Why would the Republican governors be against creating insurance exchanges?

Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by her209, Jul 3, 2012.

  1. her209

    her209 No Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2000
    Messages:
    56,361
    Likes Received:
    4
  2. blackangst1

    blackangst1 Lifer

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    15,281
    Likes Received:
    18
    I have no idea.
     
  3. sunzt

    sunzt Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2003
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    3
    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?
     
  4. manimal

    manimal Lifer

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    13,562
    Likes Received:
    3
    the sky is not blue and the moon is made of cheese.
     
  5. jhu

    jhu Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    11,913
    Likes Received:
    6
    Because Democrats are for it.
     
  6. KB

    KB Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 1999
    Messages:
    4,648
    Likes Received:
    14
    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.
     
  7. glenn1

    glenn1 Elite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2000
    Messages:
    21,761
    Likes Received:
    203
  8. sactoking

    sactoking Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,558
    Likes Received:
    81
    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.
     
  9. Farang

    Farang Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    10,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
  10. Linux23

    Linux23 Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2000
    Messages:
    10,347
    Likes Received:
    155
    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.
     
  11. Infohawk

    Infohawk Lifer

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2002
    Messages:
    17,848
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
  12. dainthomas

    dainthomas Lifer

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    10,984
    Likes Received:
    162
    And there it is.
     
  13. CaptainGoodnight

    CaptainGoodnight Golden Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2000
    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes Received:
    1
    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:
     
    #13 CaptainGoodnight, Jul 3, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2012
  14. her209

    her209 No Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2000
    Messages:
    56,361
    Likes Received:
    4
  15. manimal

    manimal Lifer

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    13,562
    Likes Received:
    3
    Arent all interests special?


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

    Jhhnn Lifer

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 1999
    Messages:
    36,104
    Likes Received:
    1,489
    Uhh, no- that's not what Krugman is talking about. Insurance exchanges will offer

    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.
     
  17. cubby1223

    cubby1223 Lifer

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    13,526
    Likes Received:
    41
    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?
     
  18. her209

    her209 No Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2000
    Messages:
    56,361
    Likes Received:
    4
    Wouldn't be the first time.