• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Acanthus said:
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?
Click to expand...

The people in office at the governments of the conservative states are protesting the bill by not taking part in it pretty much. Therefore they are inviting "the Feds" to do the administration.
 
There was hardly any state control of health care at all.

Futhermore, if the states develop their 'own' system, they would be on the hook for all of the costs. Going on the federal system allows those costs to be passed on to the feds.
 
blankslate said:
The people in office at the governments of the conservative states are protesting the bill by not taking part in it pretty much. Therefore they are inviting "the Feds" to do the administration.
Click to expand...

Yep, they can stall all they want, it's still going to happen.
 
Third reasons off the top of my head. First, people in red states tend to oppose Obamacare, so participating in it isn't healthy for one's political future. Second, it will probably be very expensive as the Imperial Federal Government piles on mandates. Third, everyone knows this is only the first step toward the IFG having absolute control over all health care. Given that, why waste the money, political capital, and energy setting up what everyone knows will be a transient entity?
 
blankslate said:
The people in office at the governments of the conservative states are protesting the bill by not taking part in it pretty much. Therefore they are inviting "the Feds" to do the administration.
Click to expand...

But... the republicans fought tooth and nail for state exchanges instead of the national exchange... and then they don't use their own provisions?
 
Acanthus said:
But... the republicans fought tooth and nail for state exchanges instead of the national exchange... and then they don't use their own provisions?
Click to expand...
As you can see, Republicans aren't the brightest bunch. All they know is that if a Democrat wants it, it must be bad. If a Republican wants it, and a Democrat approves it, it must also be bad.
 
werepossum said:
Third reasons off the top of my head. First, people in red states tend to oppose Obamacare, so participating in it isn't healthy for one's political future. Second, it will probably be very expensive as the Imperial Federal Government piles on mandates. Third, everyone knows this is only the first step toward the IFG having absolute control over all health care. Given that, why waste the money, political capital, and energy setting up what everyone knows will be a transient entity?
Click to expand...

So you think this is a stepping stone toward single payer?

It just seems to me that the republicans fought to make the bill as toothless as they possibly could (the took out the removal of immunity for price collusion on big pharma, they killed the public insurance option, they killed the national exchange, they fought hard against taxing high end health plans as a means to pay for it)... and now are distancing themselves hoping for it to fail. This doesn't seem to be in the interests of the American people.
 
Acanthus said:
But... the republicans fought tooth and nail for state exchanges instead of the national exchange... and then they don't use their own provisions?
Click to expand...

What was ended up with was not what was expected.

Just like MedicAid; the Feds will add on goodies that the states have to pick up.

By the states not in the game; they do not have to pick up the pieces of this fiasco - YET.
 
Acanthus said:
So you think this is a stepping stone toward single payer?

It just seems to me that the republicans fought to make the bill as toothless as they possibly could (the took out the removal of immunity for price collusion on big pharma, they killed the public insurance option, they killed the national exchange, they fought hard against taxing high end health plans as a means to pay for it)... and now are distancing themselves hoping for it to fail. This doesn't seem to be in the interests of the American people.
Click to expand...
The Republicans did none of those things, unless you think they have some moral obligation to vote for things with which they fundamentally disagree. Obamacare was passed without a single Republican vote; the one thing with which you can legitimately charge Republicans is restoring coverage for yearly mammograms. No other Republican amendments passed; few were even debated or voted on. Go on; look it up. For better or worse, Obamacare is exactly what Obama could get with sixty Democrat votes in the Senate and a strong Democrat House. To the extent that removal of immunity for price collusion on big pharma, killing the public insurance option, killing the national exchange, and a lack of taxing high end health plans to pay for others' health care happened, they happened exclusively because Obama could not bribe or arm-twist enough Democrats to vote for them.
 
Acanthus said:
So you think this is a stepping stone toward single payer?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Acanthus said:
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?
Click to expand...

These states dont want part of it? The feds will probably take years of not decades erecting these exchanges and at high cost. I read an article several months ago that the feds dont have the first clue how to pay for it. It is a way to subvert this piece of legislation.
 
blankslate said:
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.
Click to expand...

So if single-payer will drop the cost of healthcare by 50% as liberals claim why aren't more blue states doing this?
 
nehalem256 said:
So if single-payer will drop the cost of healthcare by 50% as liberals claim why aren't more blue states doing this?
Click to expand...

They're obviously taking a wait and see approach and the public consciousness is worried more about the economy than Health Care atm. Although the state of the U.S. health care system does have an impact on the economy.
 
nehalem256 said:
So if single-payer will drop the cost of healthcare by 50% as liberals claim why aren't more blue states doing this?
Click to expand...

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:
 
Ausm said:
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:
Click to expand...

Why would the amount of money they spent matter in blue states? The Pols in those states are blue, correct? That means they're totally honest and represent what The People want, unlike those dirty red Pols. Shouldn't matter how much is spent then, the Pols should be enacting policies their people want.

Why hasn't that happened?

Chuck
 
chucky2 said:
Not true. We have a 20' hill like 1/2 mile away.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ausm said:
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:
Click to expand...

Being legislated out of business would have most definitely affected there bottom line.
 
michal1980 said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's some very pretty and quite hilly country in Southern Illinois, and then the northwest corner of Illinois is rolling light hills from what I remember, also pretty. But from Chicago on down to SI the state is pretty flat. If you're not a city person, or don't live in those two areas of IL, it's a pretty Fing boring state geographically.

Last I heard though we had like $89B in unfunded pension liabilities - and really, is that number even trustable? ILs last problem is its flatness...

Chuck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top