Why would the Republican governors be against creating insurance exchanges?

her209 · 07-03-2012, 10:13 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...espite-ruling/

IIRC, didn't the Republicans want a marketplace that allowed people to compare insurance plans from different companies and have the ability to purchase policies offered in other states.

The only reason I can come up with is that its because the Democrats did it.

blackangst1 · 07-03-2012, 10:16 AM

I have no idea.

sunzt · 07-03-2012, 10:21 AM

Wasn't that one of their proposed solutions for health care reform? Didn't they say that we don't need fed health care cause states can setup their own exchanges?

manimal · 07-03-2012, 12:47 PM

the sky is not blue and the moon is made of cheese.

jhu · 07-03-2012, 12:50 PM

Because Democrats are for it.

KB · 07-03-2012, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by her209

The only reason I can come up with is that its because the Democrats did it.

Thats exactly it. Romney wants to get rid of Obamas plan which is almost exactly the same plan he had in Massachusetts.

Both sides, and this exists at the local level too, don't want the other side to succeed.

glenn1 · 07-03-2012, 12:59 PM

per this article, it may have practical benefits.

sactoking · 07-03-2012, 02:37 PM

That article is flawed. It contends that a state may block the employer mandate by refusing to implement an exchange, since the employer penalties are contingent upon employees being eligible for federal subsidies and no individual may receive a federal subsidy on a federal exchange.

The problem is that, to my understanding, that's only true if an employer offers no coverage at all. If an employer attempts to offer coverage then they are still subject to the adequacy and affordability tests, which carry $3,000/person fines and are not contingent upon federal subsidy eligibility.

It's a fine point, but relevant, since many employers won't be able to just not offer coverage if they hope to remain competitive in the marketplace.

Farang · 07-03-2012, 02:48 PM

Mostly irrelevant, most of these states will eventually elect a Democratic governor who will opt in on the Medicaid expansion. The federal government is going to set up an exchange for them if they don't do it themselves, so they're just hurting themselves in that regard.

I'd be really pissed if any one of these guys was governor of my state, they are clearly putting their own political careers (and standing within their party) ahead of the interests of the citizens.

Linux23 · 07-03-2012, 02:58 PM

I know fatboy Christie isn't going to do it for NJ. I say great, lets vote that fat, Spago eating asshole out of office anyway.

Infohawk · 07-03-2012, 03:03 PM

If you don't want an expansion of government in general, wouldn't it make sense to oppose it in a specific case? I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the Republicans in principle, but it's not like they are unclear about where they're coming from.

It sounds like an exchange is a bit more than a marketplace, which you don't need Obamacare to create. Clearly it's going to require some regulation.

dainthomas · 07-03-2012, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhu

Because Democrats are for it.

And there it is.

CaptainGoodnight · 07-03-2012, 04:14 PM

Simple. It won't reduce costs, and that part of the law was written by special interests.

Sounds like even Paul Krugman doesn't really think it's a great idea:

her209 · 07-03-2012, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainGoodnight

Simple. It won't reduce costs, and that part of the law was written by special interests.

Sounds like even Paul Krugman doesn't really think it's a great idea:

If you're going to take Paul Krugman's advice, he thinks a single payer system is the way to go.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...-single-payer/

manimal · 07-03-2012, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainGoodnight

Simple. It won't reduce costs, and that part of the law was written by special interests.

Arent all interests special?

From a certain point of view wasnt the bible written by special interests?

Jhhnn · 07-03-2012, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainGoodnight

Simple. It won't reduce costs, and that part of the law was written by special interests.

Sounds like even Paul Krugman doesn't really think it's a great idea:

Uhh, no- that's not what Krugman is talking about. Insurance exchanges will offer

Quote:

Those exchanges, set to go into effect in 2014, are meant to be the state-based marketplaces where strictly regulated insurance plans will be available for purchase.

If that's true, then exchange plans will have a lot less variability than the plans of today.

Why do Repubs hate it? Because they're the party of the rich, for the rich & by the rich, with delusional wannabee middle class hangers-on. Once the middle class recognizes the benefits of teh ebil soshulism, of govt as a desirable & constructive part of their lives, then the emotional wedge issue fear based pitch Repubs employ will lose its power.

cubby1223 · 07-03-2012, 11:45 PM

So, each time the Democrats voice opposition to some piece of legislation, should I create a thread picking out one aspect of the legislation (ignoring everything else that is a part of the legislation) that Dems should naturally be supportive of, and question what is wrong with the Democratic Party?

Is this what political debate has devolved into?

her209 · 07-04-2012, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cubby1223

So, each time the Democrats voice opposition to some piece of legislation, should I create a thread picking out one aspect of the legislation (ignoring everything else that is a part of the legislation) that Dems should naturally be supportive of, and question what is wrong with the Democratic Party?

Wouldn't be the first time.