Governors Befuddled by Obamacare

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Star, Dec 8, 2012.

  1. Star
    Offline

    Star Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,510
    Thanks Received:
    594
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Ratings:
    +1,016
    .
    I couldn't decide whether the Republican Governors bass-ackwards approach to their healthcare goals belonged in the "Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare" section of the USMB or the "Politics" section of the USMB. But given that the insurance exchange was conceived at the Heritage Foundation, it seems to me, the Republican Governors ODS, and willingness to screw over their own constituencies is nothing-----nothing other than politics.

    "Remember, the concept of exchanges originated among conservative thinkers." "A consumer-driven marketplace where private companies compete on price, variety, and quality to sell their products is far better than the federal government’s dictating to consumers and undermining their choices." ~ Holtz-Eakin


    GOP governors enabling single-payer healthcare


    By Sam Baker
    12/07/12

    Republican governors are going down a slippery slope toward single-payer healthcare by resisting the key feature of President Obama's healthcare law, according to conservative economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

    Republican governors have taken a hard line against setting up their own exchanges, which conservatives see as the best chance to undermine President Obama's signature healthcare law. But as Holtz-Eakin noted in the National Review, that choice gives more power to the federal government.

    "Conservatives must recognize that establishing a state health-insurance exchange is not acquiescing to ObamaCare," Holtz-Eakin wrote. "It is instead one of the best means available to fight it and to ensure that control remains where it belongs — in the states and with citizens."


    Holtz-Eakin is a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and he served as the chief domestic policy adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign.
    The healthcare law envisions each state setting up its own exchange — a sort of Expedia or Orbitz for health insurance — but authorizes a federally run fallback in states that don't act on their own. The Obama administration has pushed states to control their own exchanges, and policy experts agree a state-based approach is preferable to federal control.

    But Republican governors have rejected state-based exchanges, saying they won't play any part in helping to implement a law they oppose.

    "This would truly be a Washington takeover of healthcare," Holtz-Eakin wrote of the federal exchange. "And if conservatives allow it to happen, they will be consenting to an unprecedented and potentially irreversible intrusion into states’ economies and healthcare systems. It would give single-payer advocates a foothold across many states."

    Operating a state-based exchange gives the states the power to make key decisions about their marketplace, such as whether to negotiate directly with insurance plans or open the market up to any plan that meets certain minimum criteria. States could also decide whether to preserve or eliminate the individual market outside of their exchanges, or require non-exchange plans to meet the same criteria as exchange plans.
    Punting those decisions to the federal government is "choosing a slippery slope toward precisely what liberal Democrats want: a federally controlled healthcare system that would be the first step toward European-style, single-payer healthcare," Holtz-Eakin wrote.

    He also noted that even some of the healthcare law's most ardent private-sector opponents back state-run exchanges.


    <snip>

    .
     
  2. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    This is why wasting the last three years on a repeal-and-replace slogan (which quickly got slimmed down to just "repeal") instead of developing a coherent position on and approach to the law was a mistake for the GOP.

    Now that reality is--at long last--sinking in, they're lost. And they're starting to eat each other.

    When you've got prominent Obamacare critics taking to the op-ed pages to call GOP governors who turn their backs on state-based exchanges (in favor of federal ones) unwitting accomplices to single-payer, that's a pretty big rift.

    Are Rick Perry, and Bobby Jindal, and Nikki Haley, and Chris Christie and other GOP stars embracing the "single-payer Trojan horse hidden in Obamacare," as Holtz-Eakin warns? Maybe the more important question is: do they, and the party, really want that being asked in public by other Republicans?
     
  3. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,194
    Thanks Received:
    14,906
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,938
    Yeah Romney lost because he had nothing to offer in exchange for Obamacare.

    Awful, Moderate Republican Candidate loses to Neo-Marxist (again)
     
  4. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,145
    Thanks Received:
    10,164
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,695
    Gov. run health care wasn't the Republican Gov.idea. It was bamie's . so let bamie send his government in and show em how it's done. Twill save the states lots of cash. :D
     
  5. Freewill
    Offline

    Freewill Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    27,131
    Thanks Received:
    4,372
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +12,982
    OK, in my area I have basically 1 hospital within 45 minutes to an hour depending on traffic, in my state. What exchanges are going to be offered to me? Right now, through the company, I am basically offered one provider with various plans to which I can choose basically what I pay. How are exchanges going to change all of that? Are the hospitals going to be required to cover all medical plans? Even though owned by on medical provider now? Are they going to be forced to accept whatever payment that is dictated by the government? I am not sure how this all is going to work and I have about 6 months to figure it out.
     
  6. Star
    Offline

    Star Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,510
    Thanks Received:
    594
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Ratings:
    +1,016

    Obamacare was conceived and given birth to, in the bowels of the uber-conservative Heritage Foundation.
    But gosh Willow, are you saying I should trust what you have to say about the birth of Obamacare over what a rightwing ideologue that happened to be employed by the Heritage Foundation at the time they conceived the most controversial part of Obamacare? Jeez tough choice but now-----but now at least, you know.



    [​IMG]
    You're welcome!



    How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate - Forbes


    Avik Roy
    10/20/2011

    James Taranto, who writes the Wall Street Journal’s excellent “Best of the Web” column, put forth a lengthy and informative discussion yesterday on the conservative origins of the individual mandate, whose inclusion in Obamacare is today its most controversial feature on the Right.


    This came up at Tuesday’s Western Republican Leadership Conference Debate, where Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich tussled on the question:
    ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.


    GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.


    ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.


    GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.


    ROMNEY: And you never supported them?

    GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.
    (CROSSTALK)


    ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?


    GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.


    ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?


    ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.


    GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.


    ROMNEY: OK.
    (Romney was prepared to go on, but Michele Bachmann, in her usual role as the person who makes the debates less useful, interjected and changed the subject. Here’s a YouTube video of the entire debate. The Gingrich-Romney exchange begins at the [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X61J-5sW288#t=27m38s"]27:38 mark[/ame].)
    .
     
  7. Amelia
    Offline

    Amelia BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    21,830
    Thanks Received:
    5,105
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Packerland!
    Ratings:
    +5,119
    Just because a Republican comes up with an idea doesn't mean they should embrace a Democrat's version of the idea -- especially not a Democrat known for micro-managing who won't even tell in advance what embracing said idea will entail.

    There is no good reason to voluntarily get involved with any idea coming from the Obama administration. That's the proverbial tar baby, or tar pit. Once you touch something Obama proposes you're stuck in a mire from which you might never be able to extract yourself.
     
  8. Amelia
    Offline

    Amelia BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    21,830
    Thanks Received:
    5,105
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Packerland!
    Ratings:
    +5,119
    If Republicans involve themselves in Obama's behemoth, they're just offering themselves to Obama as the scapegoat when his mess blows up the budget.

    I am very glad my governor isn't playing that lose-lose game with Obama.
     
  9. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    No shit, that's why Holtz-Eakin is urging state governors to design and operate their own exchanges instead of ceding that responsibility to Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius. What you're saying is exactly his rationale:

     
  10. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    In fairness, the next Democratic administration in your state is almost certainly going to take back the reins from the feds and build its own exchange. But that state exchange will look substantially different than what it would like if it were designed by your current legislature and governor.

    So in certain states and circumstances it may indeed be better to let the feds handle things for a while.
     

Share This Page