Washington Post -- Feds will handle most of the American Care Act exchanges

[werepossum]

It might be. Canada our closest neighbor with a Universal Health Care system didn't have a national system spring forth over night. One province implemented it and slowly the rest of the provinces adopted some form of a UHC system.

Vermont I believe is one state that is going to use the Federal Aid from the ACA to implement a UHC system. If it turns out as well as the Mass. plan seems to have turned out. Then it could serve as a model that other states might adopt.

If people in Vt. have friends and relatives who live outside of Vermont and have good experiences overall with the plan Vermont is planning on implementing, then eventually down the line other states might try implementing their own version of Vermont's system. There is the possibility that the U.S. might gradually implement a UHC system state by state instead of all at once under the ACA.

If I can see this possibility you can be sure that others who oppose any sort of UHC on principle can also see it. Interests almost certainly be spending money in Vermont to defeat their proposed plans.

That is actually my preference. Rather than mandating a one-size-fits-all federal program, mandate that every state meet milestones toward universal coverage. That way we have fifty states competing, but each geared toward its own population's requirements. And even if we then get federal single payer, at least there would be somewhat of a track record among the competing ideas. Instead we get this song and dance that these are such great ideas they can only be adopted by government coercion.

 

[sunzt]

In a way, all these states turning over their exchanges to the federal government brings Obamacare a little closer to the more liberal House bill, which had the federal government running one big marketplace. It allows the White House to have more control over setting up its signature legislative accomplishment. It also creates some economies of scale, as HHS can develop one template exchange that all 26 states it handles will use.

Ouch, republican backfire...

So the more liberal states are executing and taking advantage of their states rights and the conservative ones are essentially waiving their states rights... LOL

 

[EagleKeeper]

people in wisconsin somehow think that because the elevation changes like 10 feet across the state, gives them the right to make fun of the people with no elevation change.

If they actually new what mountains were, they wouldn't be making flat land jokes.

Trash piles make nice mountains

 

[Jadow]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...l-the-feds-will-run-most-obamacare-exchanges/

I found it strange that most of the "states rights" states declined to control their own exchanges. It seems to be the more liberal states that elected to operate their own exchanges. Is there a reason for this?

actually the federalist states right stance is to not manage the exchange. If you accept the fed money, you get all the hooks that come with it, and those hooks aren't too much at first, but eventually you're completely beholden to them.

 

[Jadow]

But... the republicans fought tooth and nail for state exchanges instead of the national exchange... and then they don't use their own provisions?

uhh no they didn't, they fought for the states to be able to do what they want without interference from DC.

 

[blankslate]

That is actually my preference. Rather than mandating a one-size-fits-all federal program, mandate that every state meet milestones toward universal coverage. That way we have fifty states competing, but each geared toward its own population's requirements. And even if we then get federal single payer, at least there would be somewhat of a track record among the competing ideas. Instead we get this song and dance that these are such great ideas they can only be adopted by government coercion.

There is nothing wrong with that. And it's probably a better method, for the U.S. which has wildly differing social moires and attitudes about different subjects depending on which state you're in. Sometimes from different areas within large states.

I think that that's in some way what happened with the ACA in any case.

They couldn't get the big UHC sweeping change so they settled for changes that would facilitate states that choose to do so being able to set up a system and providing a federally run exchange for states that choose to have nothing to do with it.

 

[werepossum]

There is nothing wrong with that. And it's probably a better method, for the U.S. which has wildly differing social moires and attitudes about different subjects depending on which state you're in. Sometimes from different areas within large states.

I think that that's in some way what happened with the ACA in any case.

They couldn't get the big UHC sweeping change so they settled for changes that would facilitate states that choose to do so being able to set up a system and providing a federally run exchange for states that choose to have nothing to do with it.

And that would be a good thing. Everyone needs access to health care with protections against truly crippling bills.

 

[Ausm]

Being legislated out of business would have most definitely affected there bottom line.

That's the crux of WHY we needed the Public option to keep them honest.

 

[Ausm]

people in wisconsin somehow think that because the elevation changes like 10 feet across the state, gives them the right to make fun of the people with no elevation change.

If they actually new what mountains were, they wouldn't be making flat land jokes.

That's not true! I've been to the Rocky mountains many times.

 

[chucky2]

That's the crux of WHY we needed the Public option to keep them honest.

Who keeps the Fed honest?

 

[Acanthus]

Who keeps the Fed honest?

The market. If the public option was noncompetitive no one would use it.

 

[michal1980]

The market. If the public option was noncompetitive no one would use it.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

so naive.

The public option would have the power of the IRS to fund it. Forced funding = no other company could compete.

 

[Acanthus]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

so naive.

The public option would have the power of the IRS to fund it. Forced funding = no other company could compete.

That is not how the law was written and you know this.

 

[chucky2]

The market. If the public option was noncompetitive no one would use it.

No, the market couldn't compete with an entity that would have unlimited funding and never have to worry about breaking even, much less turning a meager profit.

So we've got people worried about HI companies raking in profits but we've got these same people not worried in the least it seems on setting up a Fed agency that will never be held to even break even.

Seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water to me...

 

[piasabird]

There is no way this mandatory health care will work. There is not enough money on earth to pay for it.

Anything the Govt puts it hands on turns to Crap. The Govt will make this health care cost 10 times what it should.

 

[sunzt]

There is no way this mandatory health care will work. There is not enough money on earth to pay for it.

Anything the Govt puts it hands on turns to Crap. The Govt will make this health care cost 10 times what it should.

Isn't the gov just setting up the exchanges so private insurance companies can offer their services?

 

[nehalem256]

That's the crux of WHY we needed the Public option to keep them honest.

We don't need the public option.

Liberals WANT a public option because they believe that health care is a right that should be guaranteed to people regardless of there poor life choices and they see the public option as the only way to accomplish that goal.

 

[sunzt]

We don't need the public option.

Liberals WANT a public option because they believe that health care is a right that should be guaranteed to people regardless of there poor life choices and they see the public option as the only way to accomplish that goal.

Especially those people choosing to have pre-existing conditions or who are at high risk for cancer/diseases due to family history....

 

[nehalem256]

Especially those people choosing to have pre-existing conditions or who are at high risk for cancer/diseases due to family history....

It would seem to be a simple matter to make it so that if you have had coverage within say 60 days you cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.

This would keep people from gaming the system while providing fair healthcare to those with pre-existing conditions.

But it also has to be asked what we are referring to for pre-existing condition. One common one, diabetes, is to a large extend a result of life-style choices.

But really what I was referring to when I said "poor lifestyle choices" was people who choose to drop out of HS, do nothing with there life, pop out babies, and expect 1st World Class healthcare.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's the crux of WHY we needed the Public option to keep them honest.

Yep. We need the scandal ridden British health care system. Since we have no mechanism for accountability while in office, most likely it won't be nearly as good, but we'll get what we deserve.

The problem isn't a theoretical UHC system, but the government has shown a propensity of not letting ignorance hold them back. Now if people can convince the politicians to do as I've suggested on numerous occasions, then I'm all ears.

 

[Acanthus]

But really what I was referring to when I said "poor lifestyle choices" was people who choose to drop out of HS, do nothing with there life, pop out babies, and expect 1st World Class healthcare.

This is an often repeated stereotype i keep hearing. What percentage of the population are we talking about here? Do you consider the "Bronze" certified government plans to be "1st world class healthcare"? Should the babies be denied healthcare, education, and opportunity because of their parents life choices?

It just seems to be a vindictive approach to a problem that affects a large swath of people in the country.

 

[ccbadd]

So you think that the Big Insurance companies were lobbying against Single Payer to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars because Single payer wouldn't have affected their bottom line at all? :whiste:

No genius, they know your socialist buddies are going to wipe them out completely! How can any business compete with government? All government need to do is convince lazy pieces of shit that big businesses are going to f*ck them then offer an alternative that costs more and give worse service while telling them it is cheaper and better. Then cry we need to increase "revenues" to cover the short falls because the little people are being screwed. They go along like stupid sheep and kill the economy furthering the hardship on the poor. And people like you propagate this bs. And you know who actually does better every time??? Clue, they all seem to be on the public payrolls. Why don't you liberal geniuses every ask how congressman and women get to be so rich so fast in government? Why do you not care when they cheat on taxes, commit insider trading, and get such massive perks?