Governors Befuddled by Obamacare

Star

Gold Member
Apr 5, 2009
2,532
614
190
.
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>

.
 
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?
 
Yeah Romney lost because he had nothing to offer in exchange for Obamacare.

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


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.



20090125-gopass.jpg
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].)
.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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:

States that establish their own exchanges will design them and decide how they will function. States can take steps to keep exchange costs low, respond locally to consumer questions and concerns, and make sure that consumers have many health-insurance products to choose from.

States can, and should, control their destinies by deciding how their exchanges will function, which private insurance companies can participate, and what kind of insurance coverage will be offered. They should use their political leverage — the administration desperately wants them to sign on to Medicaid expansions — to pare back the regulations and unrealistic timetables that would govern a state exchange. This is the kind of local decision-making that works best for businesses, workers, and taxpayers.

The alternative is to forgo a state-based, customized approach and capitulate to the federal government and its one-size-fits-all default arrangement. By law, states that haven’t established their own state-based exchanges must implement federal “fallback” exchanges established for them.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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:

States that establish their own exchanges will design them and decide how they will function. States can take steps to keep exchange costs low, respond locally to consumer questions and concerns, and make sure that consumers have many health-insurance products to choose from.

States can, and should, control their destinies by deciding how their exchanges will function, which private insurance companies can participate, and what kind of insurance coverage will be offered. They should use their political leverage — the administration desperately wants them to sign on to Medicaid expansions — to pare back the regulations and unrealistic timetables that would govern a state exchange. This is the kind of local decision-making that works best for businesses, workers, and taxpayers.

The alternative is to forgo a state-based, customized approach and capitulate to the federal government and its one-size-fits-all default arrangement. By law, states that haven’t established their own state-based exchanges must implement federal “fallback” exchanges established for them.



It is an illusion that the states would be able to control their destinies. Obama's administration wouldn't allow that. The states would never be more than puppets implementing the neverending restrictions coming down the pike. Obama wants the states to have their hands dirty so that he can minimize his exposure to recriminations when the full costs of his deceptions become apparent.
 
It is an illusion that the states would be able to control their destinies. Obama's administration wouldn't allow that. The states would never be more than puppets implementing the neverending restrictions coming down the pike.

That seems to be the lame retort of some of these GOP governors to explain to the Holtz-Eakins of the party why they let the "single-payer Trojan horse hidden in Obamacare" behind the city walls.

The paranoia is standard fare these days, but it doesn't address Holtz-Eakin's point that not only does setting up the exchanges themselves give states control over their own state markets that they'd otherwise be ceding to the Obama administration, it gives them political leverage over any hypothetical "neverending restrictions" the administration could come up with, since it's pretty obvious the administration desperately wants states to do the exchanges (and expand Medicaid, for that matter) themselves. Leverage these governors have now ceded.

In other words, if you think there's going to be all kinds of unspecified extra requirements on/in exchanges coming someday from somewhere (???), the only way these patriotic governors can push back against them is by operating their own exchanges. Which they won't be doing.
 
Last edited:
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.

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:

States that establish their own exchanges will design them and decide how they will function. States can take steps to keep exchange costs low, respond locally to consumer questions and concerns, and make sure that consumers have many health-insurance products to choose from.

States can, and should, control their destinies by deciding how their exchanges will function, which private insurance companies can participate, and what kind of insurance coverage will be offered. They should use their political leverage — the administration desperately wants them to sign on to Medicaid expansions — to pare back the regulations and unrealistic timetables that would govern a state exchange. This is the kind of local decision-making that works best for businesses, workers, and taxpayers.

The alternative is to forgo a state-based, customized approach and capitulate to the federal government and its one-size-fits-all default arrangement. By law, states that haven’t established their own state-based exchanges must implement federal “fallback” exchanges established for them.



It is an illusion that the states would be able to control their destinies. Obama's administration wouldn't allow that. The states would never be more than puppets implementing the neverending restrictions coming down the pike. Obama wants the states to have their hands dirty so that he can minimize his exposure to recriminations when the full costs of his deceptions become apparent.

Very well put....the extinction of federalism.


1. Obamacare was intended to have one national exchange to regulate all health insurance, and to distribute subsidies. Forced to back down on that idea, he got fifty instead! Under Title I, state officials are instructed that they “shall” establish an “American Health Benefit Exchange, “ (AHB) in each state. The secretary of HHS will make grants to each state to set them up, determining the amount of money, whether or not to renew depending on whether the state is “making progress” in meeting the new federal insurance requirements, and other “benchmarks” that the secretary may see fit to establish. And the secretary has the power to decide if the state exchanges are “qualified,” as of January 1, 2013.

a. These exchanges will be the central vehicle for the federal government to control and regulate the health insurance market. Washington will dictate exactly how they work, and step in and set them up if not satisfactory. PPACA, Public Law 111-148, section 1321(c) (1)

b. Rather than co-equal with the federal government, as is the character of American federalism, the state becomes nothing more than a distal agency of Washington.



2. The feds will require the ‘state’ exchanges to perform a dozen or so “minimum functions”
Section 1311(d)(4) of the PPACA requires all Exchanges to perform certain minimum functions:

Certify, recertify and decertify health insurance plans as “qualified health plans” to be offered through the Exchange,

Operate a toll-free hotline for consumer assistance,

Maintain a website providing standardized comparative information on health plans,
Assign price and quality ratings to plans,

Present plan benefit options in a standardized format,

Provide information on Medicaid and CHIP, determine eligibility for applicants, and enroll eligible individuals in these programs,

Provide an electronic calculator to allow applicants to determine the actual cost of coverage, taking into account premium tax credits and cost sharing reductions for which they are eligible,

Certify individuals who may be exempt from the individual responsibility requirement,

Provide information to the Treasury Department and to employers on certain employees who are eligible for premium tax credits, and

Establish a Navigator program that provides grants to entities to conduct outreach and education, as well as assist consumers in enrolling in qualified health plans through the Exchange.


a. While states cannot accept any insurers who offer policies that provide fewer benefits than those ordered by the federal government, they may offer plans that include more benefits. This, of course, obviates the kind of competition that lowers cost or favors the consumer. The state must them subsidize the additional benefits, which requires extensive invasion of privacy of the individual.

b. While mandating additional benefits, the PPACA imposes restrictions that one would expect in a free market system, i.e., more benefits results in higher premiums. On the contrary, this law gives the secretary of HHS the ability to remove the company if the increases are 10% or more.
Questions and Answers: Keeping the Health Plan You Have: The Affordable Care Act and ?Grandfathered? Health Plans
 
It is an illusion that the states would be able to control their destinies. Obama's administration wouldn't allow that. The states would never be more than puppets implementing the neverending restrictions coming down the pike.

That seems to be the lame retort of some of these GOP governors to explain to the Holtz-Eakins of the party why they let the "single-payer Trojan horse hidden in Obamacare" behind the city walls.

The paranoia is standard fare these days, but it doesn't address Holtz-Eakin's point that not only does setting up the exchanges themselves give states control over their own state markets that they'd otherwise be ceding to the Obama administration, it gives them political leverage over any hypothetical "neverending restrictions" the administration could come up with, since it's pretty obvious the administration desperately wants states to do the exchanges (and expand Medicaid, for that matter) themselves. Leverage these governors have now ceded.


The states would not have leverage. They could complain all they want but once they've let Obama into their house it will be a futile struggle to make any demands on him. The most they could get is extra time to accomplish what he wants them to do.

And as noted already, that will just make them accomplices in the budget-busting boondoggle which is already projected to cost three times as much money as Obama said it would, with no end in sight.
 
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


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.



20090125-gopass.jpg
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].)
.

Dearest Star. bamie care was written by the democrats and passed into law by the demoncraps, not a single solitary Republican voted for it. It's a clusterfuck and you demoncraps own it. Nice try but your bulldog don't hunt.
 
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


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.



20090125-gopass.jpg
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].)
.

Dearest Star. bamie care was written by the democrats and passed into law by the demoncraps, not a single solitary Republican voted for it. It's a clusterfuck and you demoncraps own it. Nice try but your bulldog don't hunt.


“Whatever the particular differences, the Heritage mandate was indistinguishable in principle from the ObamaCare one. In both cases, the federal government would force individuals to purchase a product from a private company—something that Congress has never done before.” ~ James Taranto


I agree that the Dems own Obamacare, but the rest of your message is delusional. Are you calling Mitt Romney a liar? or are you calling Newt Gingrich a liar? Both?




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.

<snip>


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



But-----but I like the idea that righties disdain a program that every new poll shows is gaining in popularity with voters. Another group of voters the Republican party is throwing under the bus-----cool-WTG.
bth_Picture1-2.png

.
 
It is an illusion that the states would be able to control their destinies. Obama's administration wouldn't allow that. The states would never be more than puppets implementing the neverending restrictions coming down the pike.

That seems to be the lame retort of some of these GOP governors to explain to the Holtz-Eakins of the party why they let the "single-payer Trojan horse hidden in Obamacare" behind the city walls.

The paranoia is standard fare these days, but it doesn't address Holtz-Eakin's point that not only does setting up the exchanges themselves give states control over their own state markets that they'd otherwise be ceding to the Obama administration, it gives them political leverage over any hypothetical "neverending restrictions" the administration could come up with, since it's pretty obvious the administration desperately wants states to do the exchanges (and expand Medicaid, for that matter) themselves. Leverage these governors have now ceded.


The states would not have leverage. They could complain all they want but once they've let Obama into their house it will be a futile struggle to make any demands on him. The most they could get is extra time to accomplish what he wants them to do.

And as noted already, that will just make them accomplices in the budget-busting boondoggle which is already projected to cost three times as much money as Obama said it would, with no end in sight.

You and others on the right are such blind partisans, you can’t even accept the truth being told you by a fellow conservative.
 
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


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.



20090125-gopass.jpg
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].)
.

Dearest Star. bamie care was written by the democrats and passed into law by the demoncraps, not a single solitary Republican voted for it. It's a clusterfuck and you demoncraps own it. Nice try but your bulldog don't hunt.


“Whatever the particular differences, the Heritage mandate was indistinguishable in principle from the ObamaCare one. In both cases, the federal government would force individuals to purchase a product from a private company—something that Congress has never done before.” ~ James Taranto


I agree that the Dems own Obamacare, but the rest of your message is delusional. Are you calling Mitt Romney a liar? or are you calling Newt Gingrich a liar? Both?




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.

<snip>


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



But-----but I like the idea that righties disdain a program that every new poll shows is gaining in popularity with voters. Another group of voters the Republican party has thrown under the bus-----cool-WTG.
bth_Picture1-2.png

.
 
That seems to be the lame retort of some of these GOP governors to explain to the Holtz-Eakins of the party why they let the "single-payer Trojan horse hidden in Obamacare" behind the city walls.

The paranoia is standard fare these days, but it doesn't address Holtz-Eakin's point that not only does setting up the exchanges themselves give states control over their own state markets that they'd otherwise be ceding to the Obama administration, it gives them political leverage over any hypothetical "neverending restrictions" the administration could come up with, since it's pretty obvious the administration desperately wants states to do the exchanges (and expand Medicaid, for that matter) themselves. Leverage these governors have now ceded.


The states would not have leverage. They could complain all they want but once they've let Obama into their house it will be a futile struggle to make any demands on him. The most they could get is extra time to accomplish what he wants them to do.

And as noted already, that will just make them accomplices in the budget-busting boondoggle which is already projected to cost three times as much money as Obama said it would, with no end in sight.

You and others on the right are such blind partisans, you can’t even accept the truth being told you by a fellow conservative.

Hence the schism within the GOP now. Some of them have taken sort of a New Federalism approach, recognizing it's better to have an exchange under state control and customized to the state's preferences and environment. Holtz-Eakin's piece is especially interesting because he takes it even further, arguing that by turning their state markets over to the federal exchange they're actively, if unwittingly, supporting the creation of a framework for a hypothetical future single-payer system.

The other train of thought seems to be a vestige from the days when these governors (and apparently most of the Republican party) thought the ACA wouldn't even exist come 2013 because 1) the SCOTUS would throw it all out, and 2) when that failed, the election of Mitt Romney would put the final nail in the ACA's coffin. What a slam dunk that was. And when all that failed, they were left just sort of spinning their wheels and handing their exchanges over to the federal government by default, partly in a pouty way but partly because there's just no intellectual energy left among them to figure out what they should do. Which leaves them in the odd position of embracing and talking up a federal role.

It's fascinating to watch. I suspect some of these decisions will be useful fodder in the 2014 state-level elections.
 

Forum List

Back
Top