Back door single-payer?

The New York Times reports that “President Obama, who has stood by his landmark health care law through court attacks (liberal translation: “unconstitutional court ruling”) and legislative efforts to repeal it, told the nation’s governors on Monday that he was willing to amend the measure to give states the ability to opt out of its most controversial requirements right from the start…The announcement is the first time Mr. Obama has called for altering a central component of his signature health care law…”


The man hasn’t budged on his support and promotion of Obamacare, so why is he now willing to make ‘alterations’?


We find the answer in a Politico report revealing:


“…a source on a White House conference call with liberal allies this morning says the Administration is presenting it to Democrats as an opportunity to offer more expansive health care plans than the one Congress passed.


Health care advisers Nancy-Ann DeParle and Stephanie Cutter stressed on the off-record call that the rule change would allow states to implement single-payer health care plans -- as Vermont seeks to -- and true government-run plans, like Connecticut's Sustinet.


The source on the call summarizes the officials' point -- which is not one the Administration has sought to make publically -- as casting the new "flexibility" language as an opportunity to try more progressive, not less expansive, approaches on the state level.


"They are trying to split the baby here: on one hand tell supporters this is good for their pet issues, versus a message for the general public that the POTUS is responding to what he is hearing and that he is being sensible," the source emails.”


Ah, yes…what Obama has effectively done is instead of providing the discussed ‘flexibility’ to states hesitant in implementing an unconstitutionally-ruled law, he’s requested an allowance for blue states to setup single-payer government-run healthcare systems. Then as Levin covered on yesterday’s broadcast, this has the potential to provide the irrational, liberal judiciary with an opening, much like Roe v. Wade, to conclude that “what one should have, all should have!” Once again, they confuse ‘rights’ for privileges and use legal plunder to advance defiant implementation and acceptance.


A good rule to walk away with here is when ‘flexibility’ is discussed, it ALWAYS leans left. Don’t fall for it, Governors.  Don't fall for it, America!