Obama retreats, allows states to REQUEST earlier opt-out from Obamacare

[Little-Acorn]

The article's title (and first sentence) is incorrect. The reporter finally gets it right by the second sentence, but never does get around to correcting his earlier errors.

Obama is backing a new plan, but that plan does NOT allow states to opt out of Obamacare earlier. It only allows them to REQUEST to be left out, earlier. It says nothing about whether those requests will be granted by the all-powerful Federal government, to the subject states.

If all 57 states were to request to opt out, or even a majority of them, do you think those requests would be granted?

If the states (all of them) could unilaterally reject Obamacare, probably all of them would, possibly excepting Massachusetts which would love to shift the disaster of Romneycare state universal health care out of the state capitol and onto the Fed govt.

This would kill Obama care dead, dead, dead. Socialism never works unless everyone is forced to participate whether they like it or not... and then it only works for a limited time, until ALL participants run out of money.

---------------------------------

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatc...ation/146443-obama-backs-health-reform-change

Obama backtracks on health mandate, allows opt-out from start
By Jason Millman - 02/28/11 11:31 AM ET

President Obama is backing a plan that would allow states to opt out earlier from one of the new healthcare reform law’s most unpopular elements.

Speaking to nation’s governors Monday morning, Obama said states should be able to seek an earlier opt-out from the healthcare overhaul’s requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance.

The law allows states to request a waiver for the requirement in 2017, but Obama said he will support moving the date up to 2014, when the so-called individual mandate goes into effect.

The announcement marks the first significant change backed by Obama since the Democratic Congress approved healthcare reform 11 months ago.

Check back for updates to this story.

 

[Little-Acorn]

One effect this would have that I can see, is that when the Supreme Court gets the case where the Mandate was found unconstitutional, now they'll be more likely to declare the case moot and throw it out, since "See, the mandate has been removed as of 2014, so there's no need to try this case any more".

Hopefully some lawyer will mention that applying for the opt-out, doesn't mean GETTING the opt-out.

Recall the DC v. Heller case, when the Wash DC gun ban was found unconstitutional and the DC City Council was ordered to provide "reasonable means" (or whatever their phraseology was) for people to keep handguns. The City Council set up a permit process where any could apply for a permit to own a gun, and anyone who got the permit could legally keep one. Everyone was happy.

Except the City Council then began rejecting every permit application. Including Heller's, the guy who originally brought the Supreme Court case.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Several people have pointed out to me, that the only way states would be allowed to "opt out" of Federal Obamacare, is if they show the Federal Govt that they are already implementing the provisions of Obamacare before the Fed gets there to force them to do it! Or implementing provisions that were "as good or better". In that case, the Fed won't force them.

Sort of like a mugger who says to you, "I was going to use this gun to force you to give me the $500 you have there in your wallet. But if I get to you and find your money is already in my pocket, then I won't pull out the gun. In this way, you can 'opt out' of being mugged."

And the leftist fanatics who were pointing this out to me, were presenting it as a good thing.......!!

 

[dogtowner]

Its still unconstitutional.

 

[Rick]

Its still unconstitutional.

I don't know. This is an extremely clever move concocted by obozo's leftwing lawyer brain trust. It may short circuit the legitimate claim that there is no authority under the constitution to force people to buy insurance.

 

[nobull]

One effect this would have that I can see, is that when the Supreme Court gets the case where the Mandate was found unconstitutional, now they'll be more likely to declare the case moot and throw it out, since "See, the mandate has been removed as of 2014, so there's no need to try this case any more".

Hopefully some lawyer will mention that applying for the opt-out, doesn't mean GETTING the opt-out.

Recall the DC v. Heller case, when the Wash DC gun ban was found unconstitutional and the DC City Council was ordered to provide "reasonable means" (or whatever their phraseology was) for people to keep handguns. The City Council set up a permit process where any could apply for a permit to own a gun, and anyone who got the permit could legally keep one. Everyone was happy.

Except the City Council then began rejecting every permit application. Including Heller's, the guy who originally brought the Supreme Court case.

Sounds right to me..you have been thinking..thanks

something to dwell on
doug

 

[BigRob]

In his statement on the matter, Obama indicated such opt-outs would only come if the states were giving the same (or better) level of "care" that would come under the federal law.

So basically, he has said that states can either follow the federal law, or "opt out" for a system that is basically the federal law administered by the state.

 

[dogtowner]

I don't know. This is an extremely clever move concocted by obozo's leftwing lawyer brain trust. It may short circuit the legitimate claim that there is no authority under the constitution to force people to buy insurance.

Its more uncopnstitutional really. Its not equal to all in addition to beyond the fees's constitutional limits.

 

[Dr.Who]

I don't know. This is an extremely clever move concocted by obozo's leftwing lawyer brain trust. It may short circuit the legitimate claim that there is no authority under the constitution to force people to buy insurance.

Right.

On the one hand the fed says that the states must respect all rights that the fed must respect but on the other hand it says that the states can do things the fed can't.

So while the establishment clause is a restriction of federal powers only the feds say that the states must also not pass any laws establishing a religion.

But then the feds don't have the power to force people to buy a product and now the feds say the states do have that right.

The truth is that the constitution limits the feds but not the states.

 

[Dr.Who]

In his statement on the matter, Obama indicated such opt-outs would only come if the states were giving the same (or better) level of "care" that would come under the federal law.

So basically, he has said that states can either follow the federal law, or "opt out" for a system that is basically the federal law administered by the state.

If a state is able to opt out of the clause making the purchase mandatory will the citizens still pay higher federal taxes as a result of the law? So If my state opts out I get to pay taxes to the fed to support obamacare and also to my state for its program.

Its just like the public school/private school scam.