Enough grandstanding. Kucinich wants his ERISA amendment, but his amendment

sucks.

Kucinich's amendment specifically states: "instead of the public health insurance option or the National Health Exchange."

Now why do you suppose Kucinich's amendment gained the support of 13 Republicans in committee?

Right now, what's to stop a Republican governor from requesting (not applying for, but requesting) the waiver just to opt out of the national plan? What happens then?

No support, no funding, just a desire.


Sanders' amendment is much better.

All he has managed in his political career (IIRC) passed 3 bills (and signed into law) he wrote himself. None are relevant to America.

Hawkeye-X

He wants to give States a CHOICE, then when elections come up, let WE THE PEOPLE decide. I believe it's a very shrewd move. Let the Cons not instate it in their state, then get voted out, when people find out that their friends and relatives in other states who have a public health plan, are doing better. It's a way to not force something on states that think that they do not want it. It's a very smart move.

you blame Dennis.

"His amendment sucks."

That is your statement on this thread and yet you can't come up with the reason why you think this? I don't care if 13 Republicans agreed. Maybe agreement is good. It's a good amendment and Republican governors have been opting out of health care reform since forever no matter what. So what else is new? Now maybe, in my state with Arnold out of the way, we might be able to pass single payer, which has passed the legislature twice and vetoed twice by himself. When we get Jerry in there we can get single payer and you seem to be vociferously objecting to this. You are so transparent.

Bernie has some good ideas too. I'm not throwing either of their ideas out with the bath water.

accept Sanders' provision?

If you paid attention to your civics classes in eighth grade, you would know the difference.

Conference? Maybe you should have paid more attention or skip the snark FAIL.

Are you not paying attention?

Both amendments will not be in the final bill. The House leadership and most Democrats are satisfied with Sanders' amendment.

Keep up.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Wouldn't you?

If not, why not?

A few reasons - listed in the article below ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=214858&mesg_id=215163

"...Delayed Until 2017

The first problem is the date of implementation. States can’t apply for the waiver until 2017, which is completely ridiculous. There is no reason for the delay, and it would make state innovation very difficult to implement. It would first require states to go through all the work of setting up the new system of exchanges for 2014, only to turn around and try to replace it with another new system three years later.

The other big problem with the date is that 2017 would be right after Obama left office (assuming that he served two terms). Since it is very rare for one party to hold the presidency for three straight terms, it will likely be a Republican in the White House in 2017. Assume their HHS secretary would not be open to granting the waiver for a state-based single payer system, it would likely not be until 2020 or 2024 that this provision could be used for creating state single payer, and that assumes a supportive Democratic president is elected. This is completely unacceptable.


...Getting Around ERISA

The other major impediment is the scope of the waiver, which I interpret to mean it can’t be used for a waiver of ERISA. From the Senate bill (with Secretary defined as Secretary of HHS and Treasury): ....."



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=214858&mesg_id=215658


I'm certainly no expert on the potential legal challenges to the language in the bill, which is not even finalized yet, or at least not available for the public to see.

I do know that the insurance companies will vigorously fight any state SP bills that they believe could erode their profits and feel that every effort should be made to have language in the bill which makes this as easy as possible.

There is no reason to trade the Kucinich language for the Sanders language, combine the two and make it best for the people, unless those who currently hold power really do want a loophole for insurance companies to use.


Here is what Pelosi said about the Kucinich state SP amendment being stripped from the final bill...


"An amendment to allow states to pursue single-payer health care without incurring insurance-industry lawsuits was stripped from the House bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday, adding that it would break President Obama's commitment to people keeping their current insurance plan if they like it..."

was exactly correct given the language in the OP. Why does Kucinich want to prohibit the public option and national exchange?

same topic and not read the replies.

Combine the language in both amendments.

Sanders' amendment is superior, and doesn't include the ridiculous restrictions.