Wyden-Brown - Repeal and Replace ACA.

[Mass]

OK, the article is fluff trying to make Brown look good and bipartisan (this is what Viser seems to be paid for).

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/11/19/brown_treads_a_fine_line_in_push_to_alter_health_law/

Brown treads a fine line in push to alter health law
By Matt Viser
Globe Staff / November 19, 2010

WASHINGTON — Senator Scott Brown teamed up with a Democrat yesterday to file legislation allowing states to more quickly opt out of certain portions of President Obama’s health care plan — the Massachusetts Republican’s latest move to alter the controversial measure.

But should the Wyden-Brown's bill be adopted as is, it would be the end of ACA in most red states.

Consider what the bill does.

The bill Brown filed yesterday with Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, addresses a provision that allows states to obtain waivers that would exempt them from some of the requirements of the law, including the individual mandate and health care exchanges. In order to do so, states would have to prove that their insurance plan is at least as competitive and affordable and covers as many residents as the federal plan would.

Under the current law, states would be able to apply for those waivers starting in 2017, but the new measure would move that up to 2014, when most of the other aspects of the federal bill are implemented

Now, it looks like a very small modification, but ask yourself why our junior senator wants it implemented when he has pledged to repeal the law.

In fact, the waiver provision forces the state to implement something that is at least as good as the federal law, but, in 2014, many of the provisions of the federal laws will just have started to be implemented, so on which basis will the waiver be judged.

Clive Crook (who cant decide if the modification is good or bad, as a good point).

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/11/a-bipartisan-plan-to-repeal-and-replace/66795/

Implementing the tests was going to be difficult in 2017--but doing it in 2014 would be even harder. A state repealing the mandate in 2017 would have benchmarks already achieved under the federal plan to measure their new scheme against. A state repealing the mandate in 2014 would not. Who knows how many people would have been covered by the unamended ACA in Ohio, say, if the unamended ACA had never come into effect? Which state plans conformed and which did not would be a matter of fierce dispute.


So, while I expect this bill to be claimed a bipartisan success (even if it will not be voted upon, due to the end of congress session), it is a perfect example of how the GOP could kill the bill by seemingly small changes.

[xxqqqzme]

1. can't trust rethugs

just sayin'.

[DrToast]

2. Sounds like a good idea to me

Bernie Sanders likes it, too.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/sen_bernie_sanders_vermont_sta.html

[ProSense]

3. Bernie Sanders likes the waiver, but he's responsible.

Sanders wants a waiver to test single-payer in his state. Any attempt push up the waiver date, should come with a guarantee that states aren't trying to ditch reform for the status quo.

So what happens if Scott Brown and Ron Wyden get their way and the waiver moves up to 2014? Will Vermont use it?

We believe Vermont stands a chance to be the first state in the nation to pass single-payer. The governor-elect campaigned on it, and we have support in the House and Senate. We’re not asking for one nickel more than we’d otherwise get. The other thing we think we have an opportunity to do is reach out to our conservative friends and say, hey, Vermont wants to go forward with a single-payer system, and Mississippi and Alabama don’t, but maybe they have other ideas. Now, we’re conscious of the need to make sure that the health-care reform bill’s standards aren’t diminished. So everyone needs to provide the same quality of health care as the bill provides and at the same, or lower, price. But if they can do that, then they should be able to go for it.

[Mass]

4. It's good for states like Vermont, but what about Mississippi or Louisiana?

The point is that the law ALREADY contains a waiver, so all this does is to give red states an opportunity to escape the law more easily, because there will not be enough background to judge if any particular conditions will be better than the federal law.

[DrToast]

5. The waiver doesn't go into effect until 2017

And the targets the states need to achieve relate to coverage and cost. Those are things that can be identified beforehand.

And Sanders says, the 2017 deadline wasn't related to needing time to implement the ACA so you can judge states that opt out.