Did Obama just move to save the health care law?

CBS

President Obama announced Monday morning that he supports a plan to allow states to essentially opt out of much of the health care law in 2014, so long as they come up with state-based plans that match the law in terms of extending coverage and benefits and don't add to the deficit.

The measure, if passed by Congress, would move the potential opt-out date up from 2017 to 2014 -- the same year that many of the key provisions go into effect, including the individual mandate, which has served as the basis for constitutional challenges to the law in court.

The president's announcement raised questions about whether the White House was trying to find a way around the legal challenges to the law by changing it to make them moot. Two district court judges have thus far found the law to be unconstitutional, while three have upheld it; the matter is likely headed to the Supreme Court.

Gregory Magarian, a constitutional law expert and law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said he didn't think the move would make a difference when it came to constitutional challenges. Magarian believes the law is constitutional.

"The constitutional challenges depend on the idea that the Affordable Care Act violates states' prerogatives under the 10th Amendment," he told Hotsheet. "Following that logic, the opt-out simply gives states the option of capitulating to federal policy or submitting to an intrusive federal bureaucracy that, as you noted, holds the states to standards of the federal law. The challengers might even argue that the terms of the opt-out amount to 'commandeering' of state governments, which the Supreme Court recognizes as a different sort of 10th Amendment violation, because - in the challengers' view - the alternative to the opt-out is unconstitutional."

In a briefing with reporters, two senior administration officials said the change was not designed to address court challenges to the law. They also said they did not know how many states will seek a waiver - but they pointed to Oregon as well as Massachusetts, a state that already has a similar health care law in place.

Relatively liberal states, as the Associated Press notes, might use the opt-out option to implement more comprehensive, Medicare-like health care programs, while relatively conservative ones might propose an alternative that does not include the individual mandate. (That might be tough to actually pull off, however, since to receive the waiver, states must match the Affordable Care Act in terms of comprehensiveness, cost and availability of coverage. Democrats have long argued that the individual mandate is necessary to achieve such goals.)

The measure does put Republicans in a difficult position in terms of how to vote. On the one hand, they have railed against the individual mandate as an encroachment of liberty - and this proposal allows states, at least in theory, to avoid it. That would seem to be a reason to vote for the change. On the other hand, the price for opting out is so high that conservatives could see the proposal as an attempt to force an overreaching health care plan onto states by any means possible. And they certainly don't want to change the law in a way that could keep it from being overturned by the Supreme Court.

[kem1963]

Also if it is so great why did the republicans try to admend this below and the democrates voted against it....BECAUSE IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH THEM THEY DESERVE BETTER.....
S.Amdt. 3564 To make sure the President Cabinet Members all White House Senior staff and Congressional Committee and Leadership Staff are purchasing health insurance through the health insurance exchanges established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Democrats Nay:40 Yea: 3 / Republicans Yea: 56 Nay:0

[to_john]

I don't have a choice now. If I don't like private insurance, I'm dead. Under a single-payer system, If you don't like single payer, you get private insurance. Nobody has ever talked about getting rid of all insurance, but because there is a single payer option, 1.) nobody goes without, 2.) the insured don't pay extra for the uninsured to go the ER, 3.) people don't go bankrupt when they get sick, 4.) costs go down because people can go to the doctor before small illnesses get big, 5.) private insurers must compete with the single payer, reducing private insurer rates, 6.) there will be a national interest in keeping people healthy instead of a corporate interest in keeping people sick, 7.) the bureaucracy and overhead of healthcare will go DOWN because you don't have to fight with insurance companies over what and who is covered, 8.) the cost of healthcare services and supplies will go DOWN because of the bargaining power of the entire nation, 9.) entrepreneurs will start small businesses and create jobs because they won't be afraid to lose their health insurance when they quit their slave labor jobs, 10.) states and corporations won't be held hostage to the cost of health insurance, 11.) the US economy will be able to compete fairly with other developed and developing nations who have universal healthcare, 12.) individual costs will go down because EVERYONE will pay into the system, 13.) people will have a choice of service levels and options because they can CHOOSE to add private insurance, 14.) doctors will not waste their time arguing with insurance companies and will be able to spend more time healing the sick and preventing illness, 15.)...

Where are the negatives to universal health care? Oh, I guess there is one, the bloodsucking insurance companies will not be able to profit from keeping people sick.

[doctor_know]

Yup

[sindi1369]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/special-reports/2011/01/special-report-examiner-special-report-plain-truth-about-who-owns-de

[Beyond-The-Spectrum]

Any politician who is against helping people gain access to affordable health insurance should have their own government-sponsored health plans canceled. Give them a voucher instead and let them buy their insurance on the open market. Let's see how great they think it is then.

Beyond-The-Political-Spectrum.blogspot

[RatPackSixGun]

Ok mr. chevyhotrod, give an example of something Democrats proposed and Republicans tried to pass and all Democrats voted against it.

I think chevyhotrod can speak for himself, but I'd be happy to point out that when the Dems don't get their way, they simply leave the state house and don't participate. Wisconsin would be Exhibit A.

Silly Democrats, not participating in democracy. Maybe they should rename their party to technocrats. Or maybe just Fascists.

[Ericwvb]

I think I finally have discovered a real difference between Republicans and Democrats. The difference is that Republicans, unlike Democrats, will fight like a bear guarding her cubs if Democrats try to pass bills that were originally created by the Republicans. The "individual mandate" was created by Republicans as a "free market counter" to the Democrats favored health care solution which was "Medicare for all." Of course, what was a great idea when the Republicans proposed it turns into a "socialist" plan that will mean the end of the Republican and the beginning of Sharia law if the Democrats propose it. The hope is that everyone has enough collective amnesia to see what is going on here.

[Ericwvb]

Ok mr. chevyhotrod, give an example of something Democrats proposed and Republicans tried to pass and all Democrats voted against it.

Medicare is not bankrupt and costs could be greatly contained if government would stop sucking up to Big Pharma and the insurance companies; for example, not outlawing the government to use their purchasing power to lower the cost of drugs. Medicare's costs have rising at a lower pace than private insurance. Source: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/medicare-versus-insurers.

EVERY single industrialized nation has universal coverage at half the cost or less than our system. Obviously what we are doing now is not working.

[7colorado]

Republicans and Democrats are not one and the same. The first order of business of the newly elected Republican house was to preserve tax breaks that primarily benefit the wealthy. Second order of busness try to kill health care which primarily benefits the poor and middle class.

[mary-miami]

If it's optional for the states to have the healthcare program, then it will depend on what party the governor belongs to. Suppose a state has the program and then a new (republican)governor decides to opt out? The states will be switching back and forth depending on who's in the governor's mansion. If a democrat governor is elected his constituents will expect him to institute the new healthcare program. I'm glad I moved out of Florida and into New York state. At least NY has a Democratic governor who cares about people.

[davidd5063]

For everyone claiming to understand capitalism and socialism, and how the new ACA is going to "cost them money" take a lesson in economics. We already have SOCIALSIM through the FEDERAL mandate that health care providers NOT deny care to anyone in emergency need. Due to the ever rising number of uninsured and poor, health care providers faced two options years ago 1) shut down 2) pass the costs on to others (you all claim to be experts on "capitalism"). They obviously opted for #2 and health care costs have been far out-pacing inflation for decades now. YOU AND THE GOVT (you again) ALREADY PAY FOR THE UNINSURED COVERED BY THE ACA, the ACA simply gives all consumers of health care a better chance of controlling the costs through group purchasing and preventative care. If you want to get rid of SOCIALISM, get rid of the federal mandate - good luck with that.

[cambry1]

Since the vast majority of people in the US can't afford it, what difference does it make who controls the distribution of "medical care"? In this neck of the woods, we hold soup suppers to raise a few dollars for those who spend a day or two in hospital. One guy here recently had heart surgery (hospitalized for 3 days) and was left holding the bag for 1/4 million. We raised $234 for him. He is now a pauper, owned by the hospital who has garnished his wages for life, and he and his family are presently surviving on the kindness of strangers. This is the reality of US health care where very few can even afford an annual "visit" to a doctor.

There are only two solutions: 1) the feds provide cheap transportation for the masses to Mexico or India for health care, or 2) provide cheap narcotics to ease the pain of the masses who agree to go without health care.

[endurorob_5]

Repubs better be careful here. This whole helth care "reform' agenda by Obama and the other dems is nothing more than an attempt to force single payer on us all. The idea that in this scenario states can opt out of the federal prorgam as long as they match the federal law in terms of extednign coverage and benefits. If they do this and they remove the individual mandate this will lead to government conrtolled, single payer. I have believed all along this is the plan of Obama. Created something that will not work and say that they did all they could to "fix" health care and the only thing left is the socialist single payer style health care system where everyone is covered but care diminishes.

[jimbom121]

Nice conspiracy theory...but its just that. Although, single payer can't be any worse than the Insurance Companies are today.

[not_fooled_by_Righties]

Everyone in those countries with a single payer system LAUGH at the US and the Repugs for their stupidity. They know the system works even if the Repugs will never believe it.