Christie vetoes Obamacare provision
Gov. Christie became the first governor in the country today to veto a bill that would set up a state-run health care exchange. Such exchanges, which are intended to group consumers together to get deals on health insurance, was a key provision of the Obamacare health reform. Ten states have so far enacted health care exchanges, a handful of legislatures have rejected the exchanges and many states (including Pennsylvania) have legislation pending.
Christie vetoes Obamacare provision
Matt Katz, Inquirer Staff Writer
Full story in Friday's paper, here.
No ChristieCare for New Jersey.
Gov. Christie became the first second governor in the country today to veto a bill that would set up a state-run health care exchange. Such exchanges, which are intended to group consumers together to get deals and offer choices on health insurance, was a key provision of the Obamacare health reform. Ten states have so far enacted health care exchanges, a handful of legislatures have rejected the exchanges and many states (including Pennsylvania) have legislation pending.
Christie rejected the bill, passed by the Democratic Legislature, for several reasons, including the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule on Obamacare in the coming weeks. “I am concerned that a hastily created exchange in New Jersey will impose unnecessary obligations upon the State’s taxpayers,” Christie said. “The very constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act is cloaked in uncertainty, as both the individual mandate to procure health insurance as well as the jurisdictional mandate to establish an exchange may not survive scrutiny by the Supreme Court.”
In recent days the bill had become topic du jour among tea partying Christie watchers. If he didn't veto this bill, they argued, he would be responsible for creating "ChristieCare" in New Jersey.
“First, we had RomneyCare. Next, we had ObamaCare. If the governor does not veto the health care exchange bill on his desk we might as well call it ChristieCare in New Jersey,” said Steve Lonegan, who had challenged Christie from the right in the 2009 gubernatorial primary, in a statement yesterday. Lonegan is the state director of Americans For Prosperity, which is affiliated with the conservative Koch brothers, who in the past have also expressed their support for Christie.
In an article for the conservative Daily Caller, the director of health policy studies for the libertarian Cato Institute (where Christie was honored last week, incidentally), upped the ante further, writing yesterday: "...it’s not an exaggeration to say that how New Jersey handles this legislation could determine whether Obamacare lives or dies. Obamacare can only work if states do the heavy lifting."
Assemblyman Herb Conaway (D., Burlington), a doctor and one of the sponsors of the bill, said this afternoon that “the governor has sent a clear message to the 1.3 million uninsured New Jerseyeans and the many others who are underinsured and struggle to afford their existing insurance: He doesn’t care."
“Health care is not a commodity. No one should have to choose between their health and paying their bills...By vetoing this bill, Gov. Christie has failed New Jersey’s uninsured residents, hurt New Jersey’s chances of fully benefiting from federal health care reform and ignored the need to provide relief to hospitals for uncompensated care. I am disappointed that Gov. Christie put national political pressures ahead of the well-being of New Jersey. His actions have once again shown his complete disregard for our most vulnerable populations.”
It should ne noted that if a state does not set up an exchange, the federal government will create one in that state.
Here's the full text of the governor's veto:
May 10, 2012
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 2171
(Second Reprint)
To the General Assembly:
In March of 2010, after significant public debate and
discourse, a sharply divided Congress passed the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was swiftly signed
into law. The “Affordable Care Act” represents a far-reaching
and expansive alteration of the nation’s health care system.
Among its many provisions is the requirement that every person
across the country obtain and maintain basic health insurance.
To achieve this goal, the Affordable Care Act imposes sweeping
revisions to almost every facet of private health insurance and
public health infrastructure at the national, state, and local
levels. Critical to these changes is the directive that a
“health insurance exchange” must be established in each state.
While states have the option to craft their own version of these
exchanges, they must be consistent with the terms and
limitations imposed by the Affordable Care Act. If a state
fails to act to adopt these requirements, the federal government
will step into the state to establish programs it deems
acceptable, with the costs of these programs passed along to the
state’s citizens.
Faced with these new federal laws, both the New Jersey
Legislature and my Administration have appropriately worked to
identify the most balanced, cost-effective, and medically sound
approach towards compliance. Assembly Bill No. 2171, passed by
the Legislature on March 15 of this year, seeks to address some
of these challenges by creating the “New Jersey Health Benefits
Exchange Act” to implement the core provision in the federal
Affordable Care Act: the requirement that every citizen in New
Jersey purchase and maintain health care coverage.
Prudently, throughout the process leading to the passage of
Assembly Bill No. 2171, the scope of the Affordable Care Act and
its central component – the “individual mandate” – were deeply
debated and thoughtfully examined by members of the Legislature,
health care experts, private insurers, academics, and the
citizens of New Jersey who will finance the bill’s provisions.
Critically, the robust debate in our State echoed the national
conversation between policy makers and the people about the
effectiveness of many of the Affordable Care Act’s provisions.
Then, on March 26 of this year, just ten days after the passage
of Assembly Bill No. 2171, the Supreme Court of the United
States began an unprecedented three days of hearings, where the
same arguments and questions concerning the lawfulness of both
the individual mandate, and the health care exchanges necessary
to deliver that coverage, were presented to the highest Court in
the land for resolution.
While I appreciate the Legislature’s attempt to find steady
policy footing in these shifting legal sands, I am concerned
that a hastily created exchange in New Jersey will impose
unnecessary obligations upon the State’s citizens. Indeed, the
very constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act is cloaked in
uncertainty, as both the individual mandate to procure health
insurance as well as the jurisdictional mandate to establish an
exchange may not survive scrutiny by the Supreme Court. Because
it is not known whether the Affordable Care Act will remain, in
whole or in part, it would be imprudent for New Jersey now to
create an exchange before these critical threshold issues are
decided with finality by the Court.
The uncertainty created by the litigation challenging the
Affordable Care Act is reflected in many aspects of Assembly
Bill No. 2171. For instance, the bill commits New Jersey to
establishing and operating a new Medicaid-like program for
individuals between 133% and 200% of the federal poverty level,
without any assurance of the level of federal funding that will
be available to support such a plan. Moreover, the bill’s
mechanism for certifying health plan participation in the
exchange limits the pool of plan participants, which will likely
reduce options and increase costs. Likewise, the composition of
the proposed exchange’s board of directors lacks representation
by all stakeholders and improvidently provides a salary of
$50,000 to each board member, further increasing implementation
expense. In all, with basic issues regarding the future of the
Affordable Care Act unresolved, it is impossible to know whether
this legislation best suits the interests and needs of all New
Jerseyans who will be required to finance these policy choices.
The fundamental uncertainties inherent in the Affordable
Care Act during the Supreme Court’s deliberations counsel
against premature action, just as they should have slowed the
rush to pass this bill. Indeed, while many have publicly
questioned both the future of the Affordable Care Act and the
corresponding efficacy of the bill’s provisions, the Legislature
nonetheless pushed this bill forward to my desk. I believe that
the better course of action for New Jersey is to continue to
monitor the ever-changing landscape surrounding the
implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and to refrain from
imposing its mandates upon our citizens until outstanding issues
are settled, and the required course of action is clear.
While I am unwilling to approve the establishment of a
statewide health insurance exchange at this time, I am mindful
that the requirements of the Affordable Care Act still stand
today and I intend to fully oversee New Jersey’s compliance in a
responsible and cost-effective manner should its
constitutionality ultimately be upheld by the Supreme Court.
Despite the serious questions of legality that have followed the
Affordable Care Act since its signing, my Administration has
been studying sensible approaches towards ensuring New Jersey’s
compliance with the federal law since the spring of 2010. At
that time, I directed the establishment of an interdepartmental
working group, which includes the Departments of Banking and
Insurance, Health and Senior Services, and Human Services to
meet regularly and to coordinate the State’s efforts towards
implementing the Affordable Care Act. My Administration will
continue this work and stands ready to implement the Affordable
Care Act if its provisions are ultimately upheld.
For all these reasons, committing New Jersey to the
establishment of a statewide exchange under the provisions of
this bill is premature. Accordingly, pursuant to Article V,
Section I, Paragraph 14 of the New Jersey Constitution, I am
returning Assembly Bill No. 2171 (Second Reprint) without my
approval.
Respectfully,
[seal]
/s/Chris Christie
Governor
Attest:
/s/Charles B. McKenna
Chief Counsel to the Governor
Keep up the good work Governor. Anything Obama supports, I am against.— oneway- I agree. Funny how Democrats claim to be "for the average person" but what they haven't fessed up to is overall a majority of Americans has seen their premiums rise since the passage of Obamacare. Either way, there are some good components to the law, however means does not justify the ends here and the law (at least the "individual mandate" needs to be repealled or overturned as it is purely illegal and a dangerous issue in a true Republic.
- It's funny how the republicans only want what will benefit the rich and couldn't care less abou the average person.
Lets make corporate taxes zero and increase the burden more on the middle class! Yes, why not? Corporations mean more than anything else. - Republicans want people whom want self determination and life, liberty and the persuit of happiness and not a slave oriented entitlement state. Clearly you're too naive to know the difference.
- If that were true, and it isn't, how come the repubsa re not backing Obama's plan to make people buy insurance? Dont repub always say we need personal responsibility? Then why are they hell bent on making those of us who have coverage pay for those who don't? When those without coverage get treated for free at hospitals and clinics, our premiums go up. In other words, the repubs are NOT for personal responsibility, only against Obama. In fact, it was republicans who first brought up the idea of the individual mandate during the Clinton years. More phoniness from the right, as usual. — mike l
- Are your serious...here is a good link for you. The rate is actually slowing. Also, Clinton tried to make a change before things got out of control, but was shot down. Time to be reactive and make a change before health care costs start eating 50+% of companies profits and they have to impose more layoffs to compensate...blind fool.
http://publications.milliman.com/periodicals/mmi/pdfs/milliman-medical-index-2011.pdf
Starbucks spends more on health care costs then coffee...think about that.— jag32wire - not long from now the us supreme court by a 5-4 vote in favor of the health care law being constitutional but rejects the individual mandate law.
christie knows this because he is a made member of the new world order that is why he walks one step behind Caesar
by the way SCOTUS always vote 5-4 on landmark decision
they dont want the masses getting wise to the CON
the masses might start getting suspicious
— Top Cat - One of the goals of the Affordable Care Act is to provide affordable health care. Christie has attacked public union members claiming they are bankrupting the state with their supposed lavish benefits. Nothing will cost residents more or become a job killer than the out if control growth in the price of health insurance. Americans pay far more for health care than any country in the world. US based companies will not be able to compete unless something is done. WHAT IS CHRISTIE ALTERNATE PROPOSAL TO DEAL WITH ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL ISSUES CONFRONTING THE COUNTRY? He has none just like the rest if Republicans. It's easy to simply say no to everything. Christie appears to be more concerned about his political career than the residents of NJ.— MikeP
- I see no problem with rejecting unfunded federal mandates that violate the Constitution. But feel free to keep buying into the party line. (BTW, I'm not Republican)
— verve - You may not be a Republican, but you buy into their party line. It has yet to be determined if the mandate violates the constitution...unless you buy into the Republican party line and say it is. — CommonSense in Philly
- It hasn't been determined if the federal mandate violates the constitution???? OK, you need to read the constitiution. Amendment X. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." So, no where in the artiles of the Constition allows the federal government to be involved in Healthcare so such a federal mandate is unconstitutional.
— jmccor00 - There is no mention of an Air Force in the constitution either. Ergo, USAF = unconstitutional. — Paul_West
- Paul, you're a dope. The USAF was a spin off of the Army done under the authority of the POTUS under Article II of the Constitution governing the powers of POTUS as "Commander in Chief" and not as a sweeping illegal legislation that affects all US Citizens. Apples and Oranges my friend.
Comment removed.- LoL...Sure it does. Article II Section 2 you dope. Just more proof your are incompetant AND uneducated. Here the link b.c you probably don't even know where to look http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
- MikeP, please do yourself a favor and read the Affordable Care Act and then comment on it. It is thousands of pages long and would be quite a task but you would see that the Act has absolutely nothing to due with affordable healthcare. Noting at all. It has everything to do with a government take over of the health care industry and thats it. Its about power, pure power. If you believe they want to provide you affordable health care then you are foolish. — jmccor00
- shoot, come to think of it maybe obama truly is kenyan. he sure looks like it walking next to chritie's largeness.— slanted and enchanted
- I like turtles.— AEPi71
- Why should he care? He and his family have guaranteed free healthcare for life.— 19147
- Why should he care? He and his family have guaranteed free healthcare for life.— 19147
- Why should he care? He and his family have guaranteed free healthcare for life.— 19147
- Some things Christie will never veto: cheesesteaks, milkshakes, large pizzas, big macs, and tubs of crisco— LiberaceFanUSMC
- Liberals are bullies. Unless they get their way, they resort to childish name calling and typical dictatorial efforts.
- Comment removed.
- You're finally learning. Let's see Occupy movement, Nancy Pelosi's famous rant "we don't know what's in the law, that's why we need to pass it to find out", Unions goonery, on and on and on. If you're on the side of true freedom, you better make sure you're not voting democrat.
- Comment removed.
- look at how fat he is next to obama! christie isn't going to survive reelection ... he's gonna have a heart attack before then!— regisisking
- LOL. The federal government will establish healthcare with or without the lamebrain governors consent. It is a done deal.— PhillyMan
- Its not a done deal at all. The states have the power to reject it. The 10th amendment to the constitution is very clear on this PhillyMan. — jmccor00
- "One of the goals of the Affordable Care Act is to provide affordable health care." --- No its not. Do you have any idea of what Obamacare is doing to the cost of insurance right now in the real world? The cost to those of us already paying for it is rising. Obamcare was initially designed to give it away for free. It is not any type of reform at all. If Obamcare stands you will have most of the nation forced onto it because its cheaper for companies to pay Obama's fines than to provide high quality insurance to their employees. We are still waiting for true healthcare reform. Maybe the next president will get it right?— psyrus
- And your health insurance premiums *weren't* rising before Mr. Obama took office? My husband and I pay for our own insurance. And it has risen every year since we first got it in the 1990s. One year it went up 25%; that was during the Bush II era. — Jen D
- People are spending a fortune for Healthcare or simply go without it. Or they cling to jobs they hate because of the Healthcare benefits. Obamacare would make it much more affordable for millions of New Jersians. Christie's veto destroys any hope of more affordable healthcare. Now its back to the Republican Healthcare Plan, which is " I've got mine, whats the problem?" Republicans ran the country for 30 years since Reagan and did NOTHING about the healthcare problem and now they continue to block any attempt to help the tens of millions who need some help.— alak0926
- Would someone please explain to this idiot Bill Clinton, and the 103rd United States Congress. In fact, the 104th Congress was the first Republican controlled congress since the 1950's. How stupid can some of you get? — towelie
- Good work Governor. I wish Corbett would grow a spine— Beethoven987
- Affordable health care- for who? I HAVE private insurance, paid for through payroll deductions. Thanks to Obamacare, I CANNOT AFFORD to USE my healthcare because premiums and co-pays went up. Thanks for nothing. Again, the "payers" get screwed so that "others" can benefit. Instead of literally sending OUR MONEY overseas, keep it here for things like this, education, job training, and the rest of the endless list of things AMERICANS need.— dee99999
- — psyrus"Obamacare was designed to be free"
Are you an idiot or just a liar. It's the Republican healthcare plan. So let me get this straight. Obama passes the Republican healthcare plan and the Republicans want their own plan ruled unconstitutional.
So that leaves anyone who supported the Republican healthcare plan which would be all of you Republicans in the 90's up until Obama passed it.
You guys really do hate him more than you love your own country. When you will consider your own plan unconstitutional because he got it passed.
Silly Republicans. I guess you were never serious about helping Americans with healthcare. Maybe we should all be Iraqi's. You had no problem spending trillions there but refuse to spend a dollar on your own country.
With friends like these.
— Bush Destroyed America - Comment removed.
- How can you agree that this is a great post? Almost every sentence is factually incorrect! — towelie
- Another democrat post, another insult. Its impossible for you to have a discussion without insulting people, isn't it? Most of America wants healthcare reform. Obamacare is NOT reform. Is that too hard for you to understand? Have you ever read more than just the Dem talking points on Obamacare? Have you read about the fact that the US Territories are also covered under Obamacare? They do not pay the same taxes yet they are permitted the same benefits? There are other bits in the bill/law that might shock you if you took the time to read them. Nice attempt at deflecting the issue though. Obama continued "Bush's Wars" but I guess he gets another free pass on that. — psyrus
- psyrus, if it walks like an idiot and talks like an idiot, it must be a conservative. — DarkKnight76
- Yet more proof that the small minded individuals lead with insults when they do not have the ability to communicate properly. — psyrus
- Comment removed.
- Your republican nominee made healthcare available for all in Mass. and now he is against it for the entire country.— bbewsirhc
- jmcc, nice cut and paste. Try reading the Commerce Clause of the Constitution whereby Congress does in fact have the power to enact this law and has been enacting laws since day one. The snippet of the Constitution that have your panties in a wad is vague and up for interpretation, hence the SCOTUS.
alak, if you truly believe that your healthcare costs have gone up because of the AHA then you are truly delusional. I worked in the private sector by 20 years and my costs went up almost every single year. I now own a business and have for 10 years. My costs as an employer have gone up every year in the past 10 years. EVERY YEAR! So please, spare us the tripe and regurgitated talking points, get some facts and educate yourself or do us all a favor and syfh. Thank you.— amg - I appreciate you pointing that out. Thank you. The Commerce Clause has always been a hotbed of debate. I don't see the AHA simply a case of the federal government regulating state commerce. Its a complete takeover of the industry.
Since the AHA hasn't been officially enacted in PA i am quite aware that healthcare costs haven't gone up as a result of it. Yes costs have been rising for over 20 years. Thats because of the increase role of insurance companies in the industry which is a result of the congressional mandates from the 60s and 70s. So again if the federal government would stay out of healthcare you wouldn't see the systematic rise in prices.— jmccor00 - Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Another empty gesture by an empty politician.— Jeff West
- Another empty gesture by an empty politician.— Jeff West
- If a state has the right to ignore a federal law, then would you agree that states can ignore the Civil Rights laws in the 60's?
The federal government mandates all males 18+ to register for the selective service. Could states pass their own laws negating that?
The States Rights argument is like the last refuge for a scoundrel. Argue the policy on its merits and not whether discrimination against people based on race or discrimination by insurance companies based on pre-existing conditions should be allowed on a state by state basis. You can't have 50 states with 50 different health care systems. It's inefficient, would explode costs, and would not address any of the underlying problems. The sickest people would move to the states that covered people with pre-existing conditions creating the old risk management death spiral and put insurance companies out of husiness. There is only one way to reform health insurance delivery system. This is it. Implementing pieces of it would either explode government deficit or put insurance companies out of business. Or both.— Paul_West - Good Job Christie....anything the President touches is garbage and unconstitutional...Thank you for being an accountable and responsible leader in regards to our checkbooks.....O's plan, besides bweing uncosntitutional is one that will bankrupt the country and bury all our grandchildren in debt forever....— nuggett
- Perhaps Doctor Assemblyman Herb Conaway, if he is still practicing, should offer his services free of charge to those poor souls who "are underinsured and struggle to afford their existing insurance". I'm sure he and his colleagues would still make a decent buck. But I suspect he'd just jack up his fees to the rest of us, which is essentially what Obamacare does anyway.— nellar
- Do you even understand why people are "underinsured"? I'm sure you are picturing some poor person. Yeah we already cover the poor through Medicaid. Obamacare helps to cover the 55 yr old guy who was laid off and has pre-existing conditions, is trying to hang on for 10 yrs until he gets on Medicare, but insurance companies won't cover him or will bankrupt him because he had cancer 10 years ago.
The exchanges that Christie the Hutt just vetoed would attempt to pool all of these people together along with others (self-employed people, young people working part time jobs with no insurance etc), so everyone's rates will be affordable. The exchanges WILL reduce the costs of insurance compared to what the individual market is now.— Paul_West - I wonder if the Governor would have vetoed this legislation if 1) he wasn't a possible Vice President, and/or 2) the legislation had been proposed by an executive of a Republican Insurance Company executive?— mlefkoe
- test
- Jail all the "Fat People"!!!!!!!!!— quigly46
- Keep up the great work Gov. Chistie. The citizens of NJ stand behind you!— alsdkjk
- Are these the same insurance exchanges the republicans formulated and were proposing before?
Just like the afghanistan war and TARP (signed by W) they were for it before they were against it.
I usually don't insultt folks, but anyone who falls for some of the nonsense that comes out of their mouths is really intellectually suspect.
— Owatagoofiam - Professional posters should be banned from Philly.com. All these right wing plants have got to go and let the real majority have its voices heard.
Republicans want only what the wealthy want and not what the country needs. - No health care help with SO MANY out of work? With so many in jobs that supply no health benefits (like me). Meanwhile, 2 BILLION OF TAXPAYER MONEY for an as yet undetailed, mystery college merger in South Jersey. CRONYISM at its best in action here. Wake up, people. We are getting robbed by this ape! AND, I HAFTA SAY, OBAMA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT THIS TIME! Christie got elected on a tax reduction platform, but he has no problem out-and-out stealing from the people.— xkarivalis
- If this law is unconstitutional because it violates our property rights (by forcing us to part with our money to buy insurance), then states' mandates that healthcare providers give away their property (medical goods and services) to those who have no hope of paying for them, is also unconstitutional. Why isn't Christie trying to force the NJ Medical Board to permit doctors to allow people to die because they can't pay for life-saving procedures?
The Constitution was written by men who couldn't fathom the possibility of property and life having an inverse relationship.
Christie's attempt to argue against measures designed to allow individuals to receive bulk discounts for their insurance, purely for political reasons, is sickening.
— veetkoosh - Thanks to this newly enacted 'Affordable Health Care Law', or partial enactment, I have seen my healthcare deduction remain relatively the same, slightly higher. What is higher is my copay and now the wonderful 20% copay stacked on top of what I already owe for hospital vists, surgery, etc. I don't give one damn about the Reps and Democrats bickering over issues--the major issue I have is quite honestly I'm sick of paying for everyone else. They want to slam the insurance companies-sounds great. but what everyone forgets is that the people who run insurance co's are smarter than the fools in the government. so they find ways around the laws. Yes people with pre-existing conditions should be covered. but expect to pay more because your care will cost more. or lets focus on the real problem--why are healthcare costs so high? we solve that problem and everything else falls into line.— ena1977
- How can you tell the NJ voters are behind Christie ? You can't see anything behind his huge posterior !
— Joe R. - And furthermore, these hypocrites like Christie who pound the podium about "no new taxes" and "smaller government" line up with their hands out every time their area has a flood, a hurricane, you name it! A picture of just such a pitch showing Christie and Obama appears at the head of this article. (Looks like Laurel and Hardy, actually...) Christie is a blowhard, and so are all the others taking his tack. against big government? Against taxes? Stop asking for, and accepting, federal aid when you have a disaster. Your people should help each other and leave us taxpayers alone. If you all don't like it, move somewhere those things don't happen. Just stop running to me every time your palatial trailer floats away!— xkarivalis
- Hey idiots? When has healthcare not gone up? That's the whole point of the Affordable Care Act. And in spite of what you fat fools say, the rate of increase in health insurance premiums has come down since the ACA was approved. Even the WSJ admits as much. http://ycharts.com/indicators/us_health_care_inflation_rate— 3rd&Brown
- Has anyone on here actually read the 12-15 hundred page document on the health care reform or obamacare whatever you want to call!!— jovs5
- Comment removed.
- My premiums went up again this year. When will the savings come? Oh that's right NEVER! Because they didn't do anything to control costs but instead expanded services to 40 million more people. Those crazy academia types....so smart yet SO STUPID!!!— UTR
- Yeah everybody is against it until they get turned down for insurance because of a pre-existing condition. Same morons that voted George Bush for two terms, how does that even happen? How can people be so dumb to vote George W. Bush for 8 years? That is insane (but he did a nice job on the economy:).— neddyflanders
- For someone who gets his health insurance provided by us taxpayers, it is disingenuous to deny the uninsured poor, the chance to have minimal health insurance. It is unfortunate that this arrogant, self centered bully only values his wealthy cronies by providing them with a tax reduction. We can do a lot better.— richw38
- It's NOT affordable...
(after the law of supply and demand take effect).
It's NOT for ALL American's....
(the Prez, cabinet, congress, unions are exempt)
If Obamacare is Sooooooooooo good why arin't THEY in it???— FocusTruthFully - this gov. is just like pa.'s gove. he only cares about the rich. maybe he and/or his family member will get an illness that even money can't fix. would serve mr."lard" right.— etbarksdale
- Interesting timining by Butterbean. So he's not going to help regular working folks get private health insurance through the ACA but has his hand out to CMS for more Medicaid dollars for his Comprehensive Waiver which will only increase the Medicaid population in NJ.
What a fraud!— The Fundamentals of the Economy are Fine - The supreme court will be making the entire discussion mute in a few weeks anyway.— kelprod2
- obama- "i'm fine with people saying i care." only in repuklican world is "care" a curse word. oink oink.
- he has sent a message, and i agree with it.— raynesrock
- Fishtown, you need to wake up. these policies only beenfit the poor by taking from those who actually pay their bills, ie the rich AND the middle class. i am tired of having to pay for the poor in everything. lefties simply dont realize that the middle class is squeezed more than ever by democrats.— raynesrock
Good for you Governor. Now the medical insurance companies can really rake in the big bucks. Their CEO's will make Billion$. All on the backs of the middle class and poor.
LIFE IS GOOD!!!— GOPee_er- Comment removed.
- Christie to uninsured New Jersey residents: DROP DEAD.
P.S. Steve Lonegan is an idiot.— Jen D - So does this seal christie being the vp canidate, can't wait for him to flip flop on that decision.— flavious27
He's funny AND FAT. Love him..— Ben Fan- How could anyone ever vote for Chris Christie to make decisions that effect healthcare. I'm surprised he didn't deep fat fry the bill the state congress sent him then dip it in chocolate and eat it. He is the epitomy of a greedy, gluttoness wast of life!— jweis
- Clear and concise: take NO ACTION until SCOTUS issues its ruling.
I wonder if the same people who now argue underfunding of NCLB will take the same position as more and more of the burden for Obamacare falls to the states and employers.— lefty 
EXCELLENT work Governor!- So the government can force me to serve in the military, for their benefit, but giving us all healthcare is a crime?— j$
- Citizenc92 Paul P isn't a dope, he just called you out on your lack of logic when it comes to the constitution. Of course there isn't anything in the constitution about health care, the concept didn't exist in the 18th century. This should be no surprise, Christie wouldn't approve anything that is put forth by a democrat. He is a company man through and through. By the way, all those who think this NJ governor is so wonderful, what do you all feel about his plan to basically obliterate the higher education system in Jersey? Go team blowhard.— Hemingway
- Hemi- Sorry to bust your bubble but both you and Paul are dead wrong. Go back to school and study the Constitution specifically Article II Section 2. Then come back and play with the big boys.
- "It should be noted that if a state does not set up an exchange, the federal government will create one in that state."
Jeez!........this bill is like some flesh eating bacteria!!
— curettage - This comment has been deleted.— dallas68
- Yeah, I shudder to see what the exchanges "the federal government creates" are comprised of. Pay-backs are never pretty. — curettage
- Clown shoes. Possibly even worse than Corruptbutt, and that is saying something.— Mr. Baseball
Vote Democrat, Vote Obama, Vote your Job, Pro Union!- LoL...So under your statement, one should give up their individuality for a nanny state AND pay a % of the income to a corrupt organization that only serves to drive businesses out of business? Spoken like a true dolt.
- businesses are making record profits not being run out business. workers deserve compensation.
- You people are funny!On one hand you don't want to pay for the uninsured which is what is making healthcare really high.Then when someone trys to do it which would help bring down the cost your againest that.Don't want Gov in your life but its ok for Repubs to be all involved in what women do or not do.Its ok to cut off preventive care which will cost us more in the end.TOO FUNNY I say.Repubs want to cut minimum wage and most don't even know how much it is,Rep Barton Tx said they are going to cut finding for meals on wheels. Cut any and everything that helps the needy ,but don't create revenue. Oh wait they said those are the job creators.Someone tell me hw many jobs where created under that plan. Everyone realizes if the middle class and poor have more they spend more which helps the ECONOMY....Sad day in America.— TOOFUNNY59
- "Everyone realizes if the middle class and poor have more they spend more..." --- Then why do the Democrats constantly want to tax the middle class into the poor house? The sad day in America is when Obama got elected. An even worse day was when the Democrats took full control of congress way back when and kick-started the recession. — psyrus
- All of Buetterbeans supporters need to ask him why he is expanding the Medicaid roles as we speak? Ask him about the Comprehensive Waiver from CMS if you have the balls or just keep your eyes and ears closed.— The Fundamentals of the Economy are Fine
- Katz, great post about Corzine. Who would have thought that a democrat could be a robber-baron?— junethe4th
- @Citizenc92, obviously I was being facetious. It all depends on how purposefully dense we want to be when interpreting the Constitution. There are a lot of things that aren't technically in the Constitution that we accept as legal in order to function in a civil 21st century society.
Based on how the Constitution has been interpreted for the last 100 years or so, there are numerous precedents on the books that would uphold ACA as being constitutional. Ultimately what is or isn't "Constitutional" is whatever a majority of a very politicized Supreme Court rules as Constitutional on that particular day. That's how it's always been.
But glad to see there are so many armchair Constitutional scholars who happen to have philly.com accounts.— Paul_West
Reach him at mkatz@phillynews.com or 609-217-8355.
Follow Matt on Twitter: @mattkatz00. Reach Matt at mkatz@phillynews.com or 609-217-8355.
