The Truth Behind Obama’s Seeming Support for State Flexibility on the Subject of ObamaCare

posted at 4:49 pm on February 28, 2011 by Howard Portnoy
[ Healthcare ]   

Having reached a point where even health insurance companies are asking for and receiving waivers from requirements of ObamaCare, it seemed it was only a matter of time before the administration addressed the grievances of the states whose leaders—and in many cases citizens—are unhappy with all or part of the law.

The president seemed to do just that today at a bi-partisan meeting of governors in the State Dining Room of the White House. There he agreed to allow states to design their own health care plans as long as the plans fulfill the goals of his law. At first blush, it sounds as though the normally intractable Obama is finally ready and willing to make concessions.

But if you look more closely at the fine print in the president’s remarks, there are several problems with his newfound magnamity. First, the law already contains provisions that allow states to propose their own framework for health care. The only distinction the president made today is his willingness to entertain alternative proposals in 2014, rather than forcing states to wait until 2017, as specified in the law.

Second, the administration, according to Ben Smith of Politico, held an off-the-record conference call with liberal allies this morning in which it was explained that the real goal of the president’s proposal was to give left-leaning states a chance to trot out more progressive, not less expansive, approaches to health care. Writes Smith:

Health care advisers Nancy-Ann DeParle and Stephanie Cutter stressed … 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.

Yet a third obstacle facing states that would prefer to opt out is that the president—who has himself expressed a preference for single-payer systems—gets to set the ground rules and serve as judge and jury. As he told the governors:

If your state can create a plan that can cover as many people as affordably and comprehensively as the Affordable Care Act does, without increasing the deficit, you can implement that plan and we’ll work with you to do it.

The problem is that Obama’s own plan, which expands coverage to more than 30 million now uninsured, won’t be tested for another three years. A number of economists have already argued persuasively that spending less and getting more is pure political legerdemain. In the meantime, the administration could shoot down perfectly workable, better laws on the basis that they fail to meet the unrealistic conditions laid out in ObamaCare.

In the meantime, 28 states have filed lawsuits to overturn the individual mandate that it is the financial cornerstone of the law, and another 29 have introduced measures to amend their constitutions to nullify aspects. Following the president’s comments today, it appears as though the final arbiter of what flies in a given state may not be the president after all but the nine members of the Supreme Court.

Related Articles

• Idaho, 6 other states, to “nullify” ObamaCare
• Why ObamaCare needs to be repealed, not tweaked
• New survey: 65% of doctors say healthcare quality will decline under ObamaCare
• Poll: 13% of Americans approve of the health care law as written
• Virginia judge strikes down health care reform law as unconstitutional

Cross-posted at the Examiner. Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.

Blowback