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.
Well it's the COST of setting up the exchanges that are burdening states right. And most of these states are required balanced budget states--they don't run on deficits.
The obvious--and most common--way to keep the lights on and the help phones manned is going to be user fees on participating insurers, not appropriations.
See...this thread.
Well--sure--regardless--the consumer is going to pay for it in the end. No surprise here. Whether Obama fines the states 3.5% on their premiums or YOU pay for it in higher state taxes--and or higher state fees--it's a wash. You're going to pay for it one way or another.
So the question becomes is it better to take the 3.5% or throw the dice--with the chance that it may cost a lot more than 3.5% to set up the state exchange?
Well it's the COST of setting up the exchanges that are burdening states right. And most of these states are required balanced budget states--they don't run on deficits.
The obvious--and most common--way to keep the lights on and the help phones manned is going to be user fees on participating insurers, not appropriations.
See...this thread.
Let me get this straight, in order to keep costs down on insurance states need to add user fees/taxes to the insurance polices being sold through the exchanges, and this is your idea of free markets.
Did I get that right?
Even if they all did in fact support it, which I would dispute, that doesn't make government run "exchanges" a free market idea.
You dispute that?
Let me introduce you to Mitt Romney's exchange: Massachusetts Health Connector
Here's Utah's: Utah Health Exchange
Here's Ryan's 2009 health reform legislation: Patient's Choice Act:
Sets forth provisions governing the establishment and operation of state-based health care exchanges to facilitate the individual purchase of private health insurance and the creation of a market where private health plans compete for enrolles based on price and quality.
In fact, here's his op-ed pushing the concept: Let the Debate Begin:
To ensure affordable, quality coverage for all, we propose real insurance reforms that reorient the incentives of these companies so that they jibe with patients. Our bill encourages state-based solutions - in the form of voluntary health exchanges. These exchanges will prevent cherry-picking against those deemed uninsurable and will be made possible with risk adjustment mechanisms and other state-level options such as reinsurance and risk pools. We also include common-sense reforms to expand coverage through auto-enrollment for individuals who do not select a plan at the start of the year.
As for Heritage, they've pushed the concept countless times. Here they are in 2007:
The core concept behind the reform is to create a single market for the buying and selling of health insurance coverage through the mechanism of a state-sponsored health insurance exchange. . . The health insurance exchange mechanism facilitates personal, portable health insurance independent of the place of work, just as is currently the case with other kinds of coverage such as life insurance or auto insurance.
Or lauding Massachusetts and offering tips for other states the same year.
Hell, it wouldn't even be hard to find Congressional Republicans praising their own personal exchange, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
Markets that allow consumers to make informed choices based on price and quality and to send meaningful signals through their choices used to be something conservatives were for. Now they're just cranks.
Thanks for harping on the irreverent clause in my post.
Now address the fact that government run exchanges have nothing to do with the free market.
ST. PETERSBURG A Barack Obama campaign worker helped an undercover journalist register to vote for the president in Florida despite her expressed intention to vote in another state, video reviewed by Watchdog.org shows.
Casting more than one ballot in the same election is a violation of federal and state statutes. Experts said helping someone violate election law is also a crime and could be prosecuted under conspiracy laws.
The video, produced by independent journalist James OKeefe, also shows Democratic activists in New York helping register an undercover reporter who says he wants to vote twice in Minnesota and in New York.
But the most arresting footage shows an Organizing for America staffer in the groups Houston office providing a video journalist with an application to request a Florida absentee ballot, even though the journalist has made it clear she also intends to vote in Texas.
FL: Swing-state magnet for fraudulent double voting « Watchdog News
Not an isolated incident, I'm sure. But, obama won...we should just suck it up. If elections have consequences, I wonder just what unintended consequences are coming down the pipe...
If you wonder why so many are worried because of the election it's because it's becoming more and more clear that the election was rigged.
They were finding districts all over swing-states that had over 100% registration. I wouldn't even be surprised if the White House which was responsible for making sure that troops received their absentee ballots on time instead cast their ballots for Obama. Many of the deployed troops never got their ballots.
When it starts to dawn on everyone that a criminal is in the White House and is still there illegitimately I don't think it bodes well for the next 4 years. An honest election is the cornerstone of any free society.
I know it sounds a bit extreme but just look at the way Obama is acting. It's clear he has no intention of acting like a president. He's more like a fox in the hen house.
If you wonder why so many are worried because of the election it's because it's becoming more and more clear that the election was rigged.
They were finding districts all over swing-states that had over 100% registration. I wouldn't even be surprised if the White House which was responsible for making sure that troops received their absentee ballots on time instead cast their ballots for Obama. Many of the deployed troops never got their ballots.
When it starts to dawn on everyone that a criminal is in the White House and is still there illegitimately I don't think it bodes well for the next 4 years. An honest election is the cornerstone of any free society.
I know it sounds a bit extreme but just look at the way Obama is acting. It's clear he has no intention of acting like a president. He's more like a fox in the hen house.
No different than Russia or China. Oblamer has perfected voter rigging.
One of the byproducts of a president winning is that he shows his appreciation to the voters for their trust. Especially right after the election.
I don't see that at all in Obama. He knows he cheated and he knows he shouldn't have won. That's why his relationship with the voters is based on a lack of mutual respect.
Thanks for harping on the irreverent clause in my post.
Exchanges have been a favorite among conservatives for nearly two decades now.
Now address the fact that government run exchanges have nothing to do with the free market.
Governments exist to structure markets and correct market failures. Black markets are not the only "real" markets that can exist.
The right wing wants to laugh now but in fifty years their grand children will marvel at the first world standards of the American Single Payer System
The useful idiots have served their purpose, no appreciation needed, none will be offered.
Well--sure--regardless--the consumer is going to pay for it in the end. No surprise here. Whether Obama fines the states 3.5% on their premiums or YOU pay for it in higher state taxes--and or higher state fees--it's a wash. You're going to pay for it one way or another.
So the question becomes is it better to take the 3.5% or throw the dice--with the chance that it may cost a lot more than 3.5% to set up the state exchange?
Christ almighty. State governments aren't paying anything for federal exchanges. Not 3.5%, not anything.
All the wonderful services exchanges are going to offer have operating costs associated with them. The federal government announced last week how it's going to cover those costs for the exchanges it operates: user fees on insurers who sell plans through those exchanges (which isn't unreasonable, given the benefits insurers get from participating). States that choose to operate their own exchanges will need to come up with their own mechanisms to make them self-sustaining. I suspect most state-based exchanges will also rely on user fees on participating insurers and something tells me their rates will be comparable to the federal rates.
Question: will insurers be required to sell their coverage through these exchanges, or will they be permitted an option to offer their services without participating in the exchange?
Second: will people be forced to purchase services only through these exchanges, or will people have the option to buy services from insurers not affiliated with the exchange?
Thanks for harping on the irreverent clause in my post.
Exchanges have been a favorite among conservatives for nearly two decades now.
Horseshit. I never even heard of them until Obamacare was passed.
Now address the fact that government run exchanges have nothing to do with the free market.
Governments exist to structure markets and correct market failures. Black markets are not the only "real" markets that can exist.
More horseshit. That's what Obama fluffers like you believe. So-called "market failures" are a myth invented by fascists to justify government intervention.
Markets "structure" themselves quite nicely. They don't need government. The only thing government is required to do is enforce contracts and protect against theft, extortion and fraud.
Question: will insurers be required to sell their coverage through these exchanges, or will they be permitted an option to offer their services without participating in the exchange?
That's up to the state. Nothing in the federal law requires an insurer to sell through an exchange.
Second: will people be forced to purchase services only through these exchanges, or will people have the option to buy services from insurers not affiliated with the exchange?
No one has to buy through an exchange; unless a state opts to abolish its individual market outside of the exchange, there will still be be a non-exchange place to buy individual market coverage (i.e. coverage for people not getting it as part of a group through their employer). The market outside the exchange won't have the perks of the exchange, nor will eligible folks be able to use federal subsidies for plans outside the exchange but they'll still exist.
Insurance Exchanges Are a Republican, free market Idea
Health insurance exchanges, is an idea formulated by conservatives and supported by Republican governors and legislators across the country for years. An exchange is as pro-market a mechanism as they come: free up buyers and sellers, standardize the products, add pricing transparency, and watch what happens. Market Economics 101.
Government controlled markets may, or may not, be a Republican idea, I have no idea, nor do I care. I do no one thing, they are not free, so I have no real need to read that claptrap opinion piece from the NYT that was written by a mentally deficient idiot.
I probably shouldn't insult idiots by calling this guy an idiot, but what can you do?
Sounds like the federal exchange will be self-sustaining. There goes any talk of Congress defunding its operations.
Republican governors can try and make this work, or they can toss their hands up and pout. If the ACA fails, we'll go single payer.
I doubt that. There is no stomach in this country to go single payer among the American people or the Congress, ACA or no ACA. Furthermore, I would argue that single payer would be unconstitutional.
Furthermore, I would argue that single payer would be unconstitutional.
This whole thing, forcing people to purchase health care is unconstitutional we should argue this all the way to the Supreme court....
Wait a second.....
Never mind.
so now this administation can just MAKE UP any new rules it feels like it anytime it feels like..
Republican governors can try and make this work, or they can toss their hands up and pout. If the ACA fails, we'll go single payer.
