States Given Another Month to Meet Health Exchange Deadline

November 16, 2012

  • November 16, 2012 at 1:18 pm
    Libby says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 15
    Thumb down 27

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • November 16, 2012 at 1:28 pm
      reader says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 15
      Thumb down 6

      Your name is all too fitting.

      • November 16, 2012 at 1:35 pm
        Libby says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 14

        Glad you caught the irony of it, Reader.

  • November 16, 2012 at 1:22 pm
    Producer #1 says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 19
    Thumb down 3

    Today Gov Walker in Wisconsin announced that WI would NOT set up a state exchange. Walker is sending that task to the Feds. I am confused by that move. YES, Walker has been against the bill, but he is a advocate for states rights. It seems odd to me that he is giving up the opprotunity to be involved. I think its a mistake for Walker to pass the buck on this one.

    • November 16, 2012 at 1:35 pm
      FFA says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 15
      Thumb down 4

      Its just so mind boggeling that this is going forward. Really, all Walker needs to do is convert Badger Care to Obamadontcare.

      • November 16, 2012 at 1:37 pm
        Producer #1 says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 12
        Thumb down 0

        I agree! Plus, if I were a Health Ins Co that operated in the State of WI, I would prefer to have Madison, WI design the Exchange, over having Washington DC design the exchange.

        • November 16, 2012 at 2:15 pm
          J.S. says:
          Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 29
          Thumb down 11

          Obviously, Walker is more interested in making a political point than he is in helping the people and businesses of Wisconsin.

          • November 16, 2012 at 4:02 pm
            FFA says:
            Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 21

            Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

          • November 26, 2012 at 5:55 pm
            FFA says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            J.S. – what point would he be making? WI has Badger Care so it not hurting or helping anyone. People I know on Badger Care love it. I dont live in WI, but do own property there. I was advised to close the IL corp up and re – incorp in, well any state other then IL. WI is logical for me as I own property free and clear up there.

            I am not being sarcastic or anything – I just need information to make an informed decision.

    • November 16, 2012 at 3:49 pm
      sgal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      Cato’s analysis here as to why some states won’t set up their own exchange:

      Of course, if states refuse to set up an exchange, Obamacare gives the federal government the authority to step in and operate an exchange itself in those states. But there is reason to doubt that the federal government has either the ability or the money to do so. Congress has not appropriated any funding for this purpose and seems unlikely to do so.

      More important, as my colleague Michael Cannon has discovered, a little-discussed provision of Obamacare makes federal subsidies for insurance available only through those exchanges that the states set up themselves. So, while the federal government does have the power to create exchanges in states that refuse to do so, it cannot offer subsidies through those federally run exchanges.

      Moreover, it is those subsidies that actually trigger the penalty under Obamacare for employers who fail to provide workers with insurance. Obamacare requires employers with 50 or more workers to provide health insurance or pay a tax, but only if at least one employee qualifies for subsidies under the exchange. Therefore, if subsidies can be provided only through a state-authorized exchange, a state could potentially block the employer mandate altogether, simply by refusing to establish an exchange.
      ************
      This could lead to companies moving to states that haven’t set up exchanges…also makes you wonder that if many states don’t set up exchanges, will that crash the entire plan as the feds don’t have the means to set up exchanges.

      • November 16, 2012 at 3:57 pm
        Libby says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 5

        Interesting information Sgal. I wasn’t aware of that caveat. It seems these Governors might actually have a curveball of their own up their sleeve.

        • November 26, 2012 at 5:48 pm
          FFA says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          Why would OBama give them that curve ball? Makes no sense to me.

      • November 19, 2012 at 8:02 am
        GETREAL says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 0

        Interesting info sgal. My comments were removed for some reason. I guess they did not favor the editors choice. So much for having varied viewpoints.

        • November 26, 2012 at 2:27 pm
          FFA says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          Most people are against a balanced state budget too. How on earth could WI have gone to the Dems? Especially after Walker held off the waste of time & money recall?

  • November 16, 2012 at 1:34 pm
    Tom says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 18
    Thumb down 20

    Here comes the start of the problems…you think a federal government dept runs ANYTHING with efficiency and correctness? This is the tip of the iceberg of the problems this law will cause. Do we have health insurance problems? Yes, but this will cause more not less.

    • November 16, 2012 at 2:50 pm
      Dave in KY says:
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 25

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

  • November 16, 2012 at 3:47 pm
    GETREAL says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 40

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

  • November 19, 2012 at 7:29 pm
    Sargent Major says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    The last I saw about there were more states that had not agreed to set up a state exchange than agreed. In fact if I recall correctly it was about 2/3 no state exchange and about 1/3 agreed to set up a state exchange. It seems to me that if all these people voted for the current administration, they would be pretty vocal about this and I am not hearing anything. Also, FFA I agree with the Badgercare comment. Maybe that is Walker’s plan or part of Walker’s plan. He might even get the feds to provide a subsidy for Badgercare and it is already set up. I also would have to believe that the federal exchange would not be as flexible ot have the options that a state exchange would have but it may be more of a state budget issue than many had thought. Who knows.

    • November 26, 2012 at 2:18 pm
      FFA says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      I heard somewhere along the line that the Badger Care was on the chopping block for Walker as it just cost too much to operate.
      He may be thinking this is the way to get rid of it. Let the Fed Exchange eliminate it and then when the Fed Exchange collapses just not reinstate it. Interesting tactic. Get rid of Badger Care and lets OBama take the blame. “We had it going on until OBama stepped in!” ???? HMMM.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features