I do not support the bill despite Kucinich's switch. I would if

[mmonk]

there were one small change in it, however. That change would be an ERISA waiver for states that want to implement their own system. Before any of you mention Section 1332. Waiver for State Innovation, first note that this section does not take effect until 2017. Next note that the Secretary of HHS and Treasury is limited by the language of the Section 1332 waiver

(c) Scope of Waiver-

(1)IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall determine the scope of a waiver of a requirement described in subsection (a)(2) granted to a State under subsection (a)(1).

(2)LIMITATION- The Secretary may not waive under this section any Federal law or requirement that is not within the authority of the Secretary.

as was discussed by Jon Walker at FDL http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/08/how-to-get-a-state-single-payer-opt-out-as-part-of-reconciliation/">here. Imagine, if you will, a HHS Secretary that is Republican. Do you think they will act affirmly? Imagine if you will, a HHS Secretary that is DLC. Can you count on them acting affirmly? And even if they did, how long would the lawsuits based on the limitation take through our court system and what would be that outcome?

Many of you have cheered at the take down of the workingclass hero Dennis Kucinich and his principled stand by the DLC controlled Democratic Party. He was left naked, standing alone as members of the Progressive Caucus folded and Massa left Congress. Bringing the party to bear against Dennis then became easier and left him with the only remaining way left to fight for progressive changes to the bill; after enactment.

There are many other problems with the bill as well such as dividing people up according to wealth, condition of health, and age. That being said, if the right would just have compromised on just this one position, many of us remaining on outside could have been happy at least with the promise of changing the structural wrongs of this system.

[bigtree]

1. would the ERISA waiver pass the Byrd rule as germane to budget considerations?

If not, it's a non-starter in the Senate as far as reconciliation goes.

[mmonk]

2. The language of 1332 could have been changed to match

budget considerations and grant an ERISA waiver. Maybe it could have said if the state waiver is used as an ERISA waiver, it would have to meet or exceed the current budget restrictions. All it takes it will and language.

[bigtree]

3. will

Thanks for the answer.

[mmonk]

4. I also think Section 1332 was written the way it was to prevent

the CBO from scoring a state single payer system that could arise with this Section. The cat would be out of the bag so to speak.

[bigtree]

7. I think allowing states to opt-out in favor of their own HC options is inevitable

. . . in some form, in the future. It's the only escape hatch that's going to be available to states which generate a lot of public discontent (if that occurs).

[mmonk]

8. I certainly hope so. But I think this delays it down the road.

If the strain of subsidizing the for profit health insurance system reaches a breaking point where the subsidies are slashed or services denied, a quick transition will be difficult.

[stray cat]

5. So you would agree the current system is better than the current alternative?

[mmonk]

6. No, I would say locking in the current system with the current alternative

of providing subsidies is a bad idea when it excludes alternatives.