Skip to main content

Obama signing ACA
President Obama signs the Affordable Care Act. White House photo.

Senators Ron Wyden and Scott Brown have introduced legislation that would move up the date for state to be able to apply for waivers of the Affordable Care Act from 2017 to 2014, so that "states, with a history of innovating new approaches to health care – like Massachusetts, Oregon and Vermont – could continue those efforts, while other states would have an opportunity to start innovating their own approaches." Under their legislation, states would have to demonstrate that they will cover at least as many citizens with coverage that is at least as comprehensive and affordable as the federal law, but if they demonstrate that structure, can waive the individual mandate, the employer penalty for not providing coverage, the exact standards for a basic health insurance policy, and the structure of the health insurance exchange

The Obama administration has signed on.

In remarks to the National Governors Association, Mr. Obama said he backed legislation that would enable states to request federal permission to withdraw from the law’s mandates in 2014 rather than in 2017 as long as they could prove that they could find other ways to cover as many people as the original law would and at the same cost. The earlier date is when many of the act’s central provisions take effect, including requirements that most individuals obtain health insurance and that employers of a certain size offer coverage to workers or pay a penalty.

“I think that’s a reasonable proposal; I support it,” Mr. Obama told the governors, who were gathered in the State Dining Room of the White House.

“It will give you flexibility more quickly while still guaranteeing the American people reform.”

The bill would allow for states to implement single-payer systems, if that's the route they want to go, and at least one state is ready to try. Senator Bernie Sanders told Ezra Klein that Vermont will apply for a waiver.

We believe Vermont stands a chance to be the first state in the nation to pass single-payer. The governor-elect campaigned on it, and we have support in the House and Senate. We’re not asking for one nickel more than we’d otherwise get. The other thing we think we have an opportunity to do is reach out to our conservative friends and say, hey, Vermont wants to go forward with a single-payer system, and Mississippi and Alabama don’t, but maybe they have other ideas. Now, we’re conscious of the need to make sure that the health-care reform bill’s standards aren’t diminished. So everyone needs to provide the same quality of health care as the bill provides and at the same, or lower, price. But if they can do that, then they should be able to go for it.

Regional systems could potentially also be an option, as regional exchanges are an option in the ACA. So it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to see a California/Oregon/Washington single payer kind of system eventually emerge. The fight will be with Repubilcan governors, of course, and meeting those requirements for coverage and affordability. We'll soon find out if those GOP governors are truly philosophically opposed to a mandate, and accept this idea, or are just constitutionally opposed to anything created by Democrats, and will continue to fight it.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 07:50 AM PST.

Also republished by Single Payer California.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Republicans have been complaining (26+ / 0-)

    about states' rights so Obama is giving them it.

    Touche!

    Jim Manley: "Republicans are making love to Wall Street, while the people on Main Street are getting screwed."

    by Drdemocrat on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 07:52:25 AM PST

    •  Yeah, but it's the state right to do nothing (0+ / 0-)

      This move will politically box them in, but it is their state right to do absolutely nothing about healthcare that they want to preserve.

      •  Actually, I have become more and more (5+ / 0-)

        convinced that there are areas of the country that are determined to stay ignorant and backwards and that there is little that can be done about that, at least in the short term. This proposal gives more progressive states the go-ahead to really try some progressive solutions.

        If there is no accountability for those who authorized torture, we can no longer say that we are a nation of laws, not men.

        by MikePhoenix on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 09:18:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Repuglies in a bind! (0+ / 0-)

        This ultimately put the repuglies in a bind. As a group they opposed HCA without having to put up. Now that the President has put the ball in their court, they will have to explain to their voters why its ok for many in the state to have no healthcare.  This was a “national” issue far removed from the person. Move this to the states and it becomes another death nail for baggers as it hits home and real nearby. No longer “philosophy” talk.

        Try not to let your mind wander... It's too small and fragile to be out by itself.

        by mjcc1987 on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 10:41:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Smart Move by the Administration (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LouisMartin, VickiL

      You can opt out only if yours is as good or better than the Federal program.   Obama just raised the bar by appearing to concede.  

      Progressive states will move forward single payer and making health care affordable.  

      Red States will pay insurance companies through the nose until the realization hits the voters sufficiently that they are getting economically raped by the insurance companies.  The old time politicos will suddenly find themselves replaced by progressives that campaign on bringing down the cost of insurance.

      Long View Smart.

      ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

      by NevDem on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 09:58:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  To quote.. (12+ / 0-)
    ...or are just constitutionally opposed to anything created by Democrats.

    Yes.

    This has been another addition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.

  •  And hopefully Brown and Wyden can (10+ / 0-)

    muster up the 60 votes needed to overcome the inevitable McConnell filibuster.  Good long term political strategy would be for Scott Brown to be the person out front with this.

    While it may be irksome that a Republican is the voice of this proposal, consider the following:

    While it may strengthen Brown somewhat in MA, it also ahs the effect of him being teabagged in the primary.  Plus, as Republicans line up in their predictable opposition to something they have asked for, we will see fracturing of the GOP, as well as the rank Obama Derangement Syndrome coming out.  People will be seeing what the Republicans are truly like.

    As well as on the state level, it tells people like Perry to put up or shut up.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

    by zenbassoon on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 07:59:15 AM PST

    •  Would Tea Party be a serious threats in MA? (0+ / 0-)

      In the primary that is?

      "Always remember this: They fight with money and we resist with time, and they’re going to run out of money before we run out of time." -Utah Philips

      by TerryDarc on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 09:08:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They'll get national money. (0+ / 0-)

        "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

        by zenbassoon on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 09:14:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Of course, (0+ / 0-)

        Do you have any idea of how many people vote in the Repub MA primary?  Not enough to fill Foxboro Stadium.  MA is a closed primary state.

        As strange as this seems at this point, Scott Brown will have a harder time in the GOP primary than in the general election, and this isn't going to help one bit.

        "Never let up. Crush bigotry and greed."

        by LouisMartin on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 01:28:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hey, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Georgia, etc. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LouisMartin, wader, shaharazade

    Now you can just rip those nasty old death panels right out of there.  BWAAAAAHHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAA

    The community of fools might be small if it were not such an accomplished proselytizer.

    by ZedMont on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 08:00:44 AM PST

  •  Innovate is not a transitive verb, sir (0+ / 0-)

    And now it doesn't even look like a word!

    They tortured people to get false confessions to fraudulently justify our invading Iraq.

    by Ponder Stibbons on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 08:02:03 AM PST

  •  I think it is reasonable as well. nt (3+ / 0-)
  •  Vermont has 600k people in it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cumulo

    What took them so long to go to single payer in the first place?

  •  Orrin Hatch (7+ / 0-)

    Hatch was on the PBS Newshour last night talking about this. Wow, he was being very shrill and childish. I've never seen that side of him. It was very unbecoming for a US Senator I thought.

  •  My wife is a very gentle soul (14+ / 0-)

    When 9/11 happened her wish was for Bin Laden to get caught and to spend a long time in jail so he could think about the terrible things he did.

    However when she gets off the phone talking to a health insurance company rep, she expresses a desire for that rep to die a very painful death and spend eternity in hell.

    And we don't even have any really serious health issues to pay for.  I don't know how we all do this ridiculous paperwork dance.

    I think we may be interested in looking at some Vermont real estate if Illinois doesn't take similar actions.

    I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

    by Satya1 on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 08:07:52 AM PST

  •  wish this had been in from the beginning (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    seaprog, shaharazade, supercereal, arpear

    and active from the beginning.

    I agreet that a CA/Or/WA pact could be possible, though I think CA/OR would likely go first.

    It would get me to move back to Cali, that's for sure.

    •  Actually It Is (5+ / 0-)

      already in the law.  The only thing that would change is the date they can apply for the waiver...from 2017 to 2014.  The move up to 2014 would allow states the chance to do their own thing BEFORE most provisions of the ACA come into force.

      That is the key concession that Obama is offering critics of the law.  If they hate the mandate or something else then come up with something better...before you are subjected to those things.  Obama is holding firm on the goals and recquirements and the general idea that something comprehensive must be done.  But he is giving states a chance to do it better and more to their liking.

      •  By beginning, I mean NOW (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wsexson

        by 2014 the GOP will find some way to prevent it. The further past citizens united we get, the harder it will be to protect these types of provisions.

        I firmly believe that if a major state goes single payer or truly universal, the dominoes will fall.

        •  Esp. if the R-turds gain the senate... (0+ / 0-)

          ...as now appears more and more possible. Imagine what ill they can do with only Obama's veto to ride herd on an entire legislative branch of Teahaddists.

          "Always remember this: They fight with money and we resist with time, and they’re going to run out of money before we run out of time." -Utah Philips

          by TerryDarc on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 09:25:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I've always thought that CA/OR/WA would make... (5+ / 0-)

      ...a pretty nice country of our own.

      "Always remember this: They fight with money and we resist with time, and they’re going to run out of money before we run out of time." -Utah Philips

      by TerryDarc on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 09:23:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great Policy, Great Politics (17+ / 0-)

    A real no brainer here.  The only way single-payer will ever come to US is on a state-by-state basis until the public realizes that the right is full of shit when it comes to health care policy.

    It appropriately addresses all the bitching about "States Rights" while making sure that no one's going to get screwed just because they live in Mississippi.

    And because of that, I'm sure it has no chance of passing.  But a worthy move none-the-less

    Proud to share my name with Howard Dean

    by DeanNC on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 08:12:18 AM PST

    •  You Are Right (4+ / 0-)

      This is great politics by Obama and this offer is a real suprise to many.  He is calling the bluff of his opponents basically.

      All the while he is reminding them that they must reform their healthcare systems..the ACA is the law of the land.  If they stubbornly refuse then the feds will step in to do the jobs for them.

      •  And credit Ron Wyden (0+ / 0-)

        Who knows what murky motives pushed Scott Brown over the edge to be reasonable this time?

        "Always remember this: They fight with money and we resist with time, and they’re going to run out of money before we run out of time." -Utah Philips

        by TerryDarc on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 09:27:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's called calling their bluff. Sweeeeeet! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AlyoshaKaramazov, wader, worldlotus

    n/t

    Best. President. Ever.

    by Little Lulu on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 08:16:11 AM PST

  •  This is (5+ / 0-)

    good. Hoping CA gets single payer option soon.  I need it, having a pre-existing condition which bars me from changing insurance, I don't get insurance through work.

    http://www.thehamandlegsshow.com

  •  OMG!! The Job-Killing Health Care Act (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, worldlotus

    is going to blow BILLIONS of dollars into the healthcare arena and kill all sorts of jobs by causing a demand for medical care......

    Hey.. waitjustagoddamnedminute!

    I work in healthcare!

    Funding =  JOBS in healthcare.

    Cut healthcare, cut jobs; fund healthcare, fund jobs.

    Too bad the GOP just wants to kill as many jobs as they can before 2012.

    So they can blame them on Obama.

    Money= Job + Healthcare!!

    Suck on that, Repubs!

    21st Century Republicans would much rather legalize murder than marijuana.
    DK4 Cannabis Reform Group Writing Guidelines

    by xxdr zombiexx on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 08:19:26 AM PST

    •  Well, lets hope it kills a few jobs in Insurance! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      seaprog, xxdr zombiexx

      That 14% leech on healthcare costs needs to go ask John Boehner for a job and see if he cares.

      "Always remember this: They fight with money and we resist with time, and they’re going to run out of money before we run out of time." -Utah Philips

      by TerryDarc on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 09:28:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So, CA/WA/OR (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    seaprog, gneissgirl, roadbear

    any chance a resident from ID can sign on?

    please?

  •  We'd had Single payer nat'lly if... (0+ / 0-)

    Obama had sold himself heart and soul to the Big med. Ins., Hospital and Big Pharma people. This is just a weasel move to try and convince what's left of his activist base that he really cares. BS!

    "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

    by Blutodog on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 08:22:25 AM PST

    •  ...if never. (5+ / 0-)

      If healthcare reform was something easy to achieve, the greats like TR, FDR, and LBJ would have accomplished it.

      It's intellectually lazy to argue what hypothetically could have been based on Obama's words when the actions of the legislature, not Obama, pass the bill.

      •  Stop already (0+ / 0-)

        Obama never intended to pass anything but this piece of Corporatist shit. Stop already with sucking his dick it's disgusting. He's a lying sack of shit. He sold his soul just  like the rest of the Dem. party.  Both parties represent the Corps. nobody represents the rest of us anymore.

        "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

        by Blutodog on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 12:53:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  saw orrin hatch last night... (6+ / 0-)

    ...and it really became quite clear that they object to the goals of the overall legislation:

    1. universal coverage
    2. controlling costs
    3. establishing minimum insurance coverage standards

    His biggest "worry" was that the legislation would eventually be replaced by the expansion of medicare to the whole population.

    He was entirely vile and hateful.  He called the law idiotic and stupid and said it was the worst piece of legislation that he has ever seen.  He was really infuriated by the moving up of the waiver portion from 2017 to 2014.

    Their idea is that once the current law is repealled that another health care law "could" be adopted that would be a bipartisan plan.  However, this plan could not include the goals of universal coverage, controlling costs, or establishing minimum coverage standards.

    which means, at the end of the day, that it would not be a health care law that addresses the problems of health care we have in this country.

    •  Orrin Hatch is in it for (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, worldlotus

      Orrin Hatch.

      Check his stock portfolio.  Chances are it's full of insurance companies.

      Anyway, he won't be with us much longer, as his own people are dead sick of him.


      Emo's Prayer - "Lord, please break the laws of the universe for my convenience" - Emo Philips

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 08:29:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hatch is in full-blown "save me from the TBs" mode (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, wsexson, roadbear

      So expect this type of behavior from him for the next year or so, until he loses the primary to Chaffetz or whoever. In his desperation to save his seat, he'll probably reach new depths of pandering.

    •  Another form of white privilege being exposed, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      worldlotus

      I suspect.

      He's used to being anointed and finds anything which takes his perceived stock "down" - e.g., granting basic healthcare to even those who can't afford it directly (in his mind, non-LDS people of colour, I would bet) as absolutely threatening that exalted, implied status.

      It's not just race - it's also class and such.  But, those things are all intermingled, IMHO.

      An old white man, representing a subculture and class which continues to cling desperately to the notion that they must die with the most toys.  At all costs.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 09:19:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  After everyone opts out ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryduck

    what's left? It would be fine if all the states were like Vermont and went for single payer, but you can be sure that states like Texas will do something much worse than the current law. Moreover part of the rationale for the mandate is that if everyone has to buy insurance, the costs will come down (not that I necessarily believe it will work like that), but the idea is that the larger the pool, the more the costs are distributed.

    •  they can't "opt out"... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, worldlotus

      ...unless they can cover as many or more people for the same or less cost and at the same level of service.

      The "opt out" refers to the health care exchanges that states are required to implement- and possibly the fine accessed to individuals who choose to not buy insurance.

      •  Maybe the private sector will do that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        movie buff

        Provide the same level of service at the same or lower cost as single payer or other state experiment. BUWAHAHAHAHAHA. On the other hand, maybe not.

        "Always remember this: They fight with money and we resist with time, and they’re going to run out of money before we run out of time." -Utah Philips

        by TerryDarc on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 09:33:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the states still have to implement a plan. (0+ / 0-)

          if they don't, the federal government will do it for them.  The private sector has to follow the rules that the federal and state governments enact.

    •  And this is the problem (0+ / 0-)

      with state level governance in a federal system. If CA goes for single-payer in-state, that means all the insurance companies who see CA as their main cash cow will simply and drasticallly raise the rates everywhere else. Until there is some sort of overarching option for the public at the national level, most people in most places get severely pwned yet again.

      •  The states who don't want "government controlled (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        roadbear, createpeace, Catsmeat

        healthcare" will feel the full brunt of corporate controlled healthcare.  Let's see how long they can handle that.  

        Fuck em and the teabag they rode in on.

        http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5451051231

        by alfredo on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 08:52:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  perhaps that is what it will take (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shaharazade, roadbear, createpeace

        For people in those states to get upset enough to change it.  They'll be looking over at CA and saying, why can't we pay that?

        Nothing like the alternative to make people get off their duff and do something.  Evidence Wisc.

        •  That's the theory, sure. (0+ / 0-)

          Wisconsin, though, has a long and proud heritage of socially active participation in leftist causes, even amidst their rightward migration lately. Madison, especially, has a vibrant leftie tilt. Do you think the same kind of uprising could have taken place in Eau Claire? I kinda doubt it. Luck of capital geography.
          Where else in the country can you point to since Reagan took office that something like this--that has been this effective--has taken place?

          •  must it always be a protest? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            roadbear, TerryDarc

            I thought that the election of Barack Obama as president was pretty phenomenal myself.  If you think about it, it really shouldn't have happened... but it did.  It was only a political push of the people that made it so, helped in large part by the Internet no?

            There are other fights that happen locally, marriage equality is one example.  In my state it's been a lot of time and effort and failed attempts to get to where we are.  But if we were not allowed to pursue it as a state, and instead had to have some national agreement, I doubt we'd be this far.

            •  I bet (0+ / 0-)

              Obama's election will be viewed down the line more as a rejection of Republican/Bush excesses than anything else; election night for me was bittersweet, given that I live in CA and had to endure the passage of Prop H8. And I think that was a sadly perfect encapsulation of 2008. Obama is not a signal event marking a swinging back of a pendulum--we wouldn't have lost the House in 2010 if it was.
              I'm not sure why you think it shouldn't have happened: why shouldn't it have? I honestly believe we could have nominated anybody and won in 2008--a vote for Obama was a vote against Republicans by many, many people. I see him as the new version of Jimmy Carter, in that sense, if not others.
              I thought you were pointing to what's happening in Wisky as a public outcry against rightwing encroachments, which is how I see it and its uniqueness. "A lot of time and effort and failed attempts" does not sound like what's happening there at all to me.

              •  it should have been Hillary Clinton (0+ / 0-)

                I'm talking about the primary campaign for starters - no way should a freshman Senator have been able to take down someone with that kind of credentials, and that kind of political mojo, and with the big dog in her corner?  Wow... it's kind of jaw dropping when you step back and look at it.

                That whole election was a public outcry though.  A lot of people became engaged in the process that don't normally.  That's why I say it doesn't have to be a protest, even though protests bring fresh energy.  All we really need for change is for people to show up and vote.

                •  Yeah, but (0+ / 0-)

                  Hillary's campaign was "fraught" with uniqueness, too, so saying it "should" have been her ignores that fact. You could have been making the same argument about her if she had won against John Kerry, or some other white male Dem with national stature.
                  Considering the severe baggage Hillary was carrying, I am/was not at all surprised that she lost the primary, and there is a rich heritage of underdog/unknowns winning the Presidency. It wasn't jaw dropping at all to me.
                  Every election we get new blood and lose some old; nature of the beast. What happened after was what has been indicative, though, of this kind of "uprising". They stopped rising up, for whatever reasons they have. I voted for the first time in 1980 and promptly stopped voting again until 1992, and I don't think that my experience is unique. You are right: we need for people to show up and vote. But they don't, so wishing for it (and I'm not damning you for doing so or even saying you are), let alone relying on it to enact change is a fool's game--it's never happened. In this country, at least, massive, groundbreaking change has always come from above. Abolitionists struggled for decades and failed. Lincoln--who was not an abolitionist, really--won election and slavery ended in a few short bloody years. Populists and Progressives waved banners and struck for 50 years off and on, but it took FDR's New Deal to solidify and codify much of what those organizations strived for.
                  All of which would seem to support your thesis, but if abolitionists, Populists, and Progressives hadn't taken to the streets for those hard and long years, figuratively and literally, I would wager our nation's history would look a lot differently and a lot worse than it does.
                  Getting people engaged in electoral politics requires three things: problems that need solving, people willing and able to step up onto the stump to help solve them, and organizations to channel popular energy successfully. We have plenty of the first, but nowhere near enough of the second, apparently, and only the right has enough consistency in the third to produce lasting results.
                  People showed up to vote for Obama in 2008, but it is hard to claim that he has been in any way transformative, and because of that, I would say, those same voters didn't show up in 2010. The fact that his defenders have to strain so greatly to convince us differently proves the point. He is not going to be the country's savior that imho we need right now, and with that lost opportunity (if it truly existed at all), I think we're doomed for the rest of my lifetime.

          •  it seems to be (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wsexson

            spreading as last weekend showed. People, have no choice in many cases, they are limited to Coke or Pepsi looks to me like they are sick of the lot of them. The Democrat's better respond to the populist stirrings and start representing the people, fighting for them. People are not going to vote or get 'enthusiastic' about just another new boss same as the old boss when they are hurting like this. Elections count as Nancy once said, as she promptly  took all remedies off the table.  

            •  We shall see, to be sure (0+ / 0-)

              I hope you are correct about the spread. Republicans still control the majority of the states, though, and will blow apart most of the redistricting chances we had to introduce fairer districts and a more correct representation in Congress. Iirc, most of the states losing reps are blue, making it even worse.

    •  the "current law" makes sure that they (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, TerryDarc, worldlotus, Catsmeat

      can't do something worse.

      GAHhhhhhhhhh, if intelligent people like Kossacks don't understand the damn law, how can we expect morons who follow Beck and Palin to understand it?>


      Emo's Prayer - "Lord, please break the laws of the universe for my convenience" - Emo Philips

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 08:41:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But how reliable are those estimates? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        roadbear, arpear

        If a state says that, sure, our private health insurance market will cover everyone just fine, I'd like to know how much of a burden of proof is required.

        I hadn't anticipated that states like Vermont might try to do better, by going single-payer.  That would be great, if it happens.  My worry when I first heard about this was that red states would try to get off doing as little as they possibly could, demanding a waiver and claiming as big a theoretical result as possible for their minimal systems, then just letting the ACA's guarantees collapse in their states.

  •  Another Obama CAVE (0+ / 0-)

    It weakens HCR marginally and panders to State's Rights
    goons.
    As expected.

    •  Wow, the ODS crowd is really grasping at straws (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gray, wader, VickiL, TerryDarc, worldlotus, arpear

      The typical ODS response to this good news is to resort to the Magic Wand Theorum; everything is achievable through Obama's action.

      The corollary to this theorem is that Obama is evil; whatever good isn't achieved is a result of Obama's will.

      This is a new level of derangement, arguing that allowing states to experiment while exceeding the base level metrics is some form of a cave.

    •  Yay for lame attacks (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      arpear

      that offer no insight or solutions.

      Of course, this couldn't be a reasonably smart means of pushing against union-busting, public worker-firing, trickle-up political plays by the elite-anointing Republicans at this point in time, among other things.  Naw.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 09:27:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Who makes the official call on all the comparables (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wsexson, roadbear
    •  Good question! I assume... (0+ / 0-)

      ...that such metrics as percentage of people covered (that was  mentioned), amount of $$'s out of pocket by the covered, percent of major conditions covered.

      Ron Wyden has experience with Oregon Plan healthcare which has been going on for many years covering (or trying to) lower income people. There is a list of procedures that are covered, based (I believe) on input from the medical community that says "this year we're going to cover the top 625 conditions". Next year it might be 595 and the year after 640 depending upon funding.

      "Always remember this: They fight with money and we resist with time, and they’re going to run out of money before we run out of time." -Utah Philips

      by TerryDarc on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 09:41:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's better than a sharp stick in the eye (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, arpear

    . . .which would not be covered by your insurance as it was probably a pre-existing condition.

  •  You know what? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VickiL, TerryDarc, tweeternik, radv005, arpear

    This is really brilliant.

    The states that get single payer first, just watch.  They will kick ass.

    What businesses wouldn't want to move to a state where they don't have to pay for their employees health insurance?!?!  Are you kidding?  Those states are going to boom, and the GOP is going to have a hard time spinning that.  Of course, there will still be the die-hard blind ignoramuses, but their numbers will dwindle.

    Bernie knows this, and he's got to be psyched.  I hope California will be right there with Vermont!!

    "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

    by La Gitane on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 10:05:52 AM PST

    •  Wait until it offers a competitive edge for biz! (0+ / 0-)

      And when businesses flock to states with lower insurance costs, leaving the redneck south gasping for breath, they may see the error of their ways. But maybe again, not.

      "Always remember this: They fight with money and we resist with time, and they’re going to run out of money before we run out of time." -Utah Philips

      by TerryDarc on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 10:19:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Always wondered about this (0+ / 0-)

      Why haven't U.S. businesses supported single payer over the years? That way they could get out of providing HC benefits and concentrate on core business and be more globally competitive.

      Must be either afraid of having to offer other benefits to attract workers (pensions, long vacations). Or maybe just ideological blinders. I don't know. It's always baffled me though.

      •  Insurance benefits give Big Business (0+ / 0-)

        an advantage over smaller competitors. The system is rigged to discourage workers from changing jobs too often or asking for wage increases. And, Big Boys can play the numbers the same way the InsurCo's do, by getting rid of older workers before they start to drive up premiums. Their smaller competitors tend to be less ruthless toward long-time employees.

        Have you noticed?
        Politicians who promise LESS government
        only deliver BAD government.

        by jjohnjj on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 03:29:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  We'll soon find out if those GOP governors... (0+ / 0-)

    well, we would find out about their real motives if this actually passed.

    Of course, I don't see how it has a chance of making it through the House.  Do you?

    Guide to my comments: When in doubt, assume sarcasm.

    by Gray on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 10:34:23 AM PST

  •  PacifiCare. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Arnie

    There.

    I named it.

    Will the revolution be easier if we HR each other a lot?

    by JesseCW on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 10:59:11 AM PST

  •  Who is going to pay (0+ / 0-)

    Who is going to pay for all the red states when all the people are broke and ill?

    So tired of the VOCAL MINORITY getting their way.

    And also, we need to restore the anti-monopoly laws to help restore our fourth estate.

  •  Don't count on Democratic governors (0+ / 0-)

    to do the right thing either.  Jerry Brown hasn't indicated any willingness to sign a single-payer bill like the ones that are habitually shot down in California, that I am aware of.  Happy to be wrong, of course.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site