Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes regulators will make it so those in exchanges can't lie or have inaccurate/misleading information and have benefits that are worthless how horrible
wow they can do all that?? we should have those liberal regulators everywhere like they had them everywhere in the USSR and Red China, and in the USA before the 2 great depressions, oh, and the way each state has a health commissioner regulator now.
ROTFL so according to you before 1930 every industry in America was regulated.
Yes make sure no lies are there and that the information is condensed and simplified is the same as the government telling you what crops you can plant, what tools you can buy, how much you can sell, what fertilizers you can use, how many people you can employ.... Like shit are you seriously this ignorant?Yes regulators will make it so those in exchanges can't lie or have inaccurate/misleading information and have benefits that are worthless how horrible
wow they can do all that?? we should have those liberal regulators everywhere like they had them everywhere in the USSR and Red China,
Both of whihc occured because of too little goverment. The current one would not of happened if we had left regulations up because the things banks did that caused the crises was illegal under those regulations.and in the USA before the 2 great depressions,
Enron occurred because Republicans repealed accounting regulations (of which after Eron some of those regulations were reinstated), Enron also occurred because CA privatized/deregulated their energy sectorand after Enron,
ROTFL so according to you before 1930 every industry in America was regulated.
no no no!!! the USSR and Red China had your perfect faith in government regulation, and 100 million starved to death very slowly. The USA had faith in capitalist regulation and became the richest country in human history.
Cons invented the idea of a mandate. When Obama opted for it they suddenly changed to opposing it. Strange, that cons have no memory.What's consistent across the United States is that folks who don't have access to coverage through their employers will have access to marketplaces
And how are those marketplaces going to appear when they don't already exist ? What is changing ?
meeting the same statutory definition of an exchange (that doesn't mean anyone is required to buy their plan through an exchange; the existing, separate individual market will still exist).
"statutory definition of an exchange".....terrific. Even I know what that means. It means regulators are going to define the marketplace.
Yep...seen that before.
Uh..you mean forcing enrollement in coverage.
The consumer determines what creates value. The government is a poor choice for this function.
Key is still that people are required to have some form of insurance.
Or did that change ?
They didn't have this before ?
Those fundamental deficiencies have never been fully defined in a way that people agree upon. This is bogus.
That said, after meeting that baseline level of functionality, the fundamental design features of exchanges are left to state discretion. This is the part where a state decides what its market looks like, what the underlying philosophical principles of it are going to be, and what the relationship of the exchange to the private insurers offering plans through it is going to be.
A while back Deloitte laid out different models that will appeal to different states:
California's exchange is not going to look like Alabama's, which in turn may not look much like the federal default. The states themselves are responsible for making the basic design decisions that determine what the marketplace looks like in their state. Unless they prefer not to play that role and defer to whatever the federal option ends up looking like.
Yes, I've seen this stuff before.
You seem to be under the impression that a state's exchange will look the same regardless of whether or not the state steps up to design and administer it (i.e. that a state design must mirror some federal model). That isn't the case. If it were, there wouldn't be much point in having 51 state-level exchanges instead of just going with a single national exchange (as the House Democrats wanted to do). The goal here is to let states tailor their designs to 51 unique environments.
You still haven't answered the question....if someone does not want to participate....i.e. not buy insurance....can they opt out ?
I wasn't sure but now I am. Chrispie is getting bigger.
Soon, he will need health care.
Yes regulators will make it so those in exchanges can't lie or have inaccurate/misleading information and have benefits that are worthless how horrible
wow they can do all that?? we should have those liberal regulators everywhere like they had them everywhere in the USSR and Red China, and in the USA before the 2 great depressions, and after Enron, and before the current depression, and the way each state has a health commissioner super regulator now.
Warren Buffett: "There are significant limits to what regulation can accomplish. As a dramatic illustration, take two of the biggest accounting disasters in the past ten years: Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We're talking billions and billions of dollars of misstatements at both places".
Now, these are two incredibly important institutions. I mean, they accounted for over 40% of the mortgage flow a few years back. Right now I think they're up to 70%. They're quasi-governmental in nature. So the government set up an organization called OFHEO. I'm not sure what all the letters stand for. [Note to Warren: They stand for Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.] But if you go to OFHEO's website, you'll find that its purpose was to just watch over these two companies. OFHEO had 200 employees. Their job was simply to look at two companies and say, "Are these guys behaving like they're supposed to?" And of course what happened were two of the greatest accounting misstatements in history while these 200 people had their jobs. It's incredible. I mean, two for two!
Whatever regulatory changes are made, they will pale in comparison to the change already evident in todays markets, he said. Those markets for an indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime.-Alan Greenspan
Cons invented the idea of a mandate. When Obama opted for it they suddenly changed to opposing it. Strange, that cons have no memory.What's consistent across the United States is that folks who don't have access to coverage through their employers will have access to marketplaces
And how are those marketplaces going to appear when they don't already exist ? What is changing ?
"statutory definition of an exchange".....terrific. Even I know what that means. It means regulators are going to define the marketplace.
Yep...seen that before.
Uh..you mean forcing enrollement in coverage.
The consumer determines what creates value. The government is a poor choice for this function.
Key is still that people are required to have some form of insurance.
Or did that change ?
They didn't have this before ?
Those fundamental deficiencies have never been fully defined in a way that people agree upon. This is bogus.
Yes, I've seen this stuff before.
You seem to be under the impression that a state's exchange will look the same regardless of whether or not the state steps up to design and administer it (i.e. that a state design must mirror some federal model). That isn't the case. If it were, there wouldn't be much point in having 51 state-level exchanges instead of just going with a single national exchange (as the House Democrats wanted to do). The goal here is to let states tailor their designs to 51 unique environments.
You still haven't answered the question....if someone does not want to participate....i.e. not buy insurance....can they opt out ?
And how are those marketplaces going to appear when they don't already exist ? What is changing ?
They didn't have this before ?
Those fundamental deficiencies have never been fully defined in a way that people agree upon. This is bogus.
One of the great challenges in buying health insurance has been a highly fragmented market. Individuals and group purchasers lack a reliable means for seeing their choices in one place and in a manner that allows them to compare what the plans cover, which providers are in various plans practice networks, how cost-sharing might differ, and how numerous competing plans might compare on key measures of quality performance. Nor has there been an active, consumer-oriented system for assuring that insurance plans that are offered in the individual and small group markets provide comparable coverage, cover the benefits that are considered essential to any health insurance plan, have accessible provider networks, and are accountable for specific measures of health care quality. State insurance departments play a different role in most states, overseeing health insurers solvency and marketing and business practices. But typically insurance departments do not, as part of their work, organize the health insurance market to make it accountable and user-friendly to individual and group consumers.
Health insurance exchanges are designed to help individuals and small employer groups be better positioned to purchase high quality health insurance by creating organized markets that simplify the job of selecting and enrolling in coverage and securing performance information about available products. Health insurance exchanges have been a key element of numerous health reform proposals; indeed, the concept of an exchange lies at the core of systems that turn on the competitive selection of health insurance products in the individual and group markets. Massachusetts Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, established as part of the states 2006 health reform legislation, is probably the best known example of a health insurance exchange. The Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit also utilizes an exchange concept as the means by which beneficiaries select their prescription drug plans. [You can now add Paul Ryan and the Republicans' Medicare overhaul to this list as well, as it's built around a new exchange.] At the same time, there are several issues that can derail the development and functionality of exchanges, including adverse selection, a low number of participants, over-complexity, transparency and disclosure, and competition, among other things
Listening said:Yep...seen that before.
Listening said:You still haven't answered the question....if someone does not want to participate....i.e. not buy insurance....can they opt out ?
ROTFL so according to you before 1930 every industry in America was regulated.
no no no!!! the USSR and Red China had your perfect faith in government regulation, and 100 million starved to death very slowly. The USA had faith in capitalist regulation and became the richest country in human history.
Cons invented the idea of a mandate. When Obama opted for it they suddenly changed to opposing it. Strange, that cons have no memory.And how are those marketplaces going to appear when they don't already exist ? What is changing ?
"statutory definition of an exchange".....terrific. Even I know what that means. It means regulators are going to define the marketplace.
Yep...seen that before.
Uh..you mean forcing enrollement in coverage.
The consumer determines what creates value. The government is a poor choice for this function.
Key is still that people are required to have some form of insurance.
Or did that change ?
They didn't have this before ?
Those fundamental deficiencies have never been fully defined in a way that people agree upon. This is bogus.
Yes, I've seen this stuff before.
You still haven't answered the question....if someone does not want to participate....i.e. not buy insurance....can they opt out ?
A classic example of something that has been explained away, but since it kills one of the orgasmic talking points of the liberals...they just won't let go.
Chalk up another one to being just a tool of the left.
If the Supreme Court does what they have indicated they will do which is strike down obamacare, there will be no such thing as exchanges so Christie was absolutely correct in not requiring the expenditure of funds to create something that may not be in existence in a month.
the law will be changed to a tax basis, which is legal.
This is not going away, even with President Romney.
