Tweet
So I hear (from the liberal media) that the President is compromising on the healthcare law.
It goes like this:
States can opt out of the federal mandate if they meet "a few conditions". Sounds good so far right?
The conditions are that
1. It must service as many people as the federal law.
2. It must not add to the deficit, like the federal law (hehehe).
The dirty little secret is that the only plan to be approved by the White House would be one that is basically a single-payer system, the progressive dream. So, states can opt out IF they setup a healthcare system that's more destructive than the federal law. The next step is to push a case to the Supreme Court that asks about "fairness under the law" - how a person in one state can have such wonderful healthcare in Vermont or Maryland while a person in Kansas or Montana has the "old" system that doesn't distribute wealth in a way that would make Karl Marx proud.
Here's a snippet from a internal conference call between Democrats:
A story title I saw had the words "Manipulator in Chief" in it. Very fitting.
It goes like this:
States can opt out of the federal mandate if they meet "a few conditions". Sounds good so far right?
The conditions are that
1. It must service as many people as the federal law.
2. It must not add to the deficit, like the federal law (hehehe).
The dirty little secret is that the only plan to be approved by the White House would be one that is basically a single-payer system, the progressive dream. So, states can opt out IF they setup a healthcare system that's more destructive than the federal law. The next step is to push a case to the Supreme Court that asks about "fairness under the law" - how a person in one state can have such wonderful healthcare in Vermont or Maryland while a person in Kansas or Montana has the "old" system that doesn't distribute wealth in a way that would make Karl Marx proud.
Here's a snippet from a internal conference call between Democrats:
A source on a White House conference call with liberal allies this morning says the Administration is presenting it to Democrats as an opportunity to offer more expansive health care plans than the one Congress passed.
Health care advisers Nancy-Ann DeParle and Stephanie Cutter stressed on the off-record call that the rule change would allow states to implement single-payer health care plans — as Vermont seeks to — and true government-run plans, like Connecticut’s Sustinet.
The source on the call summarizes the officials’ point — which is not one the Administration has sought to make publically — as casting the new “flexibility” language as an opportunity to try more progressive, not less expansive, approaches on the state level.
“They are trying to split the baby here: on one hand tell supporters this is good for their pet issues, versus a message for the general public that the POTUS is responding to what he is hearing and that he is being sensible,” the source emails.
Much of the debate now focuses on the federal government’s power, and perhaps health care legislation’s critics wouldn’t object to single payer — in Vermont. But the prospect of a backdoor to a single-payer plan anywhere may also sharpen opposition.
Health care advisers Nancy-Ann DeParle and Stephanie Cutter stressed on the off-record call that the rule change would allow states to implement single-payer health care plans — as Vermont seeks to — and true government-run plans, like Connecticut’s Sustinet.
The source on the call summarizes the officials’ point — which is not one the Administration has sought to make publically — as casting the new “flexibility” language as an opportunity to try more progressive, not less expansive, approaches on the state level.
“They are trying to split the baby here: on one hand tell supporters this is good for their pet issues, versus a message for the general public that the POTUS is responding to what he is hearing and that he is being sensible,” the source emails.
Much of the debate now focuses on the federal government’s power, and perhaps health care legislation’s critics wouldn’t object to single payer — in Vermont. But the prospect of a backdoor to a single-payer plan anywhere may also sharpen opposition.