Say WA? Evergreen State ping
Quick link: WA State Board
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.
Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.
Posted on 10/01/2009 6:16:17 PM PDT by Lorianne
Today the Senate Finance Committee voted 12-11 to approve another amendment sponsored by Washington's Maria Cantwell. This one would allow states to use federal money to bargain with private insurers to provide low-cost health care to low-income Americans.
That's quite a mouthful, I know.
It's also quite an accomplishment. Cantwell's office is calling it a "public plan," and while the senator should be proud of slipping it through Finance, "public plan" is probably going a bit too far. As Ezra Klein writes, Cantwell's amendment....
...allows states to negotiate with insurers on behalf of people between 133 percent and 200 percent of the poverty line (interview here). This seems like a perfectly fine policy idea. But it's entirely orthogonal to the public option debate. It doesn't create competition or transparency or experimentation. It makes health-care insurance cheaper for a small slice of people, but that's really it. Worth doing, but not an answer for those who want to see a public competitor.
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/CantwellAmdmt.pdf
ping
Sounds like cost shifting.
I think we will be seeing all kinds of legislative shenanigans in the coming weeks. Time to be even more alert.
Say WA? Evergreen State ping
Quick link: WA State Board
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.
Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.
Sounds like sleight of hand to me.
Agree. A good portion of Congress belong in jail.
Yah. What you said.
Bingo!
You are right this is just the grease they are using to make their penetration more comfortable. There will be all kinds of backdoor deals and tricks pulled before this mess is over.
Could the health control bill be challenged in court on Constitutional grounds before it passes or does it have to pass first? I think it has to pass before it can be challenged but I’m not sure.
No... the way it works is that laws have to be in effect in order to be challenged on constitutional grounds. Or said another way... if it’s not law yet... it can’t yet be unconstitutional. :-)
“Sounds like sleight of hand to me.”
I believe you are correct. It appears to me as one of the most coveted of Democrat manuevers in which their objective is to confuse the public, muddy the waters, create an illusion of their legislation rather than allow the public the opportunity to clearly comprehend the issue, and debate it appropriately.
It’s not unlike the old Abbott and Costello “Who’s on First” act, and takes away the seriousness of the issue as well as creates the confusion they seek to double-talk their way into successfully passing into law that which they want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.