Gov Christie vetos Obamacare Exchange in NJ

[PoliticalChic]

So, what's the problem with a health care exchange?

Again...anyone who is telling you that there is competition in the so-called exchanges is working for the federal government, or is a liar, or is a complete fool.

Note several in this thread.....

Are you really this illiterate?

Today you day out of the ‘nervous hospital’?

Step off, twerp.

 

[PoliticalChic]

uh yea, whatever....

Yea its weird that the GOP opposes compeition/

Well not really.

The GOP supports corporatism. Democrats support Capitalism.

They are entirely different.

There is intelligent discussion, and your post.

They are entirely different.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Again...anyone who is telling you that there is competition in the so-called exchanges is working for the federal government, or is a liar, or is a complete fool.

Note several in this thread.....

Are you really this illiterate?

Today you day out of the ‘nervous hospital’?

Step off, twerp.

Come backl when youa re able to do sometihng other then copy and paste IE when you can read, and think

 

[rdean]

The number one cause of bankruptcy are "medical bills".

Republicans see that as a "positive".

Can they explain why?

 

[Sallow]

Yea its weird that the GOP opposes compeition/

Well not really.

The GOP supports corporatism. Democrats support Capitalism.

They are entirely different.

There is intelligent discussion, and your post.

They are entirely different.

Now now Chicky..

Don't poke the wolf.

It could get ya bitten.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well not really.

The GOP supports corporatism. Democrats support Capitalism.

They are entirely different.

There is intelligent discussion, and your post.

They are entirely different.

Now now Chicky..

Don't poke the wolf.

It could get ya bitten.

Don’t your read? The dragon...or the wolf, never slays the fair damsel!



And don't forget....I flunked anger management.

 

[starcraftzzz]

There is intelligent discussion, and your post.

They are entirely different.

Now now Chicky..

Don't poke the wolf.

It could get ya bitten.

Don’t your read? The dragon...or the wolf, never slays the fair damsel!



And don't forget....I flunked anger management.

YOu also flunked math and english

 

[Sallow]

There is intelligent discussion, and your post.

They are entirely different.

Now now Chicky..

Don't poke the wolf.

It could get ya bitten.

Don’t your read? The dragon...or the wolf, never slays the fair damsel!



And don't forget....I flunked anger management.

The are the "cleaned up" versions.

In the originals..which were cautionary tales..the wolf always winds up with a fine meal.

Yummy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now now Chicky..

Don't poke the wolf.

It could get ya bitten.

Don’t your read? The dragon...or the wolf, never slays the fair damsel!



And don't forget....I flunked anger management.

YOu also flunked math and english

You write like a dorky fifteen year old....

oh, you are a dorky fifteen year old....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now now Chicky..

Don't poke the wolf.

It could get ya bitten.

Don’t your read? The dragon...or the wolf, never slays the fair damsel!



And don't forget....I flunked anger management.

The are the "cleaned up" versions.

In the originals..which were cautionary tales..the wolf always winds up with a fine meal.

Yummy.

Do you know who you’re messing with? When ghosts go camping, they tell PoliticalChic stories!


Neighborhood I grew up in was so tough that if you died with less than three bullet-holes in you, they wrote ‘natural causes’ on the death certificate!...and every payphone had the 9 and 1 worn off!

Did I mention the lovely wolf-skin rug in my den?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The number one cause of bankruptcy are "medical bills".

Republicans see that as a "positive".

Can they explain why?

You tend to weaken you position when you make things up as clearly fabricated as "Republicans see that as a "positive".

Try to stick to professionally-constructed Left-wing talking point.

signed..a friend.

 

[Greenbeard]

If the Supreme Court does as expected and overturns obamacare there will be no health care exchange. Setting up a health care exchange now is a huge waste of time and money that no one can afford.

Planning and establishment of state exchanges is being financed by the federal government. To date, New Jersey has applied for and accepted a million dollar planning grant and a $7,674,130 establishment grant. Perhaps they'll be returning that money to the taxpayers if they don't intend to pursue an exchange after all?

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!

No, he got 51 state-run exchanges instead of a single federally-run exchange. A triumph of federalism. Now if California wants to be an active purchaser and selectively contract with insurers that meet standards California wants to set, Utah can still operate an exchange that accepts all comers without adding extra strings. If New York wants to establish its exchange as a government entity within its Department of Health, Michigan can still establish an exchange as an external non-profit corporation outside the state government.

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.

There you go! You're honing in now on exactly why exchanges are competitive marketplaces in a way that the existing individual market is not. Things like the availability to the consumer of widespread, easily understandable plan information in a standardized format; the public availability of price and quality data for comparison across plans; easy access to consumer assistance; etc.

This is what makes comparison shopping possible. If you don't want to empower consumers to shop for the plans they want and easily make informed decisions about the offerings of different insurers, there's no point in establishing an exchange in the first place. If you want an opaque, irrational, and disjointed marketplace, you might as well just stick with what we have now. But don't call it "competition."

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.

You need to update your bullshit. There isn't to be a federal essential benefit standard, the benchmarks are going to be determined by the states. HHS (CCIIO, really) has been consistent in deferring to state expertise, experience, and autonomy throughout the implementation process.

On the contrary, this law gives the secretary of HHS the ability to remove the company if the increases are 10% or more.

No, it doesn't do that at all. Only states have the authority have the ability to kick companies out of their exchanges. All HHS can do is publicly call out insurers whose rate increases exceed some standard of "reasonableness" (10% is merely a placeholder for this threshold until state-specific thresholds--identified by the states themselves--are identified in future plan years).

Politico just had a story this very week on the fact that HHS is largely powerless when it comes to acting on rate review: "Jawboning by HHS doesn’t scare insurers."

As with much of the ACA, the power rests with the states.

a. They will have to check the incomes of people applying for health insurance subsidies to make sure they qualify…and stay qualified. Every month. Every family member.

Obviously exchanges have to verify the household income of households receiving means-tested tax subsidies. Does that seem inappropriate to you?

But no, income isn't verified every month. It's verified upon application and in subsequent years during annual renewal (tax credits paid in advance are reconciled at the end of the tax year).

b. The state exchanges will be tasked with making sure that all ‘private plans’ meet the new expanded federal mandates and standards. They must have, as well, enough, and the right mix of doctors.

You seem to be taking issue with asking exchanges to have network adequacy standards (I realize you simply copied and pasted this, but for the sake of conversation let's pretend you share these objections).

Here's what HHS suggested in the exchange regulations:

The Exchanges will make health insurance available to a variety of consumers, including those who reside or work in rural or urban areas where it may be challenging to access health care providers. Network adequacy requirements will help ensure that QHP [qualified health plan] enrollees can readily obtain services. Under section 1311(c)(1)(B) of the Affordable Care Act, HHS is required to establish network adequacy requirements for health insurance issuers seeking certification of QHPs.

We recognize that network adequacy standards should be appropriate to States’ particular geography, demographics, local patterns of care, and market conditions. Therefore, to ensure that Exchange network adequacy requirements are appropriate for QHP issuers and reflect local patterns of care, we propose in § 155.1050 that each Exchange ensure that enrollees of QHPs have a sufficient choice of providers. This broad standard affords the Exchange significant flexibility to apply this standard to QHPs in a manner appropriate to the State’s existing patterns of care, establishing specific standards where necessary and leveraging existing State oversight and enforcement mechanisms in this area. We propose at § 156.230 that QHP issuers adhere to standards set by the Exchange, as well as several statutorily required standards that would apply to all QHP issuers.

What do you propose to change here? What's the objection?

c. Exactly what the ‘private plans’ in the exchanges must and will do is difficult to pin down, as the PPACA has built in the right of the secretary of HHS to change, add delete requirements at will. Neither the ‘private plan’ nor the consumer has any rights here. The secretary has sweeping powers to decide which insurers will be allowed to sell policies in the exchanges. PPACA, Public Law 111-148, section 1321(e) (1)(B)

Since there is no section 1321(e) (1)(B) in the legislation, I'm not sure I can comment on that. There's a section 1321(e) (1) that says states already operating an exchange in 2010 are assumed to be golden, but that doesn't seem to be what you have in mind here. Perhaps you can update the citation?

 

[Greenbeard]

So, what's the problem with a health care exchange?

A good question. Still no takers on it yet, though.

Read above....and 'fess up.

The only real objection you offered--sorry, that you copied and pasted from someone else---is to the very idea of a competitive marketplace.

This would seem to be an irreconcilable difference in point of view. The rest of us in this thread who've commented on the subject feel that the individual health insurance market should act like a competitive marketplace, offering consumers meaningful choices and making available the information needed for informed decision-making according to individual preferences.

You don't seem to favor the concept of having such competitive marketplaces that allow comparison shopping. So I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[rightwinger]

The number one cause of bankruptcy are "medical bills".

Republicans see that as a "positive".

Can they explain why?

You tend to weaken you position when you make things up as clearly fabricated as "Republicans see that as a "positive".

Try to stick to professionally-constructed Left-wing talking point.

signed..a friend.

To be fair...

they don't see it as a positive, they just dont give a shit

 

[rightwinger]

A good question. Still no takers on it yet, though.

Read above....and 'fess up.

The only real objection you offered--sorry, that you copied and pasted from someone else---is to the very idea of a competitive marketplace.

This would seem to be an irreconcilable difference in point of view. The rest of us in this thread who've commented on the subject feel that the individual health insurance market should act like a competitive marketplace, offering consumers meaningful choices and making available the information needed for informed decision-making according to individual preferences.

You don't seem to favor the concept of having such competitive marketplaces that allow comparison shopping. So I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

As a Jersey resident, I am not affected by Christies veto. I have a cushy government health insurance plan, just like Christie

My kids however, are in a different boat. My youngest is under 26 and still covered by Obamacare under my policy. He has a year and a half to go. My oldest works and his employer doesn't offer insurance. Both sons could have benefitted by using an insurance exchange to get affordable policies

Christie just doesn't give a shit

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the Supreme Court does as expected and overturns obamacare there will be no health care exchange. Setting up a health care exchange now is a huge waste of time and money that no one can afford.

Planning and establishment of state exchanges is being financed by the federal government. To date, New Jersey has applied for and accepted a million dollar planning grant and a $7,674,130 establishment grant. Perhaps they'll be returning that money to the taxpayers if they don't intend to pursue an exchange after all?

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!

No, he got 51 state-run exchanges instead of a single federally-run exchange. A triumph of federalism. Now if California wants to be an active purchaser and selectively contract with insurers that meet standards California wants to set, Utah can still operate an exchange that accepts all comers without adding extra strings. If New York wants to establish its exchange as a government entity within its Department of Health, Michigan can still establish an exchange as an external non-profit corporation outside the state government.



There you go! You're honing in now on exactly why exchanges are competitive marketplaces in a way that the existing individual market is not. Things like the availability to the consumer of widespread, easily understandable plan information in a standardized format; the public availability of price and quality data for comparison across plans; easy access to consumer assistance; etc.

This is what makes comparison shopping possible. If you don't want to empower consumers to shop for the plans they want and easily make informed decisions about the offerings of different insurers, there's no point in establishing an exchange in the first place. If you want an opaque, irrational, and disjointed marketplace, you might as well just stick with what we have now. But don't call it "competition."



You need to update your bullshit. There isn't to be a federal essential benefit standard, the benchmarks are going to be determined by the states. HHS (CCIIO, really) has been consistent in deferring to state expertise, experience, and autonomy throughout the implementation process.



No, it doesn't do that at all. Only states have the authority have the ability to kick companies out of their exchanges. All HHS can do is publicly call out insurers whose rate increases exceed some standard of "reasonableness" (10% is merely a placeholder for this threshold until state-specific thresholds--identified by the states themselves--are identified in future plan years).

Politico just had a story this very week on the fact that HHS is largely powerless when it comes to acting on rate review: "Jawboning by HHS doesn’t scare insurers."

As with much of the ACA, the power rests with the states.



Obviously exchanges have to verify the household income of households receiving means-tested tax subsidies. Does that seem inappropriate to you?

But no, income isn't verified every month. It's verified upon application and in subsequent years during annual renewal (tax credits paid in advance are reconciled at the end of the tax year).



You seem to be taking issue with asking exchanges to have network adequacy standards (I realize you simply copied and pasted this, but for the sake of conversation let's pretend you share these objections).

Here's what HHS suggested in the exchange regulations:

The Exchanges will make health insurance available to a variety of consumers, including those who reside or work in rural or urban areas where it may be challenging to access health care providers. Network adequacy requirements will help ensure that QHP [qualified health plan] enrollees can readily obtain services. Under section 1311(c)(1)(B) of the Affordable Care Act, HHS is required to establish network adequacy requirements for health insurance issuers seeking certification of QHPs.

We recognize that network adequacy standards should be appropriate to States’ particular geography, demographics, local patterns of care, and market conditions. Therefore, to ensure that Exchange network adequacy requirements are appropriate for QHP issuers and reflect local patterns of care, we propose in § 155.1050 that each Exchange ensure that enrollees of QHPs have a sufficient choice of providers. This broad standard affords the Exchange significant flexibility to apply this standard to QHPs in a manner appropriate to the State’s existing patterns of care, establishing specific standards where necessary and leveraging existing State oversight and enforcement mechanisms in this area. We propose at § 156.230 that QHP issuers adhere to standards set by the Exchange, as well as several statutorily required standards that would apply to all QHP issuers.

What do you propose to change here? What's the objection?

c. Exactly what the ‘private plans’ in the exchanges must and will do is difficult to pin down, as the PPACA has built in the right of the secretary of HHS to change, add delete requirements at will. Neither the ‘private plan’ nor the consumer has any rights here. The secretary has sweeping powers to decide which insurers will be allowed to sell policies in the exchanges. PPACA, Public Law 111-148, section 1321(e) (1)(B)

Since there is no section 1321(e) (1)(B) in the legislation, I'm not sure I can comment on that. There's a section 1321(e) (1) that says states already operating an exchange in 2010 are assumed to be golden, but that doesn't seem to be what you have in mind here. Perhaps you can update the citation?

1. "...he got 51 state-run exchanges instead of a single federally-run exchange. A triumph of federalism."
A total falsehood, designed to obfuscate.
As usual with you, Red.

The states are ordered to follow detailed and specific agenda of the Left-wing socialized government program.

2. "...exchanges are competitive..."
Another fib, Pinocchio.

It is well established that Leftists will prevaricate by altering the meaning of words. 'Competitive' implies the ability to alter the product as each company sees fit, so as to offer differing products so as to entice customers.

The companies in an exchange MUST offer at the least what you socialists tell them to....this is hardly competition.

I am sure that every sentient individual reading these posts see you for the corrupt little government mouthpiece that you are.


3. "...going to be determined by the states...."
Why you putrid little bolus....
The feds will dictate every tiny little detail, down to the size of the print in advertizing!

"Behind every powerful health care mandate under Obamacare is a power-hungry woman named Kathleen Sebelius. As the Health and Human Services Secretary, she has unprecedented power under Obamacare to control health care decisions, the approval of medical products and the national biomedical research agenda. The Secretary is not only the key player; she is the only one on the field. "The Secretary shall…" is mentioned more than 1000 times in the new health care law.
The American Spectator : Obama's Nurse Ratched


4. Obamacare is based on a statist, totalitarian view of how an economy should be run. One should consider how successful other such command-and-control systems have worked out.

a. The PPACA imposes the will of unelected bureaucrats, adding some 159 agencies, boards, commissions.

b. The secretary of HHS has unmitigated and heretofore unforeseen power, such as being totally in charge of state-based exchanges. PPACA, Public Law 111-148, section 1321.


Again: totally in charge of state-based exchanges.


You're paid by the government to put out this trash, aren't you, Red?
You do work for the federal government....

 

[Greenbeard]

How quickly the thin veneer--weak and laughable as it was--of rational, coherent objections to exchanges evaporates! Done with the misrepresentations and outright falsehoods (referencing sections of the legislation that don't even exist? c'mon!), we're back to where you folks always land: the meaningless slogans and unsubstantiated insinuations.

You know you're supposed to like competition, yet you also know you're supposed to reflexively oppose Obama. That means you have to rail against exchanges, yet you're not sure how exactly one goes about condemning market competition. It's a bewildering tightrope to try and walk and I don't envy you.

It's enough to make a person excuse even the sputtering rage you've been reduced to.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How quickly the thin veneer--weak and laughable as it was--of rational, coherent objections to exchanges evaporates! Done with the misrepresentations and outright falsehoods (referencing sections of the legislation that don't even exist? c'mon!), we're back to where you folks always land: the meaningless slogans and unsubstantiated insinuations.

You know you're supposed to like competition, yet you also know you're supposed to reflexively oppose Obama. That means you have to rail against exchanges, yet you're not sure how exactly one goes about condemning market competition. It's a bewildering tightrope to try and walk and I don't envy you.

It's enough to make a person excuse even the sputtering rage you've been reduced to.

Unlike you, everything I've posted is true.

You're paid by the government to put out this trash, aren't you, Red?
You do work for the federal government....
__________________

 

[Greenbeard]

Unlike you, everything I've posted is true.

It seems clear that you probably believe that, despite it being very easy to open up the relevant primary sources and see your errors. But you obviously much prefer to outsource your thinking and, er, "analysis" to various fools.

The fact remains that you've come down squarely against competitive markets, against making information available to consumers and enabling comparison shopping, and against state autonomy and federalist partnerships. You've even sneered at the notion of allowing insurance companies to sell plans across state lines! You've put yourself into a bizarre position where your rabid partisanship has pushed you into betraying your own ideology, such as it is.

You've become the enemy of markets, the opponent of state-level decision-making. And those you so clearly despise are their champions. I'm sure that's unnerving for you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Both sons could have benefitted by using an insurance exchange to get affordable policies

Christie just doesn't give a shit

if you want affordable prices on any goods and services you need competition. Libturds made interstate competition illegal in health insurance. Imagine how affordable prices would be, for example, if car companies were not allowed to compete across state lines??

Imagine someone who jogs for fun and someone who races in life and death competition? Who would be a faster runner? Now you understand competion and how it makes us better. Not so hard was it?