E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Chuck Todd and Domenico Montanaro
President Obama is endorsing a plan to let states ask for waivers on mandates in the health-care law earlier, starting 2014, instead of 2017. The news was first reported by the New York Times. Some bullet points:
-- This doesn't mean states can opt-out of hitting specific coverage targets, but if they have other ideas that would still cover as many people, they can circumvent some of the health-care law's requirements.
-- He will endorse the concept of the Ron Wyden-Scott Brown legislation, which moves up the start date when states can seek waivers from the health-care law from 2017 to 2014, they are called "innovation waivers" - if they can come up with ways to incentivize people to buy insurance rather than require it.
As the law currently stands, an indvidual state can basically seek a waiver from any part of the law starting in 2017, if they can prove they will meet the coverage and affordability options stated in the president's health-care law.
This allows states to:
-- introduce new options for coverage
-- have some flexibility in choosing whether to make some Medicaid recipients purchase insurance through exchanges
-- seek a waiver from the individual mandate
This new plan would move that start date up to 2014.
The Times frames this as Obama "seeking to appease disgruntled governors." More from the Times:
Senior administration officials said Mr. Obama would reveal to the National Governors Association in a speech on Monday morning that he backs legislation that would enable states to request federal permission to withdraw from the law's mandates in 2014 rather than in 2017. 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.
The announcement is the first time Mr. Obama has called for changing a central component of his signature health care law, although he has backed removing a specific tax provision that both parties regard as onerous on business. The shift comes as the law is under fierce attack in the courts and from Republicans on Capitol Hill and in statehouses around the country.
Leave a Comment:
The new Health Care Bill is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNTIL THE SUPREME COURT SAYS IT IS. Until then everyone is just talking out of their bungs. BlahBlah...Pfffft!
IMO, the neo-cons (politicians/corporate donors/Fox News propaganda machine) need to do everything they can to stop the health care legislation from proceeding before the average American really can understand what it is and what it is not, or God forbid realize any benefits from it.
It's funny how the neo-con zombie horde continue to parrot what they hear spouted relentlessly from the "Fair and Balanced" blowhards of radio and TV. If you are getting your "news" from a single source, chances are it is not fair or balanced. Chances are it is propaganda.
You're exactly wrong. The judge in Florida declared the entire health care bill unconstitutional; that was the final judgement on this disastrous law. Unless the Supreme Court reverses this ruling, Obamacare is dead. It has been declared unconstitutional. We'll see.
No. One outlier Judge in one state cannot strike down a Federal law that easily. It's been dismissed by about 20 states, 2 other states found the entire law Consitutional, and one Judge struck down only the mandate. You really think one decision ends the whole discussion? AG Bill McCollum forum-shopped the entire state of Florida to find the one Judge he knew would further his political agenda.
Nope. If you actually read the opinion, it is a quasi-insane gift-wrapped present to the Tea Party. It lacks precedence or legal analysis, probably because the Judge wanted something that an "average Joe" with am 8th grade education could read. He even talks nonsense about "what if the original tea party protestors in Boston were forced by the government to drink tea." Could he be any clearer in his intent to run for public office?
In the meantime, the states are required to prepare for the new laws. If a state refuses to follow the existing law (I'm looking at you, Alaska), the Federal government can step in and do it for them.
@Real: No, I am not "exactly wrong". Your judge in Florida is not the "final judgement" as you go on to correctly contradict yourself with "...Unless the Supreme Court reverses this ruling".
We will indeed see.
You are incorrect. As I stated, unless the Supreme court reverses the Florida judge's ruling, Obamacare is dead; it has been ruled unconstitutional. I believe this judgement will be upheld by the Supreme Court, but we'll see. Any one of the twenty-six states involved in the suit could ask the judge to hold the Obama administration in contempt of court immediately. This has not been done yet, but technically the Obama administration is in contempt of court if they spend even a penny of taxpayer money until and unless further adjudication reverses this decision.
@Real: Oh geezuz! Your "unless" negates everything else you say. The fact that you "believe" your wingnut judge's decision will be upheld by the Supreme Court does not make it final. You're stating an opinion based on a judge's ruling that you happen to agree with.
And, if any one of the 26 states thought they could rationally ask a judge to hold the Obama administration in contempt of court, they would have done it already. Your blather is wingnut bullwhacky at its finest...
Did you know that the Florida judge's decision is enforceable only in the territory governed by the federal courts of Florida’s northern district? What's that, like Pensacola? Did you know that while appeals are pending, nothing stops the U.S. government from enforcing the health-care legislation outside of those districts where part or all of it has been invalidated?
The health care legislation is far from dead. It is you, sir, who are incorrect.
ROFL! obama must have finally finished reading that monstrosity of a bill! and said, holy shiite! i need to let states have a WAIVER cuz this crap COSTS TOO MUCH!!!
I don't agree with the new healthcare law at all. How can he expect everyone to afford health insurance when we can barely afford food and gas. A lot of people in the south do not have health insurance and Obama saying if we don't have it by 2014 we will have a huge penalty...what is that suppose to mean?? I mean it is our life why can't we decide if we want health insurance or not??? Does anyone agree???
And yet some people wonder... how can they afford food and gas when they can barely afford paying their medical bills?
very true Jay T
Safecracker: If I were you, I would ask the Koch brothers, the Tea Party and the Republicans, for your waiver. Why are you so against United Health care for all? When I hear John Boehner stated, "if a few jobs a lost; so be it!" How many is a few? I thought Republicans had the answer and jobs would be the primary concerns, when Republicans took power. Well they have power in the House, where are the jobs? I mention this FACT because, when people are not working, they will not receive a "waiver." And they be paying taxes.
It appears, Republicans are using unions, to weaken any power the middle class has remaining. When your attitude of job loss is "so be it." who will pay taxes? Who will provide for those families where the feelings of the majority of the House, is "so be it?"
John Boehner has been asked repeatedly, "Where are the jobs?' One might ask him, "if a few jobs are lost, so be it" YOURS! I happily share, by contributing to charities and volunteer but my contributions are a mere pittance, compared to what the Koch brothers could give. Where are the jobs? Where is the money? Where is the health care?
Over 900 waivers to companies for this right now. If this was so good, why are there any waivers.