Skip to comments.11 States Getting $1.5B to Set Up Obamacare Exchanges, But Half the States Won’t Do It
Posted on 01/18/2013 6:30:39 AM PST by sheikdetailfeather
(CNSNews.com) - Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is giving another $1.5 Billion in taxpayer money to eleven states to build their new health insurance exchanges.
But it appears that half the states will let the federal government do it for them.
The Exchange Establishment Grants announced on Thursday will go to California, Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Vermont.
These states are working to implement the health care law, and we continue to support them as they build new affordable insurance marketplaces, Secretary Sebelius said. Starting in 2014, Americans in all states will have access to quality, affordable health insurance and these grants are helping to make that a reality.
The Affordable Care Act says states may set up their own health insurance exchange or the federal government will do it for them.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
O malley here in Maryland will do Obama’s bidding, having raised our sales and income tax this session he is going for raising out gasoline tax,
so sure he can set up O-care exchanges since voters here LOVE higher taxes,
he also got homo-marraige and Dream Act college $$ for illegals.
This is Obama's solution to medical malpractice cases ~ rope in a single named party who is under federal direction, not just regulation, and that kicks the case upstairs ~ where they are totally unprepared to handle such cases.
You'll get your hearing in about 10 years.
(Michigan News) Snyder calls for $1.2B in higher vehicle registration fees, gas tax change to fix roads
So what? A state rejects, so the Feds do it for them. I think if I were a state I would rather have some control. What am I missing?
A state setting up an exchange has to do whatever the feds say in so doing. Control? Are you kidding?
There are guidelines sure. You go from some control to zero control. Still makes no sense to me.
You’re free to continue believing the state would have some control. They have said - the ones who have chosen not to set them up - that they would not.
And they have added that people would believe the state was running it when they were not - the feds would be de facto running it - therefore they would be blamed by people who did not like whatever they might not like about what was going on, when in effect the state would have become an arm of, an extension of, the federal government re: Obamacare.
And they are correct as to what people would believe. The state of Texas would become the out-front puppet while Sebelius/Obama would be the hidden puppeteers. The puppet would get blamed because their name and identity would be on everything that was done.
Yes, I know the truth is out there that the feds are controlling, but people do no react that way. They react to whomever they are dealing with most directly. And Obamacare is such a load of crap, who wants to be the one to carry and disburse that load on the public? I don’t blame the states that refuse to carry it, one bit.
Again, it’s a fairy tale to believe there is ANY state control. There isn’t.
But, it’s your fairy tale. Imagine to your heart’s content.
I thought so too but there were some who wanted it so now that is what will happen.
The fed. govt. frontloads the money to start the state exchanges and then the states find themselves overburdened in time by the costs. The governors realized this and many rejected setting up the state exchanges therefore. Also, the federal govt. did not plan to have to fund so many exchanges so the fact that they will have to do so is a possible way to delay implementation. That is why they extended the decision date to Feb. 15th.
Michael Cannon with the CATO Institute wrote this article explaining the vulnerabilities of Obamacare and the exchanges. He is very knowledgeable about Obamacare and it is worth folowing his writings about it:
The Obamakkkare crowd knew that when they wrote up the state exchange thing. They really expected to be able to buy off the states so they wouldn't have to face this problem that will literally entail the destruction of the federal court system.
Somebody gets insurance through one of these federal exchanges and there's a dispute regarding monthly payments, that's going to go to federal court. Think of how often there are disputes between individuals and health insurance companies regarding proper payment! Current practice is to just cut off your service ~ state laws allow that. However, when you are dealing with a federal agency things are different ~ there are legal fines, legal penalties, jail terms, the whole 9 yards of the full force of government ~ and they don't listen to state and local courts.