie theater.
I encourage you to look into the history of expanding access to telephone service and other utilites, public roads, firefighting services, food and shelter. You will be surprised if you are as uninformed as your comment suggests on the government’s role.
Access to health care services is a basic human need and it is only fair to ensure that the catastrophic costs sometimes associated with providing medical services are covered. All civilized countries have reached this conclusion.

Green Goddess wrote:
“my brother already looked into his state’s High Risk Reinsurance Pool. The cheapest plan has a $5,000 deductible and a 20% coinsurance up to an annual out-of-pocket maximum of $10,000. And it excludes pre-existing conditions (like a broken neck) for 12 months. While these solutions may be better than nothing, they are still expensive”
Thank you for finally admitting the truth. Your brother can get insurance.
Now the question is why aren’t you and the rest of your family willing to help him with the premiums?
Why does it default to strangers to take care of a family member? Isn’t that what family is for?
Maybe someone can do without cable TV, or a new car or a flat screen TV or some other nonessential in order to make sure your family member is taken care of.
Why do you want to accuse the whole country of being heartless and evil if you and your family are unwilling to help?
Cousins, uncles, aunts, extended family are there. Have you worked together to make sure he was taken care of?

“Unfortunately, there are people in this country who are sick, struggling financially, or experiencing catastrophic medical problems who are not so lucky. They don’t have a family safety net.”
Which is why Medicaid exists.

joe, a society that cannot feed, clothe, shelter, and care for the health needs of itself is by definition a failure.
Despite your assertion that capitalism has failed us, it was a huge advance over what preceeded it, just as socialism has been. There is no example of a socialist country that wasn’t more successful than what preceeded it in that country.
When it is said that these things are a human right, that is not an opinion, it is an incontrovertable fact, as a result of being adopted by the General Assembly of the UN as part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
TO WIT:
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

“The US has never elected a Libertarian government…”
Posted by: green.goddess | Mar 1, 2011 5:00:16 PM
Many of our forefathers would today be considered Conservatives and Libertarians. Tea Partiers worship Thomas Jefferson because of his principled views on limited government, the critical importance of a fiscally prudent government, and his love for individual liberty. Anyone with Jefferson’s views today is marked by Progressives as a right-wing extremist puppet of the Koch brothers.

Posted by: green.goddess | Mar 1, 2011 10:16:51 PM
Who cares what one idiotic Texas school did? It has no bearing on the factual points I made.
I don’t hear howls of outrage from the left when George Soros spends millions of dollars on liberal causes like MoveOn, the Apollo Alliance, Media Matters for America, the Tides Foundation, the ACLU, ACORN, PDIA (Project on Death In America), La Raza, the Center for Responsive Politics, etc. The Koch Brothers do the same for conservative causes. Since you don’t denounce Soros, I can only conclude you just don’t like it when conservatives play the same games liberals do. Tough.

Has anyone else noticed how a liberal confuses freedom with slavery to government via social programs? Responsibility is an acquired skill and mindset not a requirement to serve someone else.
Green Goddess it really is time to wake up and embrace the differences.

History wrote:
“joe, a society that cannot feed, clothe, shelter, and care for the health needs of itself is by definition a failure.”
In case you hadnt noticed our standard of living is very good indeed.
Check out survival rates for cancer patients, stroke victims, heart attacks etc between the US and some of your socialist utopias.
You’ll want to be in the US if you ever get really sick.

MARY | MAR 2, 2011 6:55:01 AM posted: “Wow, thanks for the info on the Koch Brothers. Sounds like they’re doing what’s right for America!”
Figured you’d appreciate the idea of revisionist, religious school books and a more malleable, dumbed-down employee. But that isn’t “what’s right” for America’s future in a global economy where educated workers need to compete via productivity, not just cheap labor.
David Koch is the second-richest man in New York City, behind Bloomberg. 30 years after making a massive fortune helping Stalin’s brutal regime build oil infrastructure, the Koch boys’ father seems to have developed remorse about the evils of Communism – he became a founding member of the John Birch Society while passing along those all ill-gotten Commie gains to his sons.
When Birchers were labeled “idiots” by conservative William F. Buckley, the Koch family took their brand of Libertarian flavored ideas quietly underground – and it’s that lack of transparency that singles out the Kochs’ causes.
Billionaires like Bill Gates, Rupert Murdock, George Soros, and Michael Bloomberg who manipulate the market for a living are ruthless by nature. For example, George Soros’s fund notoriously sold short more than USD 10 billion worth of pounds sterling, earning over $1 Billion after the Bank of England devalued the pound sterling. Today that kind of wealth and power can be used to reshape American elections – the recent Supreme Court ruling that allows basically unlimited corporate funding from these powerful men has placed democracy in peril. This measure of wealth and power is well worth watching, regardless of your stripe of politics.
Today Billionaires’ corporations (along with the unions) can spend directly, whenever they want, on campaign advertising. And, lobbyists own our politicians – they basically hold the threat of corporate-funded attack ads over any elected official’s head. This is not just bad for progressives, but conservative Americans as well.
The Koch Brothers own the second-largest private company in the U.S.: cattle, paper, chemicals, coal, oil pipelines, and commodity trading. They have spent more than a hundred million dollars on right wing foundations for decades – and they use these organizations as screens to hide their efforts to promote their Old School businesses – like stopping acid rain regulations, or crushing teachers unions for a dumbed-down electorate and cheaper workers.
As with most Billionaires, the Kochs flash a very visible side as philanthropists – museums, Lincoln Center, hospitals, colleges. But they distance themselves from the massive campaign spending they need not disclose – such as funding attack ads in Wisconsin and Tea Party events.

Posted by: green.goddess | Mar 2, 2011 12:52:15 PM
Once again, I didn’t actually see a strong condemnation of George Soros in your post. We can only assume that while you rail against billionaires spending millions on conservative causes, you fully support Progressives like Soros who throw millions at liberal causes like MoveOn, the Apollo Alliance, Media Matters for America, the Tides Foundation, the ACLU, ACORN, PDIA (Project on Death In America), La Raza, and the Center for Responsive Politics.
Progressive hypocrisy at its finest.
The good news is that Soros’ investments in liberal causes aren’t panning out too well these days. Then again, the tide is against him. Conservatism is in ascendancy while Progressivism is imploding all around the globe. No amount of spending on his part will change that.

Posted by: Mary | Mar 2, 2011 1:29:22 PM
Come on Mary – in the context of my posts about the Texas Board of Education, clearly I was talking about revisionist, religious text books designed to create a FUTURE with more malleable, dumbed-down employees.
Take a look at the IQ Bell Curve and today you can see why those who are not well informed can be lead to believe that the President will put gas in their cars, or even something as ignorant as thinking Obama grew up in Kenya or is an Arab. “No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man and citizen,” said John McCain as the crowd booed.
And why are you so stuck on campaign slogans? President Fillmore had a nickname, “Old Kinderhook”– his supporters’ cry of “OK” meant everything would be just fine. It’s the origin of a term that is understood around the world.
See, unsurprisingly, we disagree about one more thing: “Hope” is in fact a plan and strategy – a term to give meaning to the idea that our nation could in fact make a change away from the disastrous Republican lead course that accumulated Trillions in debt for two preemptive wars without creating enough new jobs here at home.
Step out of the Conservative Echo Chamber – how can you possibly claim the Obama Administration has never actually achieved anything? You may disagree with these Democratic policies, but cannot deny that legislation actually HAPPENED – such as the Recovery Act, Health Insurance Reform, Credit Card reform, Ending torture and combat operations in Iraq, Funding for medical research, Funding more student loans by eliminating bank fees, Formation of Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, Small Business tax credits, SCHIP expansion, Renewal of the START Treaty, and Repealing DADT.

What are the specifics in Wisconsin? Who agreed to the formula for teachers, firefighters, police, and state workers pensions, health care etc.? Why do the parties that agreed to it, just live up to their word? Are things different in Wisconsin? How were these agreements funded, and have the political leaders done anything to protect the resources of these agreement? Did they try to make sure insurance companies, or health systems were not looting the funds, or did they allow costs to rise without any work being done by them or their staff?
The cookie analogy was cute, but it was a rigged question. My impression of Wisconsin has been seriously eroded since watching how the state government operates there, I am probably wrong to allow politicians to impact my impression of a state with such a great history of intelligent cooperation between individuals and their elected officials. The people of Wisconsin may lead the way in holding politicians accountable for their actions, and again prove their reputation is well deserved.