Tweet
I’m very disappointed that Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has decided to make an extremely disingenuous argument against the pending individual mandate lawsuit based on his waiver for state innovation provision. I’ve always been a big supporter of this provision, but what Wyden is saying is just dishonest. From Huffington Post:
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.
[…]
“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?”
This is not accurate. You see, the problem is that the individual mandate starts in 2014, but states can’t get a waiver to try a different system, potentially one without an individual mandate, until 2017. So, there is nothing states can do to stop the individual mandate from being in effect for at least three years.
Whether you agree with an individual mandate or not, it is just wrong to say people shouldn’t complain because, at some point in the future, they might possibly have a way for states to opt out of it. If the state waiver started in 2014, Wyden’s argument would be perfectly valid, but as the law currently stands, his statement is pure baloney.
Wyden also seems to be glossing over the serious problem of system entrenchment. While it would be easy for a state to experiment with a new health care system in 2014 if they could get a waiver right away, trying to start a new system in 2017 would be much more difficult. The law requires them to put all the effort into setting up this exchange system. Expecting a state to start all over by uprooting this new system and putting up a whole different system after only three years is a huge hurdle.
I really wish Democrats would fix the problems with Wyden’s state waiver provision to make it start right away. It could even be offered as a reconciliation amendment if Democrats had not taken this ridiculous no amendment stance. But until it is fixed, it is very inappropriate to claim that it is somehow an answer to anger against the individual mandate. If you think the individual mandate is wrong, the possibility that it might only be forced on you for three years is not really a solution. Ideally, Wyden’s “state waiver for innovation” would be one of the provisions in this law that might actually get “fixed” before 2014.
21 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
You haven’t been paying attention to the ruling class for very long, have you? :-/
“Support the Preznit in a time of
warhealth reform, you traitors!”Since a waiver has to be granted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, what if the waiver is simply denied?
In the Reconciliation bill, H.R.4872, with the new language on Single Payer, ERISA, and with its own specific waiver language — is this still restricted by the 2017 date? I understand this to be what you are saying, but I would like confirmation. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4872rh.txt.pdf
Just saying a state has to set up an Exchange doesn’t mean they have to have an individual mandate. My understanding is that the attorneys general are saying the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
There’s nothing more disenguous about the entire HC Bill Obama pushed through than the projected cost savings beginning TEN years out.
Mission Accomplished. Our health care problems in America are over.
This is not the reconciliation bill. This is a shell bill for technical reasons. Every word was stripped out and replace with a completely different bill.
Shocked, Speechless and Still Cringing. A US Senator who’s disingenuous.
After so many years of hoping and working for change, they still catch me.
(hook in mouth facial gesture …)
It’s actually my fault, I believed them.
Does anyone agree with the Secretary of HHS having authority over a State?
Okay, I see that now. Thank you for responding, Jon. This does beg the question: if they had a version of the bill that specifically dealt with Erisa and had no 2017 date, then why did they modify the language in the final bill? This was obviously purposeful, and there had to be a consensus to do so.
That was a house bill. they voted on a bill that came straight from the senate.
Many years ago, when I was a boy, I was upset because I thought I had lied when I was merely wrong in an assertion I had made. My father very gently pointed out to me the difference between lying, and being mistaken.
Is it possible that Wyden has made a mistake here? That amidst all the back-and-forth between his original plan proposals of almost a year ago, and now, he lost the disconnect between 2014 and 2017? Perhaps I’ll call his office and inquire.
Does anyone still believe that anyone in power gives a shit what people agree with? Anyway, the Bush years showed us how well it works to have anything under the control of people appointed by the President that I am sure this will all work out just fine. We can all go back to patting our Congresscritters on the wallet for doing such a great job for us and being so brave while standing up to the GOP and special interests to get this greatest progressive legislation in the history of America pushed through against all odds.
Yeah, those poor millions of Americans who can’t afford a trip to Urgent Care should really be pissed about the first step in a process that will allow everyone access to affordable health care. I say we impeach Obama now and have Grover Norquist put in his place and Bart Stupak should be Veep, because we know at least those guys stand up for their principles!
This is the worst thing that has ever happened to our country! Evah!
Jon, thanks again. Just to be clear: I realized I posted the ‘placeholder’ reconciliation bill (as you pointed out to me.) Now I see that the original House bill had no ‘State Innovation’ section. The Senate added that, and added the 2017 date. So, the Senate must have consciously determined that they wanted that 2017 date, and no ERISA language. That ‘placeholder’ bill, even though it wasn’t really used, did have ‘State Innovation’, ERISA, and no 2017. I am just seeing all of this as indicative that the Senate rejected the ideas of adding ERISA and removing 2017 for the State Innovation, and I cannot figure out why they would do that, and who would want that.
I like my right to privacy.
How is this universal, unconditional, individual mandate not a violation of the right to privacy?
I have seen some argue along the line that this is just the power to tax. I claim that this argument is subterfuge, since it seems that this mandate is written as “do this private act of buying this private product, or else you’re fined”, and that this fine is not written as a universal tax to be “tax credited out of”.
The fine is the same as a “universal tax” even though not written as one? Then why not for this “universal tax” give in return a government service like oh, say, a strong public option?
If this is held up as legal, then what’s to keep government – including a future George Bush – from using universal, unconditional, individual mandates cloaked in the power to tax as subterfuge for violating our right to privacy without end?
To follow-up my post on March 25th, 2010 at 5:57 pm: Suppose some future government dominated with religious conservatives – modern Republicans – were to put forth the individual mandate “In order to protect America’s children, you shall buy and use porn filters in your TV sets and computers, or you’re fined.”
Suppose they were to say, “Oh, it’s not universal and unconditional since it applies to only those who own TVs and computers.” OK then?
There is no end to this very slippery slope on individual mandates.
Where is the ACLU? Where are the true civil libertarians?
Hey Ron Wyden – Blow Me you friggin prick !
Where’s my Individual or Family Opt-Out ?
Since it appears that Constitutionally, all future cases are based on precedent, once this POS is deemed constitutional, any product that is commercial (commerce clause trumping States Rights) can be forced down our throats. And you think that the current crop of corrupt elected officials make you sick, just wait a few years. They will be doing some serious pandering.
Am I and just a few others the only ones that see this coming?
Oh I Love This Country
Baa, Baa, Baa (that’s right, bunches of sheep)
possibly in the same trough as the Environmental Attorneys
(research who pays their fees when suing the Federal Government. It’s very heart warming)
To justalacky @ 20: I can only hope that some true civil libertarians will step up to the plate, because, to follow up my comments 16 March 25th, 2010 at 5:57 pm and 17 March 25th, 2010 at 7:58 pm:
Suppose that aforementioned future federal government dominated by religious conservatives – modern Republicans – were to try to outlaw abortion or outlaw women crossing state lines to get abortions by giving the states an “opt out clause” for these laws?
Does a state “opt out” clause really make an unconstitutional law less unconstitutional? Would that state “opt out” clause in this law containing the individual mandate really make that mandate constitutional?
Again: There is no end to this very slippery slope of violating our right to privacy using the federal power to tax or regulate interstate commerce as subterfuge. Where is the ACLU? Where are the true civil libertarians?