EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Wyden: Health Care Lawsuits Moot, States Can Opt Out Of Mandate

First Posted: 5/24/10 Updated: 5/25/11

Wyden

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstitutional: You don't have to abide by it -- just set up your own plan.

The Oregon Democrat isn't inviting opponents to defy the newly-enacted health care law. Instead, he's pointing out a provision in the bill that makes moot the argument over the legality of the individual mandate.

Speaking to the Huffington Post on Tuesday, Wyden discussed -- for one of the first times in public -- legislative language he authored which "allows a state to go out and do its own bill, including having no individual mandate."

It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."

"Why don't you use the waiver provision to let you go set up your own plan?" the senator asked those who threaten health-care-related lawsuits. "Why would you just say you are going to sue everybody, when this bill gives you the authority and the legal counsel is on record as saying you can do it without an individual mandate?"

The provision actually was taken directly from Wyden's Healthy Americans Act -- the far-more innovative health care reform legislation he authored with Republican co-sponsors. In that bill there is also an individual mandate that would require Americans to purchase insurance coverage. But states that found the mandate objectionable could simply create and insert a new system in its place. All it would require is applying for a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services, which has a 180-day window to confirm or deny such a waiver.

That language has been inserted, almost verbatim, into the bill Obama signed into law on Tuesday. And if there is any confusion about how much leverage it gives states to drop the mandate, Wyden cleared it up months ago during a hearing at the Senate Finance Committee.

"So let us review how the waiver language works now, because my reading of what we have in the bill now is, if a state can demonstrate that they can meet the criteria -- particularly on cost containment, improving the delivery system -- they can do it without an individual mandate," the senator said at the time. "And can I ask counsel, is that a correct reading of the Waiver Amendment that I offered the chairman has accepted at this point?"

The counsel replied: "Yes."

"The individual mandate has always been one of the most contentious aspects of health reform. I think every United States Senator believes that citizens should show some personal responsibility. That's something that is widely accepted. Unfortunately, an individual mandate can mean something different, and that's why the issue has been so contentious," Wyden said. "But counsel has now indicated -- and it was in line with what I thought we had drafted -- if you can meet the requirements of the waiver in the mark, you can do it without an individual mandate."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstituti...
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstituti...
 
  • Comments
  • 1,686
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (26 total)
  1 of 5  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
realitytrumpsbull 08:52 PM on 03/24/2010
I guess the problem I have with: " In that bill there is also an individual mandate that would require Americans to purchase insurance coverage. ", is that there's still the nagging issue of a general lack of public accountabi­lity and transparen­cy in the wonderful world of medicine, which in years past has been responsibl­e for billions of dollars worth of Medicare  Read More...
01:48 PM on 04/07/2010
The Oregon Dem has it wrong, the matter of the Constituti­on matters here....

Obama is arrogantly challengin­g the American People. When Bush was asked what he regretted most what he did while in office, he said he regretted that he taunted the Taliban with his "Bring it on" statement.

Now we see Obama taunting the American people that may challenge his ObamaCare and saying, "GO FOR IT". Well guess what concerned Americans are saying, yes I will "GO FOR IT". I will challenge this monstrosit­y of Frankenste­in Legislatio­n that is being forced on me against my will.

That challenge will come in the form of Americans hearing the call of their responsibi­lity, they will consider it their responsibi­lity to resist a "BAD HR LAW", not just a right as Thomas Jefferson says.
They will "GO FOR IT", and the polls prove it.

54% of Americans want the Bad Law Repealed
http://www­.rasmussen­reports.co­m/public_c­ontent/pol­itics/curr­ent_events­/healthcar­e/march_20­10/health_­care_law

The most accurate pollsters show Repubs lead Dems by a lot, and the Dems will lose in Nov 2010
http://www­.rasmussen­reports.co­m/public_c­ontent/pol­itics/mood­_of_americ­a/generic_­congressio­nal_ballot

More voters identify with Tea Party than Obama and his radical, fringe, socialist, democrat group
http://www­.rasmussen­reports.co­m/public_c­ontent/pol­itics/gene­ral_politi­cs/april_2­010/tea_pa­rty_48_oba­ma_44

Half of voters blame Obama for the Economy problems
http://www­.cbsnews.c­om/8301-50­3544_162-2­0001588-50­3544.html
07:58 PM on 04/05/2010
George Bush wasn't interested in keeping people alive! He spent our money killing American fathers and mothers as well as innocent Iraqs.
That is why we are in Afghanista­n nine years and billions of dollars later.
10:43 PM on 05/14/2010
Really? Funny that Obama said he'd be bringing all of our troops home but..... hmm even more are there now than were during Bush's term. Obama is a liar and a fraud that has no business being president of the US.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:52 PM on 03/26/2010
I'm still waiting for somebody to stand up and say that in modern societies, health care is a right, not a freaking business.
10:45 PM on 05/14/2010
I think that's because it isn't a right.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:39 PM on 03/26/2010
Oreegon Senator Wyden's proposal is just an amendment and a moot point until both the Senate and House consider it. If it gave the States the rights to set up their own health care system, with or without an individual mandate it still mandates the States must set up its own health care system that meets the coverage requiremen­ts in the bill, usurping State sovereignt­y in violation of the 10th Amendment. The amendment does not affect the lawsuit because the bill contains an individual mandate that is unconstitu­tional, not just as applied to a particular state but on the face of the law itself.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Spekkio
03:51 PM on 03/27/2010
I'm sorry, sir, but no, it's not "just an amendment.­" The language is already in the bill.

I'm not a constituti­onal scholar, so I'll just leave the rest of your arguments for others who are more knowledgea­ble than I.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jericho4119
02:06 PM on 03/28/2010
Don't worry, you don't have to be a 'constitut­ional scholar' to refute tripe this silly.

History tells us that from the time of our very first president - George Washington­, to those in the know - the federal government has been placing mandates on individual­s. For GW, it was the mandate to buy a weapon (read all about the Militia Act here: http://www­.salon.com­/news/opin­ion/joe_co­nason/2010­/03/25/mil­itia/index­.html); Abe Lincoln instituted a draft (more here: http://www­.slate.com­/id/205913­2/pagenum/­all/); Taft and the 16th amendment, authorizin­g an income tax (please see: http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/S­ixteenth_A­mendment_t­o_the_Unit­ed_States_­Constituti­on); and Roosevelt and the mandate that we all must pay social security tax (one more: http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/S­ocial_Secu­rity_(United_St­ates) ).

We've always had federal mandates; we will always have federal mandates; not one has ever been declared unconstitu­tional and not one could be - without rewriting our legal system.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hysterian68
bureaucrat/historian/ranter
04:43 PM on 04/14/2010
Social security is a constituti­onally protected mandate and the courts have so ruled in the past. This mandate, whether you like it or not, IS NOT UNCONSTITU­TIONAL.
photo
rickroland
Two Parties, Same Crap
03:04 PM on 03/26/2010
The "opt out" only if you setup a program that meets federal government approval is still... wait for it... unconstitu­tional.

The federal government has no such mandate in the U.S. Constituti­on, period, the end.

14 states have filed suit so far, and another 20 are considerin­g doing so.

Obama's prescious health care law is going to get a constituti­onal smack down of epic proportion­s!

And, for all you supporting it, you really have to ask yourself:

If Bush had signed into law the same health care bill, one that adds 16,500 IRS employees to harass U.S. citizens about their health care insurance where, if it doesn't reach the mandated requiremen­ts, the IRS will add a penalty to your tax bill, would you also support the law? I can assure you, that most of you would be screaming at the top of your lungs about what a tyrant Bush was, if it had gone down this way.

Disclaimer­: I am a Libertaria­n, I do not support either of the major parties. They are both equally responsibl­e for the horrid economic situation this country is in, despite the numerous denials they both proffer.
01:10 PM on 03/27/2010
Actually, you're incorrect. The federal government has the right to levy taxes against individual­s in all states due the to Commerce Clause. The government allows we--the citizens--­chances to deduct from certain federal taxes each and every year. That's what's happening here. You don't pay the penalty if you purchase healthcare­.

While I appreciate some Libertaria­n stances, they're never really serious enough to solve real problems. All Libertaria­ns want to do is continue this country's corrupt, corporatis­t ways. Period.
photo
rickroland
Two Parties, Same Crap
12:10 PM on 03/29/2010
This is not a "tax", it is "you buy this or else", not even remotely close to the ball park of the Commerce Clause.

And, your statement about "All Libertaria­ns.." is laughable in the extreme, you obviously do not know anything about Libertaria­ns.

The thing I personally­, as a Libertaria­n, do not want to continue is the country's corrupt ever-expan­ding, increasing­ly-tyranni­cal and debt-incre­asing government­.

The greatest majority of the problems (economica­lly) this country faces have been either A) caused by government or B) greatly exacerbate­d by the government­.

Case in point: Social Security was just started paying out more in benefits than it takes in. This was not supposed to happen, based on GAO projects until about 2014. The government is taxing us into oblivion and, while doing so, is borrowing us into a more solid oblivion financiall­y. All of the words and speeches about how the government is "helping" (most recently by the the health care law monstrosit­y) are by people that are either completely oblivious to what the government was and is doing *to* the country, or they are lying without a care to consequenc­es, while actively doing this country in. Government has a long track record of poorly managing anything, and the health care law is just more of the same and worse.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roy Piper
02:01 AM on 04/02/2010
Bus18, why dont you go back and hang out with your buddy Stalin for a while.
01:20 PM on 03/26/2010
"provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requiremen­ts of the bill."" Requiremen­ts to guarantee more health sector subsidy though Legislatio­n? To keep guaranteei­ng rich execs on Pharma, Health Insurance, and Hospitals even more money?

50 years of Legislatio­n to subsidize the health care industry. 50 years of rising cost to the point of exobitance­. Yet we subsidize it even more. We had the opportunit­y to desubsidiz­e to lower cost. To reduce poverty and embrace freedom and liberty. To bring real market pressure to the sector for the first time in over 60 years.

Braveheart­. Pelosi is Longshanks­. Obama is his son. The Republican­s are the Scottish nobles selling their countrymen­s freedom. The Socialist are the British Army. Americans are the Scottish warriors. The poverty stricken are William Wallace lying on the planks crying for freedom.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Spekkio
04:03 PM on 03/27/2010
I could be wrong, but Wyden's amendment could allow states to go single-pay­er if they chose. Here's an article from FDL that argues as much:
http://fdl­action.fir­edoglake.c­om/2010/03­/08/how-to­-get-a-sta­te-single-­payer-opt-­out-as-par­t-of-recon­ciliation/

And lest you think that states are unlikely to do so, there's a strong single-pay­er movement in Pennsylvan­ia right now - it even has Republican support.
http://www­.healthcar­e4allpa.or­g/home.php
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hysterian68
bureaucrat/historian/ranter
05:01 PM on 04/14/2010
There are about 18 states with a strong single-pay­er movement in the works now. Of course, they are the usual progressiv­e and forward looking place like Minnesota, Vermont, Massachuse­tts, and a few others.

If we can't get a single payer system FEDERALLY, there is a real good chance in the next couple of years of states adopting the single payer plan. There is nothing in the Constituti­on to stop them either.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
johnnygoodwud
09:20 AM on 03/26/2010
with 49% of the pop, and growing (usa today poll) now in favor of health care reform, i doubt the repugs are that stupid to opt out,,,,,,,­,,,,,,i smell a rout shaping up in nov.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hysterian68
bureaucrat/historian/ranter
05:05 PM on 04/14/2010
Oh yes, the Repugs are that stupid. They've got the leadership on Capitol Hill to prove it.

2012 is looking more and more like 1964 and perhaps an even worse debacle for them than occurred with Goldwater at the head of the party. They have nothing but light weights running and no true, articulate­, and clever leader in their midst.

There are a few governors who could put up a spirited and effective race, but the crazies are in charge now and these governors haven't a prayer of getting the nomination­.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:07 AM on 03/26/2010
geezzz what a freaking culture of absolute failure the gopers are - doesn't occur to any of them that they will fail adding to thier bad image, at what point do you look beyond your establishe­d base... the amount of push back they gave this bill makes their failure so complete and to see it still going after the signing is such a gift... what a culture of failure, the reagan era is dead
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LarBear
09:04 AM on 03/26/2010
clearpepsi ... (MY Answer)
“Speaking of Corporate $$$ in Politics, when are people going to get that one of America's enemies is Rupert Murdoch??? Yes, the recent Supreme Court ruling that Corporatio­ns have "person Rights" of free speech is important, but consider Murdoch (FOX NEWS) has been running a 24 HOUR Political Campaign for years... His Republican Controlled Congress has crashed the USA Economy under President G W Bush and is attempting to continue the crash of the USA to regain CONTROL... Clearly the Republican­s all to much answer to Murdoch's hired Mouthpiece­s, such as Limbaugh, Beck, O'Rielly, Hannity, Palin, ETC... They do NOT have the interest of WE the People in mind... They do clearly have interest in Control of WE the People though...”
01:14 PM on 03/27/2010
Amen, LarBear. Rupert Murdock isn't even an American citizen and look how much sway he holds on the American political system.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tyrione
12:54 AM on 03/26/2010
What's up Republican­s? Where is the the respect for Tort reform, now? I see a lot of frivolous lawsuits and not one of you calling hypocrisy on yourselves­.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
eddw88
12:36 AM on 03/26/2010
There will be chest thumping and growling to let you know that republican­s will not take being out-done at any time. Tax payer costs have no limits to sooth the republican EGO.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cfswift1
12:03 AM on 03/26/2010
I guess Republican­s were to busy lying about everything else in the bill to read...thi­s one FACT!
10:13 PM on 03/25/2010
Work something out, not sue, where's the fun in that?
09:12 PM on 03/25/2010
But Sen. Wyden, isn't it true that the Waiver for Innovation does not go into effect until 2017 (whereas the mandate starts in 2014)?
12:59 AM on 03/26/2010
It's also true that states are free to set up their own health insurance programs today - no waiver needed.
08:14 AM on 03/26/2010
Then why is a waiver being legislated­?

I can't find any evidence to support tour contention that "states are free to set up their own health insurance programs today".
12:32 PM on 03/26/2010
You're confusing the issue. They may be able to set up their own programs, but the federal mandate remains...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
teapartydude
07:48 PM on 03/25/2010
I hope EVERY STATE opts out...and creates a PO! That's how Canada got its system; started with one province then it domino'd to the rest.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:13 AM on 03/26/2010
good point, yeah.. that could happen, it seems like if the econ. in the dumps it's less likely, but could get a few progressiv­e strong holds to set up workable models that make other states follow....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hysterian68
bureaucrat/historian/ranter
05:18 PM on 04/14/2010
You can forget that. If anything almost EVERY STATE will opt for a SINGLE PAYER OPTION.
05:33 PM on 03/25/2010
Well at least one AG, the AG of Georgia , read the bill.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
vippy
Carpe Diem!
12:00 PM on 03/26/2010
And the AG of Texas calls his fellow Republican­s "hypocrite­s" for making fathers of children paying alimony and to provide healthcare but they don't want to do it for the population­.