Gov Christie vetos Obamacare Exchange in NJ

[rightwinger]

Both sons could have benefitted by using an insurance exchange to get affordable policies

Christie just doesn't give a shit

if you want affordable prices on any goods and services you need competition. Libturds made interstate competition illegal in health insurance. Imagine how affordable prices would be, for example, if car companies were not allowed to compete across state lines??

Imagine someone who jogs for fun and someone who races in life and death competition? Who would be a faster runner? Now you understand competion and how it makes us better. Not so hard was it?

Insurance exchanges increase competition and allow individuals seeking insurance (as opposed to those in large companies) to be more competitive in the insurance market.
It is the states who block interstate competition not the Feds

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Both sons could have benefitted by using an insurance exchange to get affordable policies

Christie just doesn't give a shit

if you want affordable prices on any goods and services you need competition. Libturds made interstate competition illegal in health insurance. Imagine how affordable prices would be, for example, if car companies were not allowed to compete across state lines??

Imagine someone who jogs for fun and someone who races in life and death competition? Who would be a faster runner? Now you understand competion and how it makes us better. Not so hard was it?

Insurance exchanges increase competition and allow individuals seeking insurance (as opposed to those in large companies) to be more competitive in the insurance market.
It is the states who block interstate competition not the Feds

1) BO is an open socialist for single payer. He does not want competiton, he wants control through the exchange and then single payer.


2) too stupid and perfectly 100 liberal. Its called the McCarron Furguson Act!! It made interstate competition illegal!!

 

[Greenbeard]

It is the states who block interstate competition not the Feds

The exchanges do, however, offer a way around that. State exchanges determine which plans to certify and which insurers to contract with; they can be selective or they can throw it wide open. Despite that flexibility and the discretion left to states, however, the ACA allows insurers to bypass that state-level certification/contracting process. If an insurer wishes, it can contract with the federal Office of Personnel Management--just as it would do to participate in the nationwide Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan administered by OPM. An insurance company that does that can sell its plan(s) in any state exchange it wishes and isn't subject to state-level certification requirements.

Or as those who PC stole her above post from put it, apparently disapprovingly: "It is noteworthy that the only plans that the secretary of HHS [this should say "the states" not "the secretary of HHS"] can’t shut out of the exchanges are the Office of Personnel Management’s....they will be “deemed” to be certified to offer policies in the exchanges."

So exchanges do offer a mechanism for allowing interstate insurance sales and purchasing. And they do it in a way that doesn't undermine the market, doesn't result in incoherence, and doesn't spark a regulatory race to the bottom. It's just more plan options and more competition, plain and simple. You know, those things rightwing partisans have now come to oppose.

 

[rightwinger]

if you want affordable prices on any goods and services you need competition. Libturds made interstate competition illegal in health insurance. Imagine how affordable prices would be, for example, if car companies were not allowed to compete across state lines??

Imagine someone who jogs for fun and someone who races in life and death competition? Who would be a faster runner? Now you understand competion and how it makes us better. Not so hard was it?

Insurance exchanges increase competition and allow individuals seeking insurance (as opposed to those in large companies) to be more competitive in the insurance market.
It is the states who block interstate competition not the Feds

1) BO is an open socialist for single payer. He does not want competiton, he wants control through the exchange and then single payer.


2) too stupid and perfectly 100 liberal. Its called the McCarron Furguson Act!! It made interstate competition illegal!!

There is no single payer in Obamacare.......Exchanges ARE competition

States do not want interstate competition

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So exchanges do offer a mechanism for allowing interstate insurance It's just more plan options and more competition, plain and simple. You know, those things rightwing partisans have now come to oppose.

Nice, except BO is for single payer, he had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders who also wants single payer and unlimited welfare for everyone!! Barney Frank is famous for saying ACA is the best way to single payer.

If they wanted competition they would support Republican capitalism, not single payer. Liberals lack the IQ to understand capitalism and competition so of course don't see exchanges as a way toward capitalist exchanges, just a way toward more socialist government control . Catching on now??

 

[Greenbeard]

If they wanted competition they would support Republican capitalism, not single payer.

I've already posted the explanation offered by Tom Coburn, Richard Burr, Paul Ryan & Devin Nunes of what "Republican capitalism" looks like:

Our bill creates voluntary state-based solutions - state health exchanges - that will offer health insurance benefits using the same standard used for Members of Congress. Every American would have guaranteed access to coverage and care under this plan, regardless of patient age or health history.

Reminds me of something, I just can't put my finger on it...

Oh, right. Exactly the approach the Democrats are taking this very moment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Unlike you, everything I've posted is true.

It seems clear that you probably believe that, despite it being very easy to open up the relevant primary sources and see your errors. But you obviously much prefer to outsource your thinking and, er, "analysis" to various fools.

The fact remains that you've come down squarely against competitive markets, against making information available to consumers and enabling comparison shopping, and against state autonomy and federalist partnerships. You've even sneered at the notion of allowing insurance companies to sell plans across state lines! You've put yourself into a bizarre position where your rabid partisanship has pushed you into betraying your own ideology, such as it is.

You've become the enemy of markets, the opponent of state-level decision-making. And those you so clearly despise are their champions. I'm sure that's unnerving for you.

You're paid by the government to put out this trash, aren't you, Red?
You do work for the federal government....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If they wanted competition they would support Republican capitalism, not single payer.

I've already posted the explanation offered by Tom Coburn, Richard Burr, Paul Ryan & Devin Nunes of what "Republican capitalism" looks like:

Our bill creates voluntary state-based solutions - state health exchanges - that will offer health insurance benefits using the same standard used for Members of Congress. Every American would have guaranteed access to coverage and care under this plan, regardless of patient age or health history.

Reminds me of something, I just can't put my finger on it...

Oh, right. Exactly the approach the Democrats are taking this very moment.

of course the difference is night and day; as a liberal you will lack the IQ to understand it. Republicans would use exchanges and vouchers as way toward capitalism while Democrats would use them as way toward single payer communism.

Over your head??

 

[rightwinger]

Unlike you, everything I've posted is true.

It seems clear that you probably believe that, despite it being very easy to open up the relevant primary sources and see your errors. But you obviously much prefer to outsource your thinking and, er, "analysis" to various fools.

The fact remains that you've come down squarely against competitive markets, against making information available to consumers and enabling comparison shopping, and against state autonomy and federalist partnerships. You've even sneered at the notion of allowing insurance companies to sell plans across state lines! You've put yourself into a bizarre position where your rabid partisanship has pushed you into betraying your own ideology, such as it is.

You've become the enemy of markets, the opponent of state-level decision-making. And those you so clearly despise are their champions. I'm sure that's unnerving for you.

You're paid by the government to put out this trash, aren't you, Red?
You do work for the federal government....

Who pays you to cut and paste?

Do you work on commission?

 

[Greenbeard]

You're paid by the government to put out this trash, aren't you, Red?
You do work for the federal government....

Who pays you to cut and paste?

Do you work on commission?

I'm not sure the Heritage Foundation pays its interns.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It seems clear that you probably believe that, despite it being very easy to open up the relevant primary sources and see your errors. But you obviously much prefer to outsource your thinking and, er, "analysis" to various fools.

The fact remains that you've come down squarely against competitive markets, against making information available to consumers and enabling comparison shopping, and against state autonomy and federalist partnerships. You've even sneered at the notion of allowing insurance companies to sell plans across state lines! You've put yourself into a bizarre position where your rabid partisanship has pushed you into betraying your own ideology, such as it is.

You've become the enemy of markets, the opponent of state-level decision-making. And those you so clearly despise are their champions. I'm sure that's unnerving for you.

You're paid by the government to put out this trash, aren't you, Red?
You do work for the federal government....

Who pays you to cut and paste?

Do you work on commission?

"Who pays you to cut and paste?"

1. I look forward to posts such as yours, as they allow what our President refers to as ‘a teachable moment.”

I would thank you for the opportunity, but, of course, the fortuity was inadvertent on your part….You didn’t realize the ignorance you were revealing, did you?

a. You see, one who has been exposed to learning will often see the value of providing points of view from one with status or expertise in the area under discussion. And, in my view, to provide same without my words, adds the impact for which I strive.

b. Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. (Guide to Writing Research Papers: MLA-Style)

c. Now, here’s where you come in: “A valid objection to this selection of sources may be the type of audience being addressed. Is the ‘pasted selection’ aimed at a specialized or a general audience? Do you find the level ‘over your head’ or is this source too elementary?” Critically Analyzing Information Sources | olinuris.library.cornell.edu)


2. I probably shouldn’t tell you, but it’s so flattering every time one of you tacitly admits that they are unable to deal with the substance of my post…and can only comment on the form.

A white flag, is it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're paid by the government to put out this trash, aren't you, Red?
You do work for the federal government....

Who pays you to cut and paste?

Do you work on commission?

I'm not sure the Heritage Foundation pays its interns.

You're paid by the government to put out this trash, aren't you, Red?
You do work for the federal government....

 

[Greenbeard]

b. Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. (Guide to Writing Research Papers: MLA-Style)

Mastering the formatting of citations is key for an intern. But an equally important consideration is: do you brew a good cup of coffee?

Do that, and Heritage might hire you on full-time when the internship ends.

 

[PoliticalChic]

b. Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. (Guide to Writing Research Papers: MLA-Style)

Mastering the formatting of citations is key for an intern. But an equally important consideration is: do you brew a good cup of coffee?

Do that, and Heritage might hire you on full-time when the internship ends.

I love exposing you for the paid fraud that you are.

I rolled you up and smoked you like a Cuban cigar.

 

[Listening]

b. Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. (Guide to Writing Research Papers: MLA-Style)

Mastering the formatting of citations is key for an intern. But an equally important consideration is: do you brew a good cup of coffee?

Do that, and Heritage might hire you on full-time when the internship ends.

I love exposing you for the paid fraud that you are.

I rolled you up and smoked you like a Cuban cigar.

You usually do.

My guess is that Rightwinger has had his ass burned so many time (by you) that he carries extra fire insurance.

 

[Listening]

No, he got 51 state-run exchanges instead of a single federally-run exchange. A triumph of federalism. Now if California wants to be an active purchaser and selectively contract with insurers that meet standards California wants to set, Utah can still operate an exchange that accepts all comers without adding extra strings. If New York wants to establish its exchange as a government entity within its Department of Health, Michigan can still establish an exchange as an external non-profit corporation outside the state government.

Can states opt out of the program altogether ?

Simple question.

 

[Greenbeard]

No, he got 51 state-run exchanges instead of a single federally-run exchange. A triumph of federalism. Now if California wants to be an active purchaser and selectively contract with insurers that meet standards California wants to set, Utah can still operate an exchange that accepts all comers without adding extra strings. If New York wants to establish its exchange as a government entity within its Department of Health, Michigan can still establish an exchange as an external non-profit corporation outside the state government.

Can states opt out of the program altogether ?

States don't have to do anything. If they prefer not to operate an exchange, they don't have to. Their residents will still get access to federal tax credits and a competitive marketplace through a federally-facilitated exchange (that's what this thread is about--Christie has opted to let the feds operate an exchange, instead of building and operating one designed by New Jersey itself as the state legislature wanted). If states don't want to take on the full responsibility of running an exchange but want some operational control over certain pieces of it--with the feds still hauling most of the load--that option is available to them, as well, though a federal-state partnership model.

And if they have something else in mind entirely, provided their plans provide equivalent (or better) access to health services as the ACA, states can dispense with the exchange (state or federal) concept entirely. They can get a waiver for state innovation which entitles them to pass through funding--all the federal funding their residents would've gotten in either a state or federal exchange will be given to the state to support whatever its alternate plan is.

 

[Listening]

If they wanted competition they would support Republican capitalism, not single payer.

I've already posted the explanation offered by Tom Coburn, Richard Burr, Paul Ryan & Devin Nunes of what "Republican capitalism" looks like:

Our bill creates voluntary state-based solutions - state health exchanges - that will offer health insurance benefits using the same standard used for Members of Congress. Every American would have guaranteed access to coverage and care under this plan, regardless of patient age or health history.

Reminds me of something, I just can't put my finger on it...

Oh, right. Exactly the approach the Democrats are taking this very moment.

Big mistake.

Just becasue three members of the corrupt federal congress put forth an idea....that does not make it Republican.

Not by a long shot.

Now, it might well be that they are looking for a way to undo Obamacare (and hopefully the SCOTUS will take care of that).

But how long have these guys been around and yet this is the first we see of this ?

If the GOP wanted something...we could have passed it easy 1994 to 2006....no problemo.

Does that little bit of context cause you to question anything at all ?

 

[Listening]

No, he got 51 state-run exchanges instead of a single federally-run exchange. A triumph of federalism. Now if California wants to be an active purchaser and selectively contract with insurers that meet standards California wants to set, Utah can still operate an exchange that accepts all comers without adding extra strings. If New York wants to establish its exchange as a government entity within its Department of Health, Michigan can still establish an exchange as an external non-profit corporation outside the state government.

Can states opt out of the program altogether ?

States don't have to do anything. If they prefer not to operate an exchange, they don't have to. Their residents will still get access to federal tax credits and a competitive marketplace through a federally-facilitated exchange (that's what this thread is about--Christie has opted to let the feds operate an exchange, instead of building and operating one designed by New Jersey itself as the state legislature wanted). If states don't want to take on the full responsibility of running an exchange but want some operational control over certain pieces of it--with the feds still hauling most of the load--that option is available to them, as well, though a federal-state partnership model.

And if they have something else in mind entirely, provided their plans provide equivalent (or better) access to health services as the ACA, states can dispense with the exchange (state or federal) concept entirely. They can get a waiver for state innovation which entitles them to pass through funding--all the federal funding their residents would've gotten in either a state or federal exchange will be given to the state to support whatever its alternate plan is.

No.

What I am asking is if states can tell Obama to pound sand and simply not have anything including not being subject to a federal exchange.

IOW: If someone is uninsured in Kansas and wants to stay that way...can they ? And not be bothered.

 

[Greenbeard]

Just becasue three members of the corrupt federal congress put forth an idea....that does not make it Republican.

The party agenda is now set by Paul Ryan. He's the "ideas man" of the party, no? Now he's just some "member of the corrupt federal Congress"?

Now, it might well be that they are looking for a way to undo Obamacare (and hopefully the SCOTUS will take care of that).

This is the comprehensive health reform proposal they offered a month before "Obamacare" existed.