Obamacare still vulnerable?

[Murf76]

Thought this deserved it's own thread. Check it out...

Finally, rejecting an exchange reduces the federal deficit. Obamacare offers its deficit-financed subsidies to private health insurers only through state-created exchanges. If all states declined, federal deficits would fall by roughly $700 billion over ten years.

For similar reasons, states should decline to implement Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. The Supreme Court gave states that option. All states should exercise it.


cont...Obamacare Is Still Vulnerable - Michael F. Cannon - National Review Online

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?

 

[francoHFW]

Nope, dupe. LOL

 

[francoHFW]

The federal gov't pays 100% of Medicaid for years, finally only 90%....zzzzzzzzzz, dupe.

 

[Murf76]

Here's another article. It's a little older, but gives a bit more of the lay of the land:

Most of us view Obamacare as a national fight, but over the next few months we will have the opportunity to disrupt this travesty on a local level. Governors and state legislators can refuse to expand the Medicaid rolls as prescribed under Obamacare, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision. Moreover, there is no mechanism in place to prevent them from blocking the establishment of the healthcare exchanges before the law is set to take effect 2014.

Remember that although we lack control over the federal government, we have full control over 23 state governments (governor +both chambers of the legislature). In total, there are 29 GOP governors and 39 states where we have control of at least one branch of government. We must push those governors and state legislators to block implementation of any aspect of Obamacare. The 29 governors could easily bock it simply by doing nothing.

cont... Kentucky Republicans Seek to Block Implementation of Obamacare | RedState

 

[BreezeWood]

the only change to ACA will be legislation to improve it by Democrats.

 

[Greenbeard]

States are better off defaulting to a federal exchange.

Hand your insurance market over to the feds. Makes sense.

 

[oldernwiser]

Here's another article. It's a little older, but gives a bit more of the lay of the land:

TECH AT NIGHT
TARGET RACES
TobyToons
FRONT PAGE WRITERS
DIARIES
COFFEE & MARKETS
REDSTATE FRIENDS

« BACK | PRINT
RS
MEMBER DIARY
Kentucky Republicans Seek to Block Implementation of Obamacare

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary) | July 18th, 2012 at 03:42 PM | 0

RESIZE: AAA

Most of us view Obamacare as a national fight, but over the next few months we will have the opportunity to disrupt this travesty on a local level. Governors and state legislators can refuse to expand the Medicaid rolls as prescribed under Obamacare, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision. Moreover, there is no mechanism in place to prevent them from blocking the establishment of the healthcare exchanges before the law is set to take effect 2014.

Remember that although we lack control over the federal government, we have full control over 23 state governments (governor +both chambers of the legislature). In total, there are 29 GOP governors and 39 states where we have control of at least one branch of government. We must push those governors and state legislators to block implementation of any aspect of Obamacare. The 29 governors could easily bock it simply by doing nothing.

cont... Kentucky Republicans Seek to Block Implementation of Obamacare | RedState

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?

 

[Murf76]

States are better off defaulting to a federal exchange.

Hand your insurance market over to the feds. Makes sense.

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.

 

[oreo]

Thought this deserved it's own thread. Check it out...

Finally, rejecting an exchange reduces the federal deficit. Obamacare offers its deficit-financed subsidies to private health insurers only through state-created exchanges. If all states declined, federal deficits would fall by roughly $700 billion over ten years.

For similar reasons, states should decline to implement Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. The Supreme Court gave states that option. All states should exercise it.


cont...Obamacare Is Still Vulnerable - Michael F. Cannon - National Review Online

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?

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.

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

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.

 

[Murf76]

Here's another article. It's a little older, but gives a bit more of the lay of the land:

Most of us view Obamacare as a national fight, but over the next few months we will have the opportunity to disrupt this travesty on a local level. Governors and state legislators can refuse to expand the Medicaid rolls as prescribed under Obamacare, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision. Moreover, there is no mechanism in place to prevent them from blocking the establishment of the healthcare exchanges before the law is set to take effect 2014.

Remember that although we lack control over the federal government, we have full control over 23 state governments (governor +both chambers of the legislature). In total, there are 29 GOP governors and 39 states where we have control of at least one branch of government. We must push those governors and state legislators to block implementation of any aspect of Obamacare. The 29 governors could easily bock it simply by doing nothing.

cont... Kentucky Republicans Seek to Block Implementation of Obamacare | RedState

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?

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.

 

[Murf76]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Murf76]

the only change to ACA will be legislation to improve it by Democrats.

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.

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

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.

 

[oreo]

Thought this deserved it's own thread. Check it out...

Finally, rejecting an exchange reduces the federal deficit. Obamacare offers its deficit-financed subsidies to private health insurers only through state-created exchanges. If all states declined, federal deficits would fall by roughly $700 billion over ten years.

For similar reasons, states should decline to implement Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. The Supreme Court gave states that option. All states should exercise it.


cont...Obamacare Is Still Vulnerable - Michael F. Cannon - National Review Online

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? [/QUOTE


I am saying it again--Obamacare is only threatened with those that voted for Obama who will have to pay 8% of their gross income for it-and that won't happen until AFTER he leaves office or in 2016. They thought the rich were going to pay for it--LOL.

 

[oldernwiser]

Here's another article. It's a little older, but gives a bit more of the lay of the land:

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?

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.

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.

 

[Political Junky]

"Obamacare is the law of the land."
- Boehner

 

[Murf76]

Thought this deserved it's own thread. Check it out...

Finally, rejecting an exchange reduces the federal deficit. Obamacare offers its deficit-financed subsidies to private health insurers only through state-created exchanges. If all states declined, federal deficits would fall by roughly $700 billion over ten years.

For similar reasons, states should decline to implement Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. The Supreme Court gave states that option. All states should exercise it.


cont...Obamacare Is Still Vulnerable - Michael F. Cannon - National Review Online

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?

I am saying it again--Obamacare is only threatened with those that voted for Obama who will have to pay 8% of their gross income for it-and that won't happen until AFTER he leaves office or in 2016.

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.

 

[Murf76]

"Obamacare is the law of the land."
- Boehner

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.

 

[Murf76]

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?

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.

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.

The Supreme Court already gave them cover on the issue of expanding Medicaid. The "why" is all about that "no money" thingy.