Obama admin extends states’ insurance-exchange deadline, again

posted at 11:21 am on November 16, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Yesterday, the Obama administration announced that they’re extending the deadline by which states need to report whether or not they’ll be participating in setting up their own state-specific health insurance exchanges, through which people will be able to shop for ObamaCare-approved insurance plans and apply for tax subsidies toward the cost of premiums (the states’ other options are forging a partnership with the federal government, or just letting the federal government take control of the whole kit and caboodle). The deadline was already extended once to today, but Health and Human Services pushed it back another month until December 14th since many states are still in quite the pickle about the whole thing — and plenty are leaning toward just letting the federal government pick up the pieces. Byron York summarizes why:

They have several reasons. One, they believe the exchanges will cost their states a lot of money. Two, they believe the federal government will exercise ultimate control, meaning there will be little benefit for a state to do the heavy lifting to get the exchanges started. And three, some suspect the exchanges will be a disorganized and troubled enterprise, and when the implementation of Obamacare comes under criticism, the blame will lie with the administration, and not the states.

Some conservatives are urging the governors not only to stay out of the exchanges but also to reject Obamacare’s planned expansion of Medicaid. That could be a crippling blow to the health care law. …

The extension was apparently in response to a letter sent by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, as the subject was a hot topic at the Republican Governors’ Association meeting in Las Vegas this week, via the WSJ:

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, had said this week that he couldn’t commit to the state running its own exchanges without more information about the rules that would be set for the state and the federally-run marketplaces. Mr. McDonnell wrote to Mr. Obama asking for more time this week. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius replied late Thursday, offering a December 14 deadline.

Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal, another signer of the letter to Mr. Obama asking for a delay, has said he would continue to refuse to run an exchange.

Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman said Thursday he had decided not to run a state exchange, as did Gov.-elect Mike Pence of Indiana. …

Mr. Heineman said federal officials were unwilling to give the state enough say over how it would operate an exchange of its own. “They’ve made it abundantly clear: they’re in charge,” he said.

Alabama Republican Gov. Robert Bentley also has said he wouldn’t run a state exchange, saying he feared being saddled with additional costs.

But there are still states on the fence, like Virginia, and I’m wondering if the request for the extension wasn’t actually a bit of a godsend for the Obama administration, too. If a bunch of states decide not to cooperate, it’s going to take a colossal bureaucratic effort from the federal government to get these states set up, and it might be too much work to handle by the time these exchanges are supposed to be operational by October of next year. They kind of need more states to get on board with this, and the extra month might give them a chance for some persuasion.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Oh good.
Doesn’t matter.
Idaho isn’t going to do anything.

Electrongod on November 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM

refuse to support for reelection or POTUS and governor that sets up an exchange

commodore on November 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

*any

commodore on November 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

DON’T DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Make Obama and is Tyrannical government OWN IT

LordMaximus on November 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

LIB. Let the people have what they voted for.

Illinidiva on November 16, 2012 at 11:27 AM

When John Roberts OK’d this boondoggle, I said it would lead to decades of confusion and litigation. Here we go!

I hope the governors stand fast.

PattyJ on November 16, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Texas out -

Gov. Rick Perry officially refuses to set up Texas health insurance exchange under Obamacare

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20121115-gov.-rick-perry-officially-refuses-to-set-up-texas-health-insurance-exchange-under-obamacare.ece

Louisana out –

Gov. Jindal’s letter rejecting Obamacare implementation

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gov.-jindals-letter-rejecting-obamacare-implementation/article/2513579#.UKZqATkkcrg

Obama can keep kicking the can down the road….
It won’t work – this is blowing up in their faces….
All the Obama voters thinking that “Obamacare” was free healthcare are in for a rude awakening…
But it is too late….

I think the bulk of American doctors are looking for a country to buy…….

redguy on November 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Bluntly, by refusing both to set up the exchanges and the expansion of Medicaid, the states stand a good chance of collapsing the whole mess (which needs to be done) AND saving themselves from HUGE unfunded mandates. Any state that doesn’t is foolish and needs different leadership.

michaelo on November 16, 2012 at 11:34 AM

redguy on November 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM

NC’s out too-and Indy’s gov. elect, Mike Pence, has said no dice as well.
Suck it. Zero!

annoyinglittletwerp on November 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Pretty soon these guys will be on a deck of cards.

tomas on November 16, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Wisconsin is out.

Gov. Scott Walker says Wisconsin won’t set up health exchange

JPeterman on November 16, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Just saw that on Fox.

Good! Let the Obama administration deal with their own garbage.

Sterling Holobyte on November 16, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I hope you guys are listening to Glen Beck right now

dom89031 on November 16, 2012 at 11:41 AM

They kind of need more states to get on board with this, and the extra month might give them a chance for some persuasion.

I shudder at the type of “persuasion” the Oministration has in store for us.

Key West Reader on November 16, 2012 at 11:42 AM

They kind of need more states to get on board with this, and the extra month might give them a chance for some persuasion.

If anything the delay gives more time for second thoughts

commodore on November 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM

dom89031 on November 16, 2012 at 11:41 AM

I am and then will listen to Rush.
L

letget on November 16, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Minnesota is out.

Governor Dayton said he won’t comp….HAHAHAHAHA

I couldn’t keep a straight face while typing that.

Bishop on November 16, 2012 at 11:45 AM

South Carolina avoids the trap Haley Letter

tmitsss on November 16, 2012 at 11:45 AM

they’ve had two years, shouldn’t the Feds have this stuff handled? Did they anticipate immediate assent and capitulation from all 57 states?

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 11:47 AM

redguy on November 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Gov. Perry is also pushing for mandatory drug testing for all applicants seeking to receive Food Stamps,TANF,Housing and Unemployment.

“Gov. Rick Perry was joined by Sen. Tommy Williams, Rep. Brandon Creighton and other lawmakers to call for reforms to the state’s welfare and unemployment benefit programs, including authorizing drug screenings for those applying for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits. Sen. Jane Nelson has pre-filed a bill for the upcoming legislative session to require drug screening for TANF applicants, and Sen. Williams plans to file a bill to require drug screening for UI applicants. They were also joined by representatives from the Texas Association of Business and National Federation of Independent Business.

“Texas taxpayers will not subsidize or tolerate illegal drug abuse. Every dollar that goes to someone who uses it inappropriately is a dollar that can’t go to a Texan who needs it for housing, child care or medicine,” Gov. Perry said. “Being on drugs makes it much harder to begin the journey to independence, which only assures individuals remain stuck in the terrible cycle of drug abuse and poverty.”

“Unemployment benefits are intended for those who are out of work through no fault of their own,” Sen. Williams said. “A claimant who has passed a screening for illegal drug use will be more employable and able to return to work more quickly. It’s important that recipients of these benefits are drug free, on a path to self-sufficiency, and ready to work.”

http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/17875/

workingclass artist on November 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Psst, the states aren’t going to set them up!

They kind of need more states to get on board with this, and the extra month might give them a chance for some persuasion.

Not going to happen. Yes, they definitely need them to do it. For this reason:

In Obamacare, subsidies are authorised only for those individuals enrolled in “an exchange established by the state under § 1311,” but the legislation has no similar language authorising the subsidisation of individuals enrolled within any exchange that the Federal government might create.

How are you going to subsidise people in the proposed, Federal exchanges where the states have declined to create their own?

Also, in states where there are no subsidies available, employers are not required to either provide insurance or pay fines.

BTW, did you see where they conscriptedindividuals and employers with 2-50 employees in Washington, DC? The DCX FORCED them to join the exchange because not enough had joined to make it function properly.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM

The States should absolutely refuse to set up these exchanges or expand Medicaid. They’re broke now. The feds only pay for the exchanges for the first year or two, then it’s passed off to the States for the state-created exchanges. Also, due to the Pelosi/Reid Congress’ decision to “pass it and see what’s in it”, there are some pretty good loopholes in there. One such would allow small employers to hire more people:

…defaulting to a federal exchange exempts a state’s employers from the employer mandate — a tax of $2,000 per worker per year (the tax applies to companies with more than 50 employees, but for such companies that tax applies after the 30th employee, not the 50th). If all states did so, that would also exempt 18 million Americans from the individual mandate’s tax of $2,085 per family of four. Avoiding those taxes improves a state’s prospects for job creation, and protects the conscience rights of employers and individuals whom the Obama administration is forcing to purchase contraceptives coverage.

cont… http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333040/obamacare-still-vulnerable-michael-f-cannon

The governors would be crazy to give that up. And I don’t know about how things are where the rest of you live, but here in Virginia our roads look like total crap. Why should we be paying for Obama’s political give-aways when we’re taking our lives into our hands every time we drive a secondary road???

States need to FIGHT BACK. I’m not asking them to do it for political reasons. I’m asking them to do it for financial ones. We don’t have government printing presses in our back pockets. We’ve got BUDGETS we have to attend.

Murf76 on November 16, 2012 at 11:49 AM

workingclass artist on November 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Gawd, I LOVE living in Texas!

annoyinglittletwerp on November 16, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Called Bill Haslam’s office this morning in Tennessee. Phone receptionist said they were keeping a tally. If you live in Tennessee, it is a 2 minute call. 1-615-741-2001. No to State run health exchanges. I also called my state representative and state senator.

Haslam is on the fence. Tennesseans need to let him know their thoughts, although I don’t hold out much hope for him. We are a red state and we have a purple governor and 2 purple (closer to blue) senators. Incredible.

FastTalker on November 16, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, had said this week that he couldn’t commit to the state running its own exchanges without more information about the rules that would be set for the state and the federally-run marketplaces.

Don’t be a fool, ‘the rules’ can change at any moment. ‘The rules’ are not written in the 2,700 page piece of crap, they are rules that can be changed at any time on a whim of Sebelius.

Remember all those instances where it says “the DHS Secretary shall determine…”?

slickwillie2001 on November 16, 2012 at 11:53 AM

The govs should now present their own plan: sell various types of policies on the open market — full coverage, catastrophic, cash for small procedures — and take care of the very poor with Medicaid. Allow doctors to choose, too, like the surgeons at Reason with a cash practice completely.

PattyJ on November 16, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Gawd, I LOVE living in Texas!

annoyinglittletwerp on November 16, 2012 at 11:50 AM

the Government has no business drug testing anyone, except as an employer.

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM

No CAPITULATION! WE will not surrender!

Pork-Chop on November 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman said Thursday he had decided not to run a state exchange, as did Gov.-elect Mike Pence of Indiana. …

Mr. Heineman said federal officials were unwilling to give the state enough say over how it would operate an exchange of its own. “They’ve made it abundantly clear: they’re in charge,” he said.

There is an all out campaign on television and radio here in Nebraska to get Heneman to change his mind. A group called the “Nebraska Healthcare Alliance”.

About the Alliance
The Nebraska Health Care Alliance is a non-profit group of businesses, health providers, associations, insurance carriers, and individuals from across Nebraska who believe in the establishment of a state-based Health Insurance Exchange. Our primary goals are to engage, educate, and recruit members to become part of this statewide effort to advocate for the establishment of state-based Exchanges in Nebraska and the many benefits of retaining state authority over the Exchange.

There is money to be made for those willing to become moochers and looters.

I am not sure how this group stands politically as they are a non-profit. It seems that they are respecting the governor’s decision though:

For almost two years, you – the members of the Nebraska Health Care Alliance – have been diligently educating and advocating for a state-based health insurance exchange. Unfortunately, Governor Heineman today chose a federally-facilitated exchange model, citing an increased cost on Nebraska taxpayers under a state exchange. While the Alliance is disappointed by this decision, we understand it was a difficult one and commend the Governor and his administration for their hard work. We would also like to extend a special thank you to all of the Alliance members and your organizations who still believe that local control is better for Nebraska.

Without state based exchanges, it does make it easier to unravel in the future.

weaselyone on November 16, 2012 at 12:02 PM

How are you going to subsidise people in the proposed, Federal exchanges where the states have declined to create their own?

Also, in states where there are no subsidies available, employers are not required to either provide insurance or pay fines.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM

How? It’s called a Presidential Executive Order.

Unconstitutional you say? Good luck with that. We know how that turns out.

These people care nothing about the Constitution and its archaic rules. And 51% of the people will agree with them.

Carnac on November 16, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Don’t be a fool, ‘the rules’ can change at any moment. ‘The rules’ are not written in the 2,700 page piece of crap, they are rules that can be changed at any time on a whim of Sebelius.

Remember all those instances where it says “the DHS Secretary shall determine…”?

slickwillie2001 on November 16, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Unfortunately for Obamacare, in the case of subsidies, the language SPECIFICALLY writes the Federal government out…in several sections. In order to provide the funding for subsidies on 50 Federal exchanges — a minimum of $170 billion a year — she is going to need new legislation and that’s not going to get through the House.

Max Baucus was VERY specific when he wrote the language for the subsidies and exchanges. He and the Democrats WANTED the states to operate the exchanges, not the Feds.

There is no funding mechanism for the Secretary and she may have a lot of power under Obamacare, but “The Secretary shall…” will not fly when it comes to Federal spending bills, which must originate in the House. She neither has the authority or the ability to grant herself the money.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 12:04 PM

It’s called a Presidential Executive Order.

Unconstitutional you say? Good luck with that. We know how that turns out.

These people care nothing about the Constitution and its archaic rules. And 51% of the people will agree with them.

Carnac on November 16, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Um, no. Not even PEOs can order the Treasury to issue the DHHS money. If Obama was able to do that, then he wouldn’t be having fiscal cliff discussions today. He’d just order the tax rates to go up on the “evil rich” and spending increases for these departments and cuts for defence.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Gawd, I LOVE living in Texas!

annoyinglittletwerp on November 16, 2012 at 11:50 AM

the Government has no business drug testing anyone, except as an employer.

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM

I’m ok with conservative push back in Texas…Yep!

I’m also OK with Baptists making charity cases listen to sermons if they want charity etc.

Common Sense.

workingclass artist on November 16, 2012 at 12:09 PM

the Government has no business drug testing anyone, except as an employer.

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM

The Government has no Constitutional business sending people checks every month. But they do. That water has spilled over the dam.

Don’t worry. The ACLU will sue Texas. And win. The druggies will continue to get their drug money.

Carnac on November 16, 2012 at 12:09 PM

South Dakota will not be creating an exchange either. The governor had originally planned to create one, but after it became clear that there was no possible way we could afford it, he backed off. Or so he said. I dont’ trust ‘em, any of ‘em.

Lily on November 16, 2012 at 12:10 PM

I think perhaps the states are slowly beginning to realize they have more power than they think. Next up, the EPA.

Zomcon JEM on November 16, 2012 at 12:13 PM

On the issue of bho/team/dc wanting to take over almost everything here in the US, have you seen the latest they are thinking about? This would not surprise me one bit to find they try this?

http://www.nationalseniorscouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89%3Aobama-begins-push-for-new-national-retirement-system&catid=34%3Asocial-security&Itemid=62
L

letget on November 16, 2012 at 12:14 PM

The central planner’s plan for centralized health care is not going according to plan? Who could possibly have seen this coming?

Socratease on November 16, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Before the last election, he moved billions from pot A to kettle B in order to hide the truth about Medicare Advantage cuts.

This time he’ll take action based upon never having to face the electorate again.

Watch and learn.

Carnac on November 16, 2012 at 12:18 PM

the Government has no business drug testing anyone, except as an employer.

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Why the hell not? You have to be drug tested to work and pay taxes.

Why shouldn’t the parasites on the gubmint dole not be tested to get benefits paid for these taxpayers?

txdoc on November 16, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Everyone should recall how the federal government threatened to kill highway funds going to the states if they refused to raise the drinking age to 21.

If Obama wants the states to do something he is not beyond making them do so. For example, he could cut off the state, and its people, from all federal funding. The media will ensure that the Republican governors are demagogued as the cause. The “poor” will want their checks and riot in the streets under the guidance of their “community organizer’s”.

They will be forced to play. It’s the ‘Chicago Way’.

Carnac on November 16, 2012 at 12:25 PM

What’s odd is the Supreme Court upheld this law because it falls under the powers of Legislative Branch, but it appears that the Executive Branch is making the important decisions. Does this seem contradictory?

djaymick on November 16, 2012 at 12:38 PM

The govs should now present their own plan: sell various types of policies on the open market — full coverage, catastrophic, cash for small procedures — and take care of the very poor with Medicaid. Allow doctors to choose, too, like the surgeons at Reason with a cash practice completely.

PattyJ on November 16, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Many states now have their own programs for high-risk pre-existing conditions health insurance, partly subsidized. As you might expect, the number of people signing up is far lower than the proggies claimed needed it from Obamacare.

Most of the justifications for Obamacare are not fixed by Obamacare, big surprise.

slickwillie2001 on November 16, 2012 at 12:44 PM

the Government has no business drug testing anyone, except as an employer.

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Many take the government dole to buy and deal drugs….
I also say if you get arrested and convicted – the benefits also stop….

redguy on November 16, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Missouri’s not going to do it either, by writ of public vote. Even if gov. Nixon wanted to go along with Obamacare and creating an exchange – which I suspect that he did see it as a political liability for him – he cannot because our state just voted and said that the state government does not have the authority to set up an exchange without the voted consent of the people.

Logus on November 16, 2012 at 12:47 PM

So, for Missouri, Sibelius and the Obama administration’s deadline is meaningless. Bwhahahahah

Logus on November 16, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Before the last election, he moved billions from pot A to kettle B in order to hide the truth about Medicare Advantage cuts.

This time he’ll take action based upon never having to face the electorate again.

Watch and learn.

Carnac on November 16, 2012 at 12:18 PM

He can’t move $170 billion every year.

Are you claiming, too, that he can order the states to expand Medicaid? Are you going to say that individuals have to purchase insurance on Federal exchanges even though the law says otherwise, because under Roberts’ ruling the “ta-penalty” will be ripe for challenge under such reading in 2014?

Are you guys saying that we can no longer do anything against Obama?

If so, then why are you even here? Why aren’t you packing and getting your $450 together so that you can renounce your citizenship?

I know that you’re depressed over Obama’s reelection, but I haven’t seen such defeatism and nihilism since Bush was reelected and Democrats were suffering from PESTS – Post-Election Stress and Trauma Syndrome in 2004/5.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Given what is known about how these “exchanges” will be structured from an organizational perspective (aka, who’s in charge), Governors would be crazy to set these things up. Not only will the technological hurdles be immense (bringing up a state-wide computer system that looks and feels like Expedia in less than 11 months??? Not gonna happen!) but the costs for running these things will shift to the States and they will have no say in their operational details….and when the systems crash (and they will crash), the Governors will be left holding the bag….

Take some advice from someone who knows…

powerpickle on November 16, 2012 at 12:54 PM

I expect this is a wonderful idea because the longer people have to study Obamacare the better it looks and the more likely they are to go along with it. Another month is just the ticket!

/

Lily on November 16, 2012 at 12:55 PM

… our state just voted and said that the state government does not have the authority to set up an exchange without the voted consent of the people.

Logus on November 16, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Unless the federal government forces the state government to do so, thus trumping the direct consent of the people.

You see, we have a representative form of government, not a true democracy. We elect our representatives and THEY decide what we will be forced to do.

And believe me. Obama will decide. God help us.

Carnac on November 16, 2012 at 1:03 PM

This can still be stopped a hundred different ways. Yes, at the state level. If we get the Senate in 2014 or even add to our numbers. A future President could give waivers to all the states. Am I wrong on this? I’ve read it was a flaw in the law. Even Democrats thought this was stupid that the law allows the President to give out waivers.

Also.. once this crap hits the fan, people are not going to throw parades to support it. When it gets lose to November 2014, there is going to be a wave of awakening to just what ObamaCare is. I still know some people who think “ObamaCare has been wonderful. What’s the big deal” Then I tell them it hasn’t even taken effect yet and they don’t believe me. Well, it’s coming. And 10 months after it takes effect there are going to be congressional elections.

ObamaCare does not need to be repealed. It can be amended by simple majority vote. The new “Health and Security Amendment Act” can rip out it’s guts and make it totally dead.

Republicans don’t need to compromise. They need to get creative!
Remember, 60,000,000 people voted against Obama. Those people did not just disappear after election day. They are still here and still are saying no to Obama!

JellyToast on November 16, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Everyone should recall how the federal government threatened to kill highway funds going to the states if they refused to raise the drinking age to 21.

If Obama wants the states to do something he is not beyond making them do so. For example, he could cut off the state, and its people, from all federal funding. The media will ensure that the Republican governors are demagogued as the cause. The “poor” will want their checks and riot in the streets under the guidance of their “community organizer’s”.

They will be forced to play. It’s the ‘Chicago Way’.

Carnac on November 16, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Yes, but you need to go read the actual Supreme Court case, South Dakota v Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). The Federal government may only tie funds to mandates if the conditions are reasonable and directly related to the matter. In the case of the highway funds, the amount the Federal government was threatening to withhold from South Dakota was a mere 5% of the Federal highway money that the government was going to pay to the state.

The Court in the Obamacare ruling held that under the 10th Amendment, Congress cannot mandate states create exchanges or do much anything else by either outright command or “holding the gun due and owing funds to their heads.” The Court, SPECIFICALLY, addressed the “gun-to-the-head” using the precedent set in Dole.

Roberts wrote about the legislation’s attempt to put a gun to the heads of the states vis-a-vis the Medicaid expansion. Under the legislation, if states did not expand Medicaid, the government purported to have the authority to deny any or all of Medicaid funding that would already be due and owing under currently existing law. The Court SPECIFICALLY rejected this argument and found that part of the law unconstitutional.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Are you guys saying that we can no longer do anything against Obama?

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 12:52 PM

I’m saying there are no limits to which he won’t go to get what he wants.

All Governor’s will eventually comply with Obama’s will. It’s just a matter of the quantity of pressure being applied.

For Christie it was a hurricane.

Christie kissed the ring. And so will the remainder.

Carnac on November 16, 2012 at 1:11 PM

let the Feds handle it, otherwise we get an expansion of Medicaid where fraud is wide-spread (generally a 50/50 partnership between the states and the feds except “auditing” is left to the states and they don’t do it).

Medicare on the other hand is entirely a federal thing and they are charged with the fraud aspects.

teejk on November 16, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Exchanges, hmmm. Ya know, it really is a brilliant idea. You give people options, they choose among them, using information they get from various sources. I mean, choices often lead to competition, meaning improved quality and cost/price discipline from providers.

Damn, what a great innovation. Why hasn’t the private economy offered anything like this for the last 3,000 years? Its seems kind of obvious now that the genius graduates of the JFK Govt. school have discovered it.

Can’t believe governors or states are balking at implementing such a great idea.

IceCold on November 16, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Gawd, I LOVE living in Texas!

annoyinglittletwerp on November 16, 2012 at 11:50 AM
the Government has no business drug testing anyone, except as an employer.

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM

I respectfully disagree… If you want your check, provide a random sample and a scheduled one on “payday”…

Khun Joe on November 16, 2012 at 1:30 PM

I’m betting that California, New York, Illinois, Vermont and Pennsylvania are fast at work setting up their exchanges. They need to hasten their financial collapse.

cajunpatriot on November 16, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Can’t believe governors or states are balking at implementing such a great idea.

IceCold on November 16, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Implementation is a job-killer. Jobs will flock to states that do not implement. Just another example of government screwing things up when it gets involved ….

From: David Catron at American Spectator

“Resisting the implementation of exchanges is good for hiring and investment. The law’s employer mandate assesses penalties — up to $3,000 per employee — only to businesses who don’t satisfy federally-approved health insurance standards and whose employees receive ‘premium assistance’ through the exchanges.”

In other words, a state that declines to set up an exchange will protect the businesses of that state from avoidable and job-killing penalties. This reality has apparently begun to sink in. There has been a noticeable decline in enthusiasm for exchanges among states that had begun work on them shortly after Obamacare passed. North Dakota, New Hampshire, Idaho and South Carolina, to name a few, have abandoned plans to create these insurance “marketplaces.” Kaiser Health News reports that, by the end of June, “only 14 states and the District of Columbia have so far passed legislation authorizing the exchanges.”

Carnac on November 16, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Rush just made a comment about the extension of the deadline for bhocare. It seems that it will give the bhopress in the states to go after the governors to get the citizens all bent out of shape and DEMAND bhocare!

Please, people, if this is the case, don’t cave and do all you can to not have the governors cave!
L

letget on November 16, 2012 at 1:39 PM

A REMINDER:

There are absolutely NO returns of a used Sebelius!!!

- KANSAS

landlines on November 16, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Rush just made a comment about the extension of the deadline for bhocare. It seems that it will give the bhopress in the states to go after the governors to get the citizens all bent out of shape and DEMAND bhocare!

letget on November 16, 2012 at 1:39 PM

If one were to review my previous comments, for which I have been slapped silly, it would seem that Rush and I think a lot alike.

Obama doesn’t pay any measure to the Supreme Court telling him he can’t force an unwilling state to take action.

He won’t call it a “gun-to-the-head”. It’s just a “negotiation”. (And if that does not go well, then the ‘Chicago Way’ is a literal “gun-to-the-head”.)

KISS THE RING!

Carnac on November 16, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 1:07 PM

When Congress wouldn’t pass a DREAM Act, what did he do? He violated the constitution and the law and basically ordered his employees in ICE to disobey the law.

When Federal judges held the administration in contempt of court for their foot dragging on gulf permits, did they start obeying the courts, after either contempt citing? Nope, they keep suppressing drilling as much as they can.

Is Executive Privilege ever supposed to be used to protect whole cabinet level agencies from investigation? Nope, but he’s doing it with Fast & Furious.

The Constitution, laws, don’t matter to this guy. Not one whit. And why don’t I just move out of the country? Because my kids are here and my ex-wife won’t move with me and I’d be the target of a manhunt. I’m going to stock up on food and water, weapons and ammo and pray for the best in my country home.

PastorJon on November 16, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Carnac on November 16, 2012 at 1:49 PM

do you think Obama had any clue about how his “vision” would operate? and do you think he checked up/down stream for the dominoes that will fall? or was it strictly a “vision”?

teejk on November 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM

do you think Obama had any clue about how his “vision” would operate? and do you think he checked up/down stream for the dominoes that will fall? or was it strictly a “vision”?

teejk on November 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Frank Marshall Davis painted the “vision” for him.

Previous failed attempts at a utopian socialist society were only limited by those doing the implementation.

Obama’s “vision” is that this time it will work to success because HE is pulling the levers.

While his “vision” may not be fully formed, it doesn’t have to be because he IS smarter than those that came before him.

In his mind ONLY he can make it work. (With a little help from Valerie Jarrett, of course.)

Carnac on November 16, 2012 at 2:22 PM

We have to pass it to find out what is in it…and wait four years…to find out what is in it…and wait until after the election…to find out what is in it.

I want to know if I have to pay the tax on my plan for having nice insurance. My co pays have gone up, for the level of insurance that I have, and maybe I want insurance without co pays and without a tax on it, but you can’t figure it out.

Fleuries on November 16, 2012 at 2:45 PM

A REMINDER:

There are absolutely NO returns of a used Sebelius!!!

- KANSAS

landlines on November 16, 2012 at 1:47 PM

+403,730 (approximate number of abortions performed in Kansas from 1971-2011)

cptacek on November 16, 2012 at 3:14 PM