WASHINGTON, D.C. — West Virginia Third District Congressman Nick Rahall was one of 39 Democrats to vote for a Republican House plan Friday that would allow Americans to keep their existing health care coverage without penalties through next year.

Rahall and a number of other House Democrats upset with President Obama and the Obamacare rollout.

The 19-term congressman said the House bill honors the original intention and promise of the Affordable Health Care law. He said West Virginia residents and others who have had their health insurance policies canceled need more time to learn what new options are available to them.

“Because of the website troubles the people cannot find those policies that may be in their better interest than what they’re currently on,” Rahall told MetroNews affiliate WVOW in Logan. “All they know is they are going to be cut-off from what they are currently on.”

Nearly 9,000 West Virginians have received cancellation notices.

President Obama announced Thursday insurance companies would be allowed to keep people on plans that don’t meet the minimum requirements of Obamacare without penalty. Insurance companies have responded negatively to the President’s about-face. Rahall said what the President did was a step in the right direction but he’s remains skeptical and it still doesn’t satisfy the concerns of those who have received cancellation letters.

Rahall called the rollout of Obamacare “rotten.”

“It’s disgusting and I’m as mad about it as the next person is. But somebody in the administration should have known about this and whoever that somebody is should no longer be a somebody in the administration,” Rahall said.

Rahall, who is up for reelection next year, is being criticized in television ads in his home district for his previous support of Obamacare. Cabell County state Senator Evans Jenkins switched political parties earlier this year in hopes of facing Rahall in the 2014 fall election.


bubble graphic


bubble graphic


  • RHytonen

    Why dont they just pass HR 676?

    Medicare for All is THE fiscal inevitability.

    Private profit does not belong in a life or death industry. And btw, that includes Energy.

    • Jose

      Yes, let's let Washington control more and show more incompetence. Brilliant.

  • RHytonen

    of COURSE he does.
    He has Insurance company campaign money to court.
    Screw the children, cancer and other preexisting condition sufferers,
    working poor, and unemployed (and really, EVERYONE else
    but insurance company billionaires!)
    In other words, he's a good Republican, and knows to court racists and corporations
    - just like Manchin, and all the rest elected from this gullible, more-fascist-domnated-than-most, state. Who else has an ALEC member -the height of corporatism- who calls himself a "Democrat?"

    • The bookman

      Can you feel the tide turning on this President...I sense you can...What Government shutdown? Even the Clinton's threw him under the bus this week...So close, yet so far away from single payer....Have a great weekend!

  • leroy j gibbs

    I was for it before I was against it

  • Joe

    Rahall is blaming the Administration. After all these years in congress, does he not understand he is part of the legislative branch?!

  • JulianJet

    Rahall is a Washington democrat plain and simple. The closer he gets to Election Day the more "West Virginian" he becomes. We need a rep who will stand up and be counted for his / her constituents...even if they stand alone!

  • Independent View

    Phishing for votes and desperate politicians take desperate measures!

  • wvman75

    I'm just glad to see Rahall do something right for a change.

    • Jose

      Doing something right would be to repeal the whole monstrosity. And can someone tell me why a 26 year old should be on parents' insurance?

      • James Lane

        So they can go to college and graduate school or begin a career at entry level and still have health insurance.

        • The bookman

          Cradle to grave! What about when they can't get a job? Should get to stay on mom and dad's til 35 don't you think...where's the fairness?

          • James Lane

            O.K. I think I fully understand your opinion on this now. I will refrain from further argument about most entry level jobs not offering insurance. It doesn't matter now anyway. The insurance exchange will fix the access problem. I just want to make sure I haven't misunderstood your viewpoint on the age 26 issue. You feel that allowing young people to stay on their parents' insurance past the age of 18 makes things too easy on them and because it is too easy for them they do not learn valuable lessons in personal responsibility and personal finance. In essence, it makes them wimps and dependent. Is that right? I'm not trying to corner you or make some kind of sarcastic comment. We disagree on the 26 issue and I want to understand why beyond all the usual partisan garbage that gets tossed around in these discussions.

          • The bookman

            Nowhere did I say she was cooking for you! Now who is the misogynist? Who jumps to the sexist view of women? I think the pot attempts to call the kettle black! You know nothing of me or my beliefs involving women...in fact you consistently change the subject of the argument when you run out of something to say...now if you have something to add regarding insuring 26 year old adults I'd be happy to entertain it... If not you'll have to wait to comment on a story of the subject you now want to discuss!

          • Jason412

            Wow are you also a misogynist? Oviously your view of women is stuck in the same era as the rest of your views. I do the meal planning, shopping, and cooking you know since I went to school to be a Chef it would seem incredibly sexist to make her cook because she's a female.

            Hope you don't treat your mama like that.

          • The bookman

            I began supporting my family before graduating from high school...then went to college and supported my parents and myself...then took a leave of absence from college to start a business, then finished my degree in the summers...perseverance...pass it on... You think you have a tough story, well boo hoo!! Tired of the moan and and groan...I am no one special...anyone with gumption and a will to succeed can and will!!!! No excuses! Go pick up your girl,, hope she is bringing home your dinner!

          • Jason412

            I moved from the backwoods of WV to the northside of Pittsburgh alone when I was 17 to get a jump on putting my self through school. What point are you trying to make?

            I was grown before I was 17, and had the foresite to save money so I could leave as soon as I graduated. Most kids could not handle full adult responsibility at 18, and if they were expected to the college graduation rate would plummet.

            Let me ask you since I assume youre a bit older, when did you start working to help support your family? Does that make your generation lazy and irresponsible compared to a generation that dropped out of elementary school to work? I certainly dont think it does, I think that the parents who did have to work as kids realized that wasnt how it should be. Their thought process evolved, and with it college enrollment skyrocketed. Instead of people starting work at an early age, they realized a skilled educated population is better then an uneducated laborer population.

            That wasnt the end of what I wanted to say but I have to pick up my girl from work in a few Ill try to finish later

          • The bookman

            The number of children per family is already part of the actuarial schedule...insurance is risk management plain and simple...when the risk changes so do the rates...this is not rocket science... You just admitted that you were responsible for yourself at eighteen, as was I. Could have handled it earlier...Med school/law school/grad school is not an excuse for not carrying your own water...nor is not having a job with health insurance...so enough with all the excuses...health insurance at that age is inexpensive as I paid out of pocket on a pizza delivery wage at that point on my life...I know from experience...time to find some level of responsibility and stop making excuses for adults who still want to be kids!

          • James Lane

            O.K. Should we then allow insurance companies to choose to only insure a certain number of children? If keeping a kid on a family health plan until they are 26 impacts the rates for everyone, then certainly the number of children in a family has a similar impact. The age of 26 was not an arbitary number chosen to satisfy "late bloomers". That is the average age it takes to complete medical school, law school, and etc. It also was based on an actuarial table showing that it is the average age when young persons attain the type of employment that offers a health insurance plan. When did I take responsibility for myself? Age 18. It was probably earlier than that as I was working and paying for most things on my own, but that was the age I left my parent's home and began to pay rent, utilities, and etc. I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion, but I wanted to answer your question. I still don't quite fully understand the objection to kids staying on a family plan until 26, but I understand it much more.

          • The bookman

            I think most of America believes 18 is the age... All the items you list at legal after 21 are government imposed...but none of those items are at age 26....I don't claim to be the guy who gets to decide...this is my opinion as you are entitled to yours! I would suggest that most people you meet would agree with me, however! Go look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself at what age you were responsible for you!!! What did you come up with?

          • Jason412

            I never said anything about changing the age of majority.

            At 18 you cant buy alcohol, you cant purchase a pistol, you cant go to a casino. Are you really an adult in the eyes of most of America if you cant even be trusted to carry a pistol alone? Or drink? Or gamble away that hard earned "adult" paycheck. What those laws say to me is you arent considered a fully responsible adult in the eyes of the public. So to me it'd make more sense for the age of license on everything to be changed to be the same, or sticking with the current system of picking and choosing make kids eligible for insurance until their 21.

            Look, I'm not claiming to be some guy with a solution to all of America's problems but somehow I don't think you realize you're not that guy either.

          • The bookman

            James and Jason:

            And just to be clear, I am not advocating a national standard of 19 for family coverage to be moved to 18!! I am responding to a direct question as to why we should not support that standard at age 26! Don't twist the argument!

          • The bookman

            Every state has their own set of regulations as they apply to insurance...are you really trying to assert that in our country, the age of 18 is not considered the age at which an individual moves from being a dependent child to a responsible adult...I'm not talking about exceptions to the rule, I'm talking about the age at which most reasonable people see that transition occurring...I will be interested to see your response!

          • Jason412

            So its 19 now, but your insisting it should be 18. So you're for more regulations or against? It seems last time I talked about Obamacare on here you were insisting on the government having less interference, but now you want the government to force parents to drop their kids at least a year earlier, in some cases like NY 11 years early, then its been for quite some time.

            A lot of kids havent even graduated when they turn 18, so I oppose the stricter regulations you're supporting.

          • The bookman

            James Lane:

            I think that we have to instill in adults to be responsible for themselves, and that to pick an arbitrary age like 26 moves the bar too far...if parents want to subsidize a child who isn't ready to be on their own at 18 then that is their business...it is not big government requiring them to do it...what has been advocated is to require insurance companies to continue to insure adults on a family policy who are way beyond the age of majority, (thanks for the correction Jason), which is big government intrusion...it requires the insurance company to underwrite coverage as a dependent child which impacts the rates of everyone else...someone has to pay for that...make sense?

          • Jason412

            Also Bookman, most insurers keep kids on their parents insurance until they turn 19. So to say "all our laws are based around the age of majority" is sadly you spreading more misinformation. The 2 posts you made to James did not contain a single fact.

            I have to agree with James as to why someone who opposes government regulations wants the government to impose stricter regulations.

            So by taking 30 seconds to make sure my post was factual I stumbled on this.

            As of 2009, in the state of NY you can be on your parents insurance up to age 29. 2009 is 5 years pre-ObamaCare taking effect for those of you keeping track at home. http://www.dfs.ny.gov/consumer/faqs/faqs_S6030_Age29_young.htm

          • The bookman


            Well thanks for using the in accuracy in my post to make your point...certainly try to be factual in the comments I make and in no way was I attempting to misinform or misrepresent a fact to secure my argument...as it stands my argument stands that after 18, the age of majority in most states as well as the age at which you are emancipated from your parents without seeking a legal emancipation from the local governing authority, you are an adult and 26 is an arbitrary age picked out of the sky to appeal to a voting block of late bloomers still in college or just graduating from it! That is my humble opinion, Mr. Fact Check!

          • James Lane

            O.K. I think I understand what you are saying now, even though you didn't answer the part about where you have to pay for someone else's kid to be on their insurance. We'll just drop that. Tell me if this is what you are saying. You are saying that you want the government to force people to kick their children off their health insurance at age 18, regardless of circumstances, because that is the age upon we have all agreed is adulthood. Well, it certainly sounds like big goverment and government intrusion to me, but I guess that doesn't matter if that big government is forcing people to do stuff you want them to do. What are some of the other things you would like big government to force people to do?

          • Jason412

            I was pointing out, that regardless of the issue, it makes you seem like you actually know what you're talking about if you don't state even the most trivial information incorrectly.

            It seems most people that post here would rather spout nonsense that sounds like fact as fast as they can type instead of to actually taking the time to learn the facts.

            Your post isnt as bad as some. Pick 5 posts that make 4 or 5 points each and research it yourself. In my experience, at least 5-10 of those 25 facts will be completely wrong every time. Why even bother debating an issue if its just a contest to see who can spread misinformation more convincingly and faster? Who gains anything from that?

            I started reading comment sections to hear opposing points of view, weigh the pro's and con's, and decide for myself on an issue. I dont understand why people refuse to accept the internet as the "information super highway" that it is.

          • The bookman


            Money of course does not grow on trees, thus the point of my sarcasm!

            I stand corrected on the emancipation vs majority...thanks for the clarification on both points as they help further my argument!!! As the age of majority in most states stands at 18, with none going further than 20, do you contend that adults should still remain under the umbrella of their parents until 26? What misconception am I using to further my agenda, if in fact I have one? Where do you draw the line on Adults being held accountable for their own well being? Less than 26 or than 26?

          • Jason412

            @Bookman Money is printed on 75% cotton 25% linen, so unless the government has secret trees that grow cotton and linen together nothing about it "grows on trees".

            Also, it's "age of majority" not "age of emancipation."

            Although, it seems you're great at taking a common misconception and pushing it as fact to further your agenda.

          • The bookman

            Because in our society 18 is the age at which children become adults...all our laws are based on that...at what age do you believe a dependent child should stand on his or her own feet?? Eighteen is the norm, not 26, or 28, or 39...it's 18...it is the age of emancipation...not a new concept...you, sir, need to get with the program!!! Even if you still live with mommy, in fact, especially if you still live with mommy!

          • James Lane

            So, let me get this straight. You guys object to a kid just starting out in life being allowed to stay on an insurance plan his or her parents pay for because it is somehow unfair for them to choose to do that and because you think somehow you will have to pay for it? Let's break that down. You want to force parents to kick their kids off their insurance plan when they turn 18 for some unknown reason that I can't figure out no matter how many times I read your post. Now, let me ask the reverse of one of your questions. Why allow them to have insurance up to the age of 18? Why not force their parents to kick them off the plan when they turn 10 or heck, why not 5 once they are in kindergarten? One more question, because I still can't figure out it. Why do you want to force parents to kick their 18-26 year old children off their insurance plan?

          • The bookman

            Sure! We can print the money to pay for it! It's great to have a limitless supply of money...since our money grows on trees....

          • Jose

            Exactly book. Matter of fact, just let them stay until they are fifty. Then put their grand kids on too.

    • Alum

      Only because he is now running scared.

      • James Lane

        Running scared?

        You guys believe the right wing machine's press and bluster too much.

        Rahall wins a 20th term by more than 10% this time just like he always does no matter who they run against him, how much they try to attach him to Obama, or how much money the Kochs throw into it.

        The reason is simple. The 3rd district knows him. The 3rd districts trusts him. The 3rd district likes him.

        You can call the 3rd district a bunch of ignorant hillbillies if you want, but they can see through a carpet bagge hose job on one of their own as good as anyone else.

        • grey4449

          Rahall voted for Obamacare. Rahall also voted to lower carbon emissions thus killing COAL JOBS. Rahall will lose the next election after stabbing coal miners in the back.

        • conserned in wv

          If the third district is so behind him whyhas he not won his home county Iin the last ten elections I will tell you why his neighbors know him and want him gone

        • The bookman

          No sir, you under estimate the frustration in southern coal country WV! We actually have faith in the conservative values of the good people of the 3rd in recognizing that it is high time someone fight for their best interest instead of protecting a seat in congress at election time!

  • Fed Up

    Can anyone say trying to cover my ass...What a joke..

  • Tim C

    "Hit the pause button?" Hell, how about the "reverse button"?

    • Don Jr.

      "Reverse Button" is right. The sooner the better I say. I am amazed that the house GOP has not introduced legislation to wipe out obamacare completely. I think it would pass right now, even in the senate. May even have enough votes to overide a presidential veto if the senate had to cast a vote on record. As for Rahall, he has been a good congressman over the years. He has been a rare conservative democrat, for the most part. However, I do not think he'll survive politically with his misplaced support of Obama's liberal agenda and obamacare.

  • steve

    Voting against anyone with a "D" behind their name come election time.....Im tired of this mess...................

    • Kevin

      Question? Does the D stand for dumb ass?

  • steveb

    How many chances did rahall have to vote against this mess called obamacare? i guess he knows now what he voted for without reading or knowing what's in it; the next vote is on you, rahall!

  • wvguy

    "somebody in the administration should have known about this and whoever that somebody is should no longer be a somebody in the administration,” Rahall said.
    They ALL knew. They should all be replaced.

  • wvtd

    so he is against it now that the election is coming up. typical career politician that is only in office to enrich himself and will say anything he can to hold onto his job. maybe he could get Obama to stop by and help him campaign.

  • RogerD

    I love that next to last paragraph. I'd say plenty in the administration knew this train wreck was coming, including the President. Is Rahall saying he should go too?

    This thing cannot be fixed. It needs to be repealed. The Band-Aid approach might help one little small area and then you discover 100 other serious problems.

  • Scott

    Joke and can not wait to vote against him hurry election and get here.

    • Art in Ohio

      I'm from West Virginia....He need replaced asap...

      • Art in Ohio

        Sorry...He needs to be replaced asap...

    • MyView