E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Ali Weinberg
A bipartisan group of governors praised President Obama’s announcement to speed up the start date for states to opt out of policies enacted under the health care law.
Speaking at a press conference during the National Governors’ Association winter meeting, NGA Chair and Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) said that while she wasn’t ready to endorse the plan as the head of the NGA, she was sure that many governors would support it.
“I can assure you there’s a considerable amount of interest among the governors,” she said, adding that she and her Republican vice chair, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, would have to consult with their fellow governors before endorsing the plan.
Republican Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas also praised the announcement – a sign of its bipartisan support (given that Brownback was one of 28 Republican governors to sign a letter in support of the lawsuits against the health care law in Virginia and Florida).
“This offers a little bit of flexibility, which I think is a positive thing. But it doesn’t change the overall objection to the bill,” Brownback said.
Gregoire added that during the governors’ meeting with President Obama today, he requested that the governors form a bipartisan group that would come up with ways to reduce Medicaid costs, possibly with the end goal of recommending a package of changes to Congress.
Leave a Comment:
Would have been nice for this article to more fully explain what the policies were that could be opted out from. Seems to deal with medicaid, but no specifics.
american,
If Obama has a mandate that every 26 year old has to sign up for it to work, how can 26 states that he just fought in court now decide to just opt out and it work?
Something doesn't pass the smell test, does it.
You think?
Nice headline. I guess you hope that people ill only pay attention to the first few words. . .
Opt out are the MOST important words. See, NOBODT like Obamacare.
Not the union- who already have waivers.
Not the governors, who are thrilled at the optmput clause.
Certainly, not the voters.
So, tell me, anybody but the WIFE telling him how wonderful his plan is?
"Certainly, not the voters"? Speak for yourself, because I absolutely support the healthcare law.
Um, you see the midterm results? You are in a tint little minority.
Um, you see the '08 results? A what? A minority??
Oh, so that's the trick - you skip/ignore the most recent election.
Interesting. Or were you refering to Obama?
Any Wisconsin or Indiana state senators at this meeting? Just ask'n.
@JoAnnaSmith1 At the Governor's meeting?
JoAnnaSmith,
Any Wisconsin or Indiana state senators at this meeting? Just ask'n.
Walker wasn't there, thus the freedom to take a gutless cheap-shot:
Christie and Daniels were there:
And yea, Mr. President don't get to comfortable yourself.
no joe,
Class act, huh.
37% of eligible voters turned out for 2010 US election day.
56.8% of eligible voters turned out for 2008 US election day.
OH NO.. say it ain't so! lol
Mandate my a@@!
It looks like Obama is trying to play CYA to try to buy off the states. Hopefully, the governors are bright enough to figure out what the shyster is trying to do.
Considering that Gregoire is democrat, of course she would consider it a good idea. I'm not sure about Heineman, but he may have beentrying to be polite by the way his response reads.
Again, another example of how the president is listening and supporting amendments to his signature legislation to make it maliable for the states. Far from what the republicans are doing in trying to repeal it outright. Seems like a more responsible approach, then rip and replace. Assuming there was something to replace it with, which we know there is not.
It doesn't really Matter in the end. The Bill has been found to be Unconstitutional............ The Obama Administration is Appealing the Ruling and soon it will be headed to the Supreme Court where the Judges Rulling will Be Upheld. I bet that really pisses you off doesn't it..
Bryan E, I agree. States, as Pres Obama explained this morning, could have opted out in 2017 as long as the state's plan are viable and meet the requirements in HCR--they can't just opt out without a better or equal alternative. This is one of those parts of the Affordable Health Care bill that was rarely, if ever, discussed by the media and was certainly never mentioned by republicans because it did not suit the scenario they were painting.
How about this scenario Jody - what happens when California, Ill. and New York go bankrupt, or lack the ability to deal with the gigantic increase in their respective shares of Medicaid?
You seem to be applauding the fact that the governors are happy that they can opt out RIGHT NOW. Kind of a bad sign for O'care, no?
Not me. Smug, crass, arrogant ignorance works for me.
Swoon.
Opt out for the states?
Kinda like individuals having the choice to opt.
You can do it ...... you just have to pay fines, or go to jail and .......... then sign up.
Steve
Correction, so far the count stands at 3-2 with two judges saying unconstitutional.
The governor wasn't there, either. Too busy keeping the door to his office barricaded so he isn't attacked by vengeful librarians high on absinthe -- this IS Madison, after all -- and wielding dewey decimal dulcimers.
Job -
The one in Michigan was an individual suit, not one of the states, actually a church that brought it, if I remember correctly. One of the others as well that a liberal court 'refused to hear'.
The thing is, refusing to hear the case is not the same and doesn't carry the same weight as actually hearing a case and then deciding. But then I doube you would see it this way.
Actually, it's falling out about the way conservatives thought it would, with conservative judges actually doing the right thing, regardless of the pressure the Obama administration has tried to use, and judging the case on its merits while the liberal judges kowtow to their lord and master and decide not to even listen to the plaintiff, evenwhen itis a valid case.
So, considering that the conservative judges are building a court record which will make it actually easier for the Supreme Court to decide the issue, this means that the preponderance of evidence on the unconstitutionality of the mandate is there for all to see.
What evidence will the liberal judges have when they didn't even bother to hear the arguments?
Sorry Steve, 3 Federal judges have upheld the bill so far and 2 have disagreed with it. It will be solved in the Supreme Court if it gets that far.
Actually, in researching, I have found that the individual mandate is due to take effect in 2014, and implementation of the other provisions will proceed in the meantime. Some legal expects think that the court may not take up the issue for two years. By that time the number of people who approve of the enacted provisions will sky rocket and the court would not rule against it.
"an awful piece of crap"..............who cares what he says or does about "opt-outs" and waivers, this is going down in the Supreme Court. That's all that matters!
Says the legal expert.
No. What matters is what happens the day after.
By the way, what would be a good piece of cr@p?
By the way, what would be a good piece of cr@p?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Elvis' last turd...some collector paid loads for it and had it BRONZED...:)
Wait till American Pickers get their hands on THAT piece!
No matter what the court says the health care bill will stand. The only thing the high count will rule on will be the mandate to buy insurance.
Job1 ~ Would that were the case. But there is no severability clause, so if they have the votes to strike down the mandate, they will most likely also strike down the entire bill.
And even if they didn't, the insurance companies have already said they want no part of it without the mandate.
Job -
The legislation is dependent upon the mandate and there is no severability clause - it was removed inthe final version, meaning that they meant to remove it. So, mandate struck down = entire debacle struck down.
Anna - The Supreme Court is evenly split between liberals and conservatives - and one moderate, Kennedy. Everyone knows that his will be the deciding vote, and I wouldn't count on him siding with the Obama administration when he publicly chewed out the Supreme Court (who holds equal power to the president) for their decision during his 2010 State of the Union Address.
We all seem to forget the "Necessary and Proper" clause. The mandate is necessary and proper for the enactment of health care reform, just as various reforms in the New Deal were found to be necessary and proper to enact regulation of interstate commerce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause
Point being, until any of the conservatives on this board are appointed to SCOTUS, they have no business commenting on the legality or constitutionality of any bill that passes the house and the seante and is signed into law by the president.
Serverability Clause - brought to you by Faux News. Thanks Faux!
Actually, in researching, I have found that the individual mandate is due to take effect in 2014, and implementation of the other provisions will proceed in the meantime. Some legal expects think that the court may not take up the issue for two years.
Thanks for you input and we will have to wait to see what happens.
"The Supreme Court is evenly split between liberals and conservatives - and one moderate, Kennedy."
How sad that some people are convinced the Supreme Court is entirely politically motivated, without regard to the actual laws and precedent. Not that you're entirely wrong, but if the conservatives find some way to strike down the Health Care Law, it will go against recent cases decided by the conservatives on the Court (See Lopez). Having actually studied law, I don't think even Scalia and his silent-but-deadly lapdog Thomas can find a way to overrule themselves.
The severability clause (or lack thereof) is not really relevent, despite Fox News' Senior Legal Scholar's attempts to claim otherwise. They are used fairly regularly, but they are by no means necessarym especially when it is clear that the laws can be severed.
Edit: Thanks Bryan, you brought up the exact issues discussed by the conservative majority in Lopez. Since they expanded government rights under the Necessary and Proper Clause, there really isn't any way for them to overrule themselves, now that we have a Democratic President.
The individual mandate is due to take effect in 2014, and implementation of the other provisions will proceed in the meantime. Some legal expects think that the court may not take up the issue for two years. By that time the number of people who approve of the enacted provisions will sky rocket and the court would not rule against it.
Uh, oh. Even a moderately positive comment on an Obama policy is going to get Brownback into trouble with the extremist nutcases that run the Republican Party now. If he wants to get anywhere in the new GOP, he needs to emulate Orrin Hatch's toilet mouth.
America wake up don't count on any recommendations from the Governor of Washington. She is chasing any big companies out of our state as fast as she can. She is a union lover and very inept.
Wonder how those people in the respective states will feel about not being able to get healthcare because of their governor's political agenda.
Excellent question. But do you think the governors should tell those people in their states how much their taxes would go up to support ObamaCare? And if so, should the governors tell them before they raise their taxes, or should it just be a surprise?
Governor Walker votes don't tell them. He likes surprises.
If they Re pubs have A better plan , now is the time to come out with it !!!
And what is it with the number 700,000 jobs will be lost, don't they know any other numbers when it comes to losing jobs??? could this number be a coincidence, or is it their policies that gets that kind of results, when it comes to losing jobs ???
They did. They repealed it.
Repealing something is different from providing an alternative plan or idea.
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare
Neither have they repealed it nor have they passed an alternative plan. The rest is all disingenuous rhetoric.
Considering the democrats wouldn't allow any republican legislation to the floor during the last Congress, I don't see this as the fault of the republicans. They have had possible solutions and posted them online - the democrats and liberals just refused to 'see' as in "Nope, can't see it. It's not there" and all while keeping their eyes closed.
First things first, though. We have to take out the garbage first - and that means getting rid of Obamacare.
The house can pass all kinds of legislation which would indicate their intentions on reforms. There is no requirement that something be repealed before the house can vote on its version of the replacement legislation. Why would you want to talk about the last congress, where the RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-ans kept 300 bills which had passed the house from ever coming up for a vote in the Senate? If you want to talk about the past, we should discuss Dick Cheney and his lapdog Bush.
Yours is the very RHETORIC which I wrote of in comment #6.7
JAS1,
There you go again spreading rumor and mistruth. The republicans didn't REPEAL healthcare. They VOTED to repeal healthcare. The repeal didn't pass the senate. There is a very big difference. Do you follow my logic? Do you recognize that it is still LAW?
So if every interest groups such as teachers, unions, and big business etc..can opt out of obama care, why are the rest of the americans being told they have to have it. This type of government mandate is unconstitutional, obama knows it, as did pelosi and reid when it was rammed down our throats during pelosi's days when she was house speaker, they definetly had some sleazy back door deals going and did everything in their power to screw over the american people, well with any lock in the near future, obamas health care will be repealed and he of course wil no longer be a president, that only listens to special interest groups, What a mess he has made of our country, our nation and the whole economy and budget as a whole, only he who had no experience to be our so called leader, can keep raising our dept when there is no more money to spend. OBAMA needs to pay more attention to the tax payers and less to the special interest groups. He is and will be a one term president, known in history books as the worst american president ever. Didn't think anyone could get worse than carter, but it has happend.
Check your facts. Carter is not the worst president, Bush took that over big time, is in the top 5 worst presidents of all presidents.
The mess our country is in started with Bush, FACT! Check the facts on presidents money coming into office and leaving and what they did in the meantime. Bush takes the cake, and Obama has to clean it up. Note I said HAS, it is a big mess and is going to take more than 2 years to do so.
Republican version of health care, 3 million people are covered only. Not much of a health care bill there and a lot of the other provisions in there are already in Obama's present health care bill. How does that help the states?
You are dreaming ,Icheckfacts, The whole world knows that Carter is the worst US President that ever warmed the seat in the WH. Bush liberated millions of Arabs and kicked the butt of the terrorists. But you don't seem to appreciate that. Give one iota of Carter's achievement. Carter opened the door to terror. He failed miserably when he failed to rescue the hostages. His Marxist policies failed in social engineering. Even Lenin was more successful than him. What a joke.
icheckfacts,
Be careful how you describe the criminal actions of the former POTUS GWB. It will garner much nasty hatred from those on this board who are still enamoured by his crafty accounting, what with keeping two UNFUNDED and UNNECESSARY wars off the books, making him look fiscally more responsible than he actually was.
If the three Macbeth sisters of Jody, Fiesty and Johanna and their Progressive friends of the Democratic Party think that by granting concessions such as legalizing gay marriage , relenting on parts of the obnoxious Obamacare health plan and other such concessions by Barry is going to win him the next election , they are sadly mistaken. Barry think he smart.
JuvenBachan
"Barry think he smart". What does that make you?
Just wondering. Which Supreme Court judge in his right mind will tolerate the big garbage heap of Obamacare. I'm sure they wouldn't want to be tangled up in their daily lives as well as their professional lives trying to untangle this heap of crap day in day out when lawsuits are coming down the pipe. They have better things to do and take care of , knowing that Obamacare is trying to force us to buy something we don't want and further it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Anyone remember Hilliarycare? Do we need a repeat of the Progressive social engineering which they seem to have a delight in telling people what to do.
Fine. I'll just leave this here, since so few are discussing anything beyond their emotional outrage. The Supreme Court still has to follow the law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez
"Following the Lopez decision, Congress rewrote the law with the necessary interstate-commerce "hook" used in other Federal Gun Laws. The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 is currently in effect and has been upheld by several United States Appellate Courts. None of the convictions occurring under the revised 1995 law have been overturned as a result of the Lopez decision."
Maroonista, Your name speak for yourself. You should stay on your island.
Progressives, Soon will be coming Michellecare in the department of food. Look out Independents, Conservatives and all those Americans who love their MacDonalds and Dunkin' Donuts. One of these days Michellecare will be sneaking up in your plates and cups.
You are a good example of why people hate the tea party.