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.
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.
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.
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.
States can tell Obama whatever they like. But if someone living within their boundaries is an American citizen, they're going to have access to a competitive marketplace for private insurance. Whether the state wants to determine what the looks like or not participate at all is the state's decision.
It is telling that you can't comprehend that we don't fall at their feet the way you seem to fall at Obama's. I've complained about federal legislators long and loud. And while I like Ryan...that does not mean I like everything he does.
It is telling that you can't comprehend that we don't fall at their feet the way you seem to fall at Obama's. I've complained about federal legislators long and loud. And while I like Ryan...that does not mean I like everything he does.
Cool. I'm not sure why anyone needs or cares about your stamp of approval, though.
My point was--and remains--that the intellectual leaders of the Republican party built their comprehensive health reform proposal around exchanges last session. That's what "Republican capitalism" looks like, in the words of the other poster. They only backed off a month or two later when the Democrats offered support for the idea. Hell, the GOP's current approach to Medicare is also built on the exchange concept.
I don't ever recall voting on intellectual leaders.
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.
States can tell Obama whatever they like. But if someone living within their boundaries is an American citizen, they're going to have access to a competitive marketplace for private insurance. Whether the state wants to determine what the looks like or not participate at all is the state's decision.
Access is one thing...but what if someone does not have it and does not want it ?
States can tell Obama whatever they like. But if someone living within their boundaries is an American citizen, they're going to have access to a competitive marketplace for private insurance. Whether the state wants to determine what the looks like or not participate at all is the state's decision.
Access is one thing...but what if someone does not have it and does not want it ?
The competition and choice that Red and ObamaCare offer is akin to Henry Ford's famous "People can have the Model T in any colour - so long as it's black".
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.
States can tell Obama whatever they like. But if someone living within their boundaries is an American citizen, they're going to have access to a competitive marketplace for private insurance. Whether the state wants to determine what the looks like or not participate at all is the state's decision.
Access is one thing...but what if someone does not have it and does not want it ?
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 didnt 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, heres 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 shouldnt tell you, but its 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?
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 didnt 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, heres 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 shouldnt tell you, but its 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?
Are you that insecure about your own posts?
People on this board who barely finished grade school are able to compose posts stating their own opinions and exhibit independent thought.
There is nothing wrong with posting a link when challenged or to support controversial or questionable information. But to cut and paste the opinions of others in lieu your own is intellectual laziness or blatant insecurity.
"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 didnt 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, heres 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 shouldnt tell you, but its 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?
Are you that insecure about your own posts?
People on this board who barely finished grade school are able to compose posts stating their own opinions and exhibit independent thought.
There is nothing wrong with posting a link when challenged or to support controversial or questionable information. But to cut and paste the opinions of others in lieu your own is intellectual laziness or blatant insecurity.
wingy....
....I'm going to give your suggestions for my posts all of the consideration they deserve.
You can rest assured.....
And I fully understand your sense of loss.
Are you that insecure about your own posts?
People on this board who barely finished grade school are able to compose posts stating their own opinions and exhibit independent thought.
There is nothing wrong with posting a link when challenged or to support controversial or questionable information. But to cut and paste the opinions of others in lieu your own is intellectual laziness or blatant insecurity.
wingy....
....I'm going to give your suggestions for my posts all of the consideration they deserve.
You can rest assured.....
And I fully understand your sense of loss.
A mind is a horrible thing to waste....
It's a shame because you have so much you could offer the discussion. If all I wanted to read was the latest tripe from rightwing blogs........I could just read Stephanies posts
States can tell Obama whatever they like. But if someone living within their boundaries is an American citizen, they're going to have access to a competitive marketplace for private insurance. Whether the state wants to determine what the looks like or not participate at all is the state's decision.
Access is one thing...but what if someone does not have it and does not want it ?
Hello.
Hello.
Anyone home ???
Access is one thing...but what if someone does not have it and does not want it ?
Hello.
Hello.
Anyone home ???
Anyone ?
Greenbeard ?
If I get this right...it is federall mandated and the states can go along as long as they play by the feds rules. There is no option for the state to allow one of it's members to say "No Thanks".
Am I reading that right.
So, this is really a federally administered program.
Putting a state face on it is B.S.
Hello.
Hello.
Anyone home ???
Anyone ?
Greenbeard ?
If I get this right...it is federall mandated and the states can go along as long as they play by the feds rules. There is no option for the state to allow one of it's members to say "No Thanks".
Am I reading that right.
So, this is really a federally administered program.
Putting a state face on it is B.S.
Its a federally adminstered progrma if the state choose not toadmisnter it themselfs
If I get this right...it is federall mandated and the states can go along as long as they play by the feds rules. There is no option for the state to allow one of it's members to say "No Thanks".
Am I reading that right.
So, this is really a federally administered program.
The ACA prescribes basic functions that all exchanges must be able to perform but gives the states some design flexibility. A host of factors are expected to impact the eventual design and functionality of the operating model of a given state exchange. The two main factors are:
- Market Environment – Some states manage markets through regulation, while others employ a free-market approach.
- Exchange Capabilities – Some states will take a de minimis approach, while others will opt to build robust operational capabilities as they bring these exchanges online.
We anticipate that four health insurance exchange operating models will emerge, each with distinct characteristics: Information Aggregator, Retail-oriented Exchange, Guided Exchange, Market Curator (Figure 1).
- Information Aggregator – Takes a laissez-faire approach, where the state facilitates the transaction, and little more.
- Retail-Oriented Exchange – Seeks to develop a competitive marketplace focused on providing a robust shopping experience for the consumer.
- Guided Exchange – Reduces confusion for new consumers by offering a reduced number of more standardized products and a simplified shopping experience.
- Market Curator – Manages competition on a robust platform, where the state curates who can be on the exchange and, to a lesser extent, which products can be offered.
The model that emerges for any given state will factor heavily into a health plan’s decision to participate in the market, as well as influence development of its go-to-market strategy in “entry” states.
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
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).
This is a basic level of functionality, primarily focused on facilitating enrollment in coverage and creating value for the consumer.
The latter means making available information that allows consumers to:
- compare the benefit offerings of competing plans,
- compare plans on standardized quality ratings,
- compare prices across plans of a given actuarial value, and
- easily determine their own financial liability under different plan options.
An "exchange" that fails the test of "does it organize the market into a competitive, consumer-oriented system" serves little purpose, as it doesn't address the fundamental deficiencies of the existing individual health insurance market that inhibit comparison shopping and competition between insurance plans.
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:
The ACA prescribes basic functions that all exchanges must be able to perform but gives the states some design flexibility. A host of factors are expected to impact the eventual design and functionality of the operating model of a given state exchange. The two main factors are:
- Market Environment Some states manage markets through regulation, while others employ a free-market approach.
- Exchange Capabilities Some states will take a de minimis approach, while others will opt to build robust operational capabilities as they bring these exchanges online.
We anticipate that four health insurance exchange operating models will emerge, each with distinct characteristics: Information Aggregator, Retail-oriented Exchange, Guided Exchange, Market Curator (Figure 1).
- Information Aggregator Takes a laissez-faire approach, where the state facilitates the transaction, and little more.
- Retail-Oriented Exchange Seeks to develop a competitive marketplace focused on providing a robust shopping experience for the consumer.
- Guided Exchange Reduces confusion for new consumers by offering a reduced number of more standardized products and a simplified shopping experience.
- Market Curator Manages competition on a robust platform, where the state curates who can be on the exchange and, to a lesser extent, which products can be offered.
The model that emerges for any given state will factor heavily into a health plans decision to participate in the market, as well as influence development of its go-to-market strategy in entry 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.
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.
The exchanges will make it so people can view all the information about differences insurances all in one place, and in a more simpler format. It basically makes for the most efficient form of competition because it allows people to actually know the differences and benefits.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 ?
Yes regulators will make it so those in exchanges can't lie or have inaccurate/misleading information and have benefits that are worthless how horriblemeeting 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.
The exchanges make it so consumer know the differences between difference insurance policies so they can actually determine which is more valuable to themUh..you mean forcing enrollement in coverage.
The consumer determines what creates value. The government is a poor choice for this function.
No. The mandate only raises your taxes if you do not buy insurance it does not force you to have insurance.Key is still that people are required to have some form of insurance.
Or did that change ?
Then why do you know nothing about this stuff you say you have seen before?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.
Yes, they can. Any other questions?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 ?
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
