Amendment for States to Opt out of health care mandate

[emilynghiem]

Wyden: Health Care Lawsuits Moot, States Can Opt Out Of Mandate
Obamacare Lets States Opt Out Of Mandate? | The FOX Nation

Two articles on Amendment on "Empowering States to be innovative" which allows States to opt out of the health care mandates provided they meet the same coverage.

My question is why are States required to prove their coverage, effectiveness and "not adding to the federal deficit" while the federal bill is not required to prove the same?

States should have the right to opt out and form their own programs based on the democratic will of the people and the Constitution, not federal plans not proven either!

 

[boedicca]

My question is why are States required to prove their coverage, effectiveness and "not adding to the federal deficit" while the federal bill is not required to prove the same?

That's easy. The Obamunists want to make it impossible for the states to opt out.

 

[emilynghiem]

My question is why are States required to prove their coverage, effectiveness and "not adding to the federal deficit" while the federal bill is not required to prove the same?

That's easy. The Obamunists want to make it impossible for the states to opt out.

By not recognizing the right to opt in, this may lead to financial secession from federal governmental authority by voiding any remaining respect or trust in good faith contracts.

 

[boedicca]

The Obama Administration has no respect for good faith contracts. If they did, they wouldn't have blackmailed the GM debtholders to give up their first claim on assets.

 

[Oddball]

My question is why are States required to prove their coverage, effectiveness and "not adding to the federal deficit" while the federal bill is not required to prove the same?

That's easy. The Obamunists want to make it impossible for the states to opt out.

They want it to be impossible for anything to be optional, unless, of course, it's declared illegal.

 

[boedicca]

IOW, whatever is not expressly compulsory is forbidden.

 

[rdean]

Well, as long as the right keeps lying, those that get ALL their news from Fox will obviously want to opt out. But if someone starts telling them about being able to insure their colleage age children and their small children against being dropped for being sick, then "oops".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nggq31L8zWw&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Rick Larsen Health Care Town Hall[/ame]

"Keep Gubmint away from my Medicare"

Tea party much less than monolithic | The Journal Gazette, Fort Wayne, Ind.

Although shrinking government is their primary goal, many conceded that the country should keep Medicare and even Social Security.

other maverick politician, Texas billionaire Ross Perot

Tea party faithful must learn to walk the walk | CapeCodOnline.com

If the day ever comes that the tea baggers sign a pledge to forgo their Social Security checks, that's the day I buy my tea bag hat.

 

[Oddball]

If the day ever comes that the tea baggers sign a pledge to forgo their Social Security checks, that's the day I buy my tea bag hat.

You can't forgo them...You're required to take the checks....Imbecile.

Besides, the whole Ponzi scheme will come crashing to the ground within the 15 years or so.

 

[emilynghiem]

Well, as long as the right keeps lying, those that get ALL their news from Fox will obviously want to opt out. But if someone starts telling them about being able to insure their colleage age children and their small children against being dropped for being sick, then "oops".

Dear Rdean:
Even with this policy, valid objections I have heard from conservative opponents:
1. the cost of the premiums for such a plan will rise higher than people want to pay,
so the cost is still passed to the consumers or taxpayers (if the cost of the cheapest plan exceeds 8% of the person's income then they are not required to purchase)
2. the cost of other people's plans, regardless if there is unchecked fraud or unhealthy behavior that causes cancer and expensive treatments, is still carried by taxpayers instead of carried by the people responsible for their own health risks
3. so there is still no accountability or protection from excess costs that could be prevented or reduced instead of charging unchecked expenses to taxpayers and increasing debts

With the narrow religious exemption, and requirement of proof in order for states to opt out, this bill does not protect equal religious and constitutional freedom to pursue other alteratives but imposes federal restrictions in violation of individual and state rights.

Because the bill still fails to provide coverage for all citizens; so whatever systems in the free market effective enough to cover all people, those same methods could, and still have to be pursued anyway. It sets goals that it has not even proven to meet, yet would require states to provide proof of meeting such coverage.

 

[emilynghiem]

IOW, whatever is not expressly compulsory is forbidden.

This wisdom coming from a man who wanted to make voluntary service mandatory.

 

[jeffrockit]

Well, as long as the right keeps lying, those that get ALL their news from Fox will obviously want to opt out. But if someone starts telling them about being able to insure their colleage age children and their small children against being dropped for being sick, then "oops".


Speaking of lying, the report came out last week stating that the HC bill is going to raise costs 1%, (Report Shows Health Care Bill Will Raise Costs Less Than 1%). Though it may be a small percentage, Obama stated the it was going to cut costs.
Senate Health-Care Bill Will Raise Insurance Costs - WSJ.com