And yet another Fight with Congress to put on the schedule

[cthulu2016]

Okay... so a bunch of Republican Governors have refused to set up a state health insurance exchange meaning that, under the law, the Federal government now needs to set up those state exchanges.

But there is no funding in the law to provide the cost of the Federal Government (HHS in specific) setting up the exchanges.

The House will, of course, not approve any funding. It's not billions—looks like a couple of hundred million dollars—so HHS might be able to cannibalize the budget of something else. But if HHS does that I expect the House will try to have a constitutional showdown. (Congress does have immense power to use the budget to dictate Executive branch actions, so they would have at least a rhetorical argument. On the other hand, HHS is probably required by Congress to set up the exchanges, despite having no money to do so. This sort of conflict has come up a lot, but not often on such a big issue. It's interesting.)

The punchline, in my opinion, will be that the average American will he quite hostile to sabotaging the best implementation of Obamacare. Even if you don't like Obamacare there is little reason—since it's going to happen anyway—to want it to work poorly. If you were in court for years trying to block a highway and you lost and the highway was being built would you then try to ensure it was built poorly?

A political zealot might, but most people would not.


This whole article about the RW exchange boycott is very interesting. I'm just looking at one little aspect of the big picture:

...The law (ACA) fails to specify a set funding mechanism for a federally-established state exchange. So HHS would have to find the money in its budget or request additional funds through the regular appropriations process. And Congressional Republicans may be motivated to block that money in their efforts to derail the Affordable Care Act...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/gop-governors-face-quandary-in-key-obamacare-battle.php

[rgbecker]

1. I think Massachusetts would share theirs for a small fee which would help offset costs.

Here in Massachusetts its up and running and has been for a couple of years. Simply shift it over to the states which don't want to do it...same insurance plans and companies and let Massachusetts benefit with lower rates for its citizens. LOL!

[cthulu2016]

3. Was having multi-state pools outlawed?

I remember some "across state lines" controversy during the ACA debates, but not the particulars.

[rgbecker]

5. Multi-state pools might be helpful.

The Republicans thought allowing insurance companies to write policies in any state without state oversight would be a great way to get insurance premiums down. It was really a ploy to get cheap, high deductible, minimal coverage policies into states that had minimum coverage tables (Must cover pregnancies etc.) and skim off the low risk customers. The ACA is fighting such a deal by mandating minimum standardized coverage for all states. As to states pooling together to achieve better rates you might find this article interesting....I only skimmed it, but I think it addresses the issue.

http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412325-Multi-state-Health-Insurance-Exchanges.pdf

[msongs]

2. then red states will be left out and blue states might get better health care. too bad, repubs nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

4. Gee, if only someone had pointed this out before.

You know what goes here.