PDA

View Full Version : The Stupid Complained But Didn't READ....PAR!



Gayle in MD
03-24-2010, 01:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstitutional: You don't have to abide by it -- just set up your own plan.

The Oregon Democrat isn't inviting opponents to defy the newly-enacted health care law. Instead, he's pointing out a provision in the bill that makes moot the argument over the legality of the individual mandate.

Speaking to the Huffington Post on Tuesday, Wyden discussed -- for one of the first times in public -- legislative language he authored which "allows a state to go out and do its own bill, including having no individual mandate."

It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."

"Why don't you use the waiver provision to let you go set up your own plan?" the senator asked those who threaten health-care-related lawsuits. "Why would you just say you are going to sue everybody, when this bill gives you the authority and the legal counsel is on record as saying you can do it without an individual mandate?"

The provision actually was taken directly from Wyden's Healthy Americans Act -- the far-more innovative health care reform legislation he authored with Republican co-sponsors. In that bill there is also an individual mandate that would require Americans to purchase insurance coverage. But states that found the mandate objectionable could simply create and insert a new system in its place. All it would require is applying for a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services, which has a 180-day window to confirm or deny such a waiver.

That language has been inserted, almost verbatim, into the bill Obama signed into law on Tuesday. And if there is any confusion about how much leverage it gives states to drop the mandate, Wyden cleared it up months ago during a hearing at the Senate Finance Committee.

"So let us review how the waiver language works now, because my reading of what we have in the bill now is, if a state can demonstrate that they can meet the criteria -- particularly on cost containment, improving the delivery system -- they can do it without an individual mandate," the senator said at the time. "And can I ask counsel, is that a correct reading of the Waiver Amendment that I offered the chairman has accepted at this point?"

The counsel replied: "Yes."

"The individual mandate has always been one of the most contentious aspects of health reform. I think every United States Senator believes that citizens should show some personal responsibility. That's something that is widely accepted. Unfortunately, an individual mandate can mean something different, and that's why the issue has been so contentious," Wyden said. "But counsel has now indicated -- and it was in line with what I thought we had drafted -- if you can meet the requirements of the waiver in the mark, you can do it without an individual mandate."

</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">LMAO, geuss they should have thought about reading the damn bill, before they started making all their threats about sueing.

Typical Republican stupidity. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
03-24-2010, 02:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."</div></div>So basically what he is saying is if the States want to Constitutionally do nothing and allow the people to go at it themselves then they will be overrun by the unConstitutional HC bill. What a freaking schmuck Wyden is.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-24-2010, 03:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."</div></div>So basically what he is saying is if the States want to Constitutionally do nothing and allow the people to go at it themselves then they will be overrun by the unConstitutional HC bill. What a freaking schmuck Wyden is.

eg8r </div></div>

No, that isn't what he is saying at all.

G.

LWW
03-24-2010, 03:30 PM
Odd that they don't get to opt out of the taxation involved?

Silly republicans did read the bill.

LWW

wolfdancer
03-24-2010, 08:12 PM
Gayle, don't bother explaining it to them....as they will read into it what they want to, just as I do.
I see the need for affordable health care for as many as possible, but I also wonder how it can be done feasibly?
While some here would deny HC for indigent seniors, it would be different if they were their Mother, or a close relative.
The same resentment against long term hc, perhaps life time HC for poor children afflicted with something like MS, or MD, unless they were related.
Given the odds, somebody here will also need affordable HC during their lifetime.
I probably won't, given the current threats to my life by the two storm troopers.

Sev
03-24-2010, 08:21 PM
Funny they dont talk about the Washington withholding funding to states that opt out.

wolfdancer
03-24-2010, 08:42 PM
Not my thread...I plead "liberal",.. therefore too dumb to understand what the bill passage entails, according to the Big Red Machine. There appears to be an overabundance of think tankers on the right side of the aisle; SO I'd suggest that you continue the discussion with them, and then do likewise from now on (thanks)

Gayle in MD
03-25-2010, 06:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not my thread...I plead "liberal",.. therefore too dumb to understand what the bill passage entails, according to the Big Red Machine. There appears to be an overabundance of think tankers on the right side of the aisle; SO I'd suggest that you continue the discussion with them, and then do likewise from now on (thanks) </div></div>

If only. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

eg8r
03-25-2010, 08:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I see the need for affordable health care for as many as possible, but I also wonder how it can be done feasibly?</div></div>Excellent question. One only needs to look at all the other "players" that have been trying this out and see where they are. To be honest it does not look good anywhere.

eg8r