Obamacare still vulnerable?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Murf76, Nov 9, 2012.

  1. Murf76
    Offline

    Murf76 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,464
    Thanks Received:
    592
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +592
    Thought this deserved it's own thread. Check it out...

    This might be slim hope, but I think most of us recognize at this point that Boehner's in no position to fight on, having received no cover from the people after this election. Clearly, John Roberts is a fucking lunatic... no help there. But can our governors and state legislatures put such a hurtin' on this thing so as to make it untenable?

    Read the whole article. For the sake of fair use, I just pulled you out one tasty bit. But it seems to me that if the States refuse to set up these exchanges and refuse to expand Medicaid, like Virginia's Bob McDonnell has said he'll do, it's going to be a rough row to hoe in Obamaland. And as you read down the article, these governors do appear to have good political cover as this thing chews such great holes in their budgets. More than half the States rose up to challenge it already. Will they follow through? :eusa_eh:
     
  2. francoHFW
    Offline

    francoHFW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    18,116
    Thanks Received:
    1,099
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
    Ratings:
    +1,290
    Nope, dupe. LOL
     
  3. francoHFW
    Offline

    francoHFW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    18,116
    Thanks Received:
    1,099
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
    Ratings:
    +1,290
    The federal gov't pays 100% of Medicaid for years, finally only 90%....zzzzzzzzzz, dupe.
     
  4. Murf76
    Offline

    Murf76 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,464
    Thanks Received:
    592
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +592
    Here's another article. It's a little older, but gives a bit more of the lay of the land:

     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2012
  5. BreezeWood
    Offline

    BreezeWood VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,256
    Thanks Received:
    224
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +260
    the only change to ACA will be legislation to improve it by Democrats.
     
  6. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,377
    Thanks Received:
    1,103
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,115
    Hand your insurance market over to the feds. Makes sense.
     
  7. oldernwiser
    Offline

    oldernwiser Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    511
    Thanks Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +54
    Yep - it will be up to the Tea Party/Koch brothers to make sure that disinformation sways all those state's voters not to expel their governors and reps for dragging their heels when the residents of the other states have an easier time with their health care. Shouldn't be that hard, right?

    Obstinance to the bitter end, huh?
     
  8. Murf76
    Offline

    Murf76 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,464
    Thanks Received:
    592
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +592
    Yeah, it does. 'Cause they're taking it anyway. The feds are in control of the exchanges regardless of whether or not they're set up by the states. And if you actually read the article, it makes better fiscal sense to not set them up.
     
  9. oreo
    Offline

    oreo Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    8,300
    Thanks Received:
    1,257
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    rocky mountains
    Ratings:
    +1,258

    The ONLY time OBAMACARE is in trouble--is in 2016 after Obama is out of office--and all those admirer's get taxed 8% for it.
     
  10. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,377
    Thanks Received:
    1,103
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,115
    No, the feds don't control the exchanges if a state wants to design and build their own. Pretending otherwise now when states should be figuring out what they want their exchanges to look like is going to get some of these red states in an awkward spot philosophically come 2014-15.
     
  11. Murf76
    Offline

    Murf76 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,464
    Thanks Received:
    592
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +592
    States don't have printing presses. They actually have to mind the budget, and no money means no money. The feds say they'll pay for the exchanges in 2014, but after that the states are supposed to absorb the expense. Why would they do that when they'd have to cut funding for other projects and services? They're not going to have the luxury of spending money they don't have. It's going to come out of schools, roads, and fire houses.

    So, no. I don't think they've got much political capital at risk. Once they say, we're either going to fire this many teachers and cops or we're going to take a pass at creating Obama's insurance exchange.. that's a pretty clear fiscal choice.
     
  12. Murf76
    Offline

    Murf76 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,464
    Thanks Received:
    592
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +592

    Go look it up. You'll find it in the first link I posted, but if you don't believe it, there are lots more where that came from.
     
  13. Murf76
    Offline

    Murf76 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,464
    Thanks Received:
    592
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +592
    Maybe if they'd bothered to read the whole thing they'd have found the loopholes. And since they didn't... there's no reason why we shouldn't exploit these built-in faults. And Democrats don't get to pass any legislation they want these days. They don't have both houses anymore.
     
  14. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,377
    Thanks Received:
    1,103
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,115
    It's not a matter of believing a declarative sentence Cannon makes in his quixotic quest to get states to cede autonomy over their markets to the feds. It's a matter of understanding the options states have been and are (or should be, in the case of the laggards) exploring as they design exchanges customized to their preferences, their culture, their market conditions, and their political/philosophical inclinations.

    If you prefer a federal exchange, great. Personally, in my state, I don't. I would much prefer we design our own exchange than default to a federal option.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2012
  15. oreo
    Offline

    oreo Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    8,300
    Thanks Received:
    1,257
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    rocky mountains
    Ratings:
    +1,258
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2012
  16. oldernwiser
    Offline

    oldernwiser Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    511
    Thanks Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +54
    Thing is, this all comes out of the Medicaid budget anyway. If they still have a Medicaid budget and say no to Obamacare, they have an up hill battle convincing their voters why it's better to stand on principal. They can reduce their Medicaid provisions, but then they end up with the federal requirements later on anyway and STILL they have to face their voters and explain WHY.

    Romneycare would have had the same effect - mandating care at the state level and to hell with the bill (more likely, to hell with the folks who need the care). Medicaid provisions would still have been required to fund it.
     
  17. Political Junky
    Offline

    Political Junky Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Messages:
    13,776
    Thanks Received:
    1,734
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Fog City
    Ratings:
    +1,903
    "Obamacare is the law of the land."
    - Boehner
     
  18. Murf76
    Offline

    Murf76 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,464
    Thanks Received:
    592
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +592
    The whole thing is designed to create even more of the "takers" that vote for Democrats. We've got 47 million and counting who don't even pay any federal income tax. They're not going to be coughing up that 8% anyway. But if the States refuse to play ball, not setting up the exchanges and not expanding Medicaid, they shift the expenses back to Washington. There's still plenty of pain and headaches for the taxpaying public. The difference is that it's Washington who has to come up with the candy. In the meantime, if you look closely, there's a bit of a loophole in the verbiage of "state-created" exchange that will allow employers to hire more people.
     
  19. Murf76
    Offline

    Murf76 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,464
    Thanks Received:
    592
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +592
    Boehner's hands are tied. He can't just make a full-on assault here. He doesn't have political cover. But, the States can turn this thing into a nightmare for Democrats and he's at no obligation to help them fix it.
     
  20. Murf76
    Offline

    Murf76 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,464
    Thanks Received:
    592
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +592
    The Supreme Court already gave them cover on the issue of expanding Medicaid. The "why" is all about that "no money" thingy.
     

Share This Page