26 States including Florida refuse to set up insurance exchanges

[g8orbill]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/26-states-opt-out-of-obamacares-state-run-insurance-exchanges/

From the article:

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 18, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Despite the Obama administration urging states to run their own markets for those without health insurance to purchase subsidized plans, the majority have opted to leave the job to the federal government. Twenty-six states opted to let the deadline for forming state insurance exchanges pass on Friday, leaving the Obama administration to handle the details – and the costs – itself.

The exchanges are designed to let those without insurance compare and buy federally subsidized plans in order to comply with ObamaCare’s mandate that everyone in the U.S. purchase health insurance. States that wanted to run their own exchange or partner with the federal government had to notify the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by Friday.

Originally, the choice for each state was between forming their own exchange or leaving it up to the federal government, but after it became obvious that a large number of states were going to decline to set up their own exchanges, federal health officials tried to woo them with a compromise: partnership exchanges that would allow them to pass some of the costs and responsibilities on to the federal government.
Florida Governor Rick Scott will not take part in the exchan
Florida Governor Rick Scott will not take part in the exchanges.

The ploy proved ineffective. Only 17 states and the District of Columbia took control of their own state exchanges, while another seven opted to share the duties with the federal government.

[DSRrg]

I have not been able to find a list of those 26 states!! Can anyone help?

[geauxgator1]

If this wasn't going to be such a cluster....., it would be funny. The problem is it's going to be a disaster. Aren't we already predicting a $20,000 figure for a family of 4, per our friends at the IRS? It's only going to get worse. Oh, but wait, our costs are going to go down by $2500 per family..that was the big selling point? Jokes on us.

[gatorman_07732]

http://www.themainewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Screen-Shot-2013-01-07-at-11.04.14-AM.png

[DSRrg]

Thanks

[wygator]

http://www.themainewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Screen-Shot-2013-01-07-at-11.04.14-AM.png

Come to Wyoming!!!

[busigator96]

We need to create additional debt to fuel the fiat money scheme. If there was no debt, then there would be no money in circulation.

[g8rjd]

http://www.themainewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Screen-Shot-2013-01-07-at-11.04.14-AM.png

Although not identical, there's a very high correlation with which States argued the ACA was unconstitutional in the Supreme Court.

[G8trGr8t]

so what happens when Congress does not provide the funding required for the feds to set up and run this new healthcare beauracracy?

[rivergator]

so these states are asking the federal government to step in and run it?

[theorangebluewinagain]

so what happens when Congress does not provide the funding required for the feds to set up and run this new healthcare beauracracy?

Obama will blame Bush and them evil Republicans.
What else does Obama do.... Agitate, divide, bully and then when things don't go the way he wants he blames others.

[HudsonGator]

so these states are asking the federal government to step in and run it?

Yep, it is really not a victory for those Governors who are opposed to the AFCA, it simply cedes a part of the health insurance world to the Federal govt.

[gatorman_07732]

so these states are asking the federal government to step in and run it?

The states can't afford this debacle so they're sending a message to the federal government that if you want this disaster then you pay for it. In other words they are taking it and shoving it right up Obama's rear-end.

[Gatorrick22]

Yep, it is really not a victory for those Governors who are opposed to the AFCA, it simply cedes a part of the health insurance world to the Federal govt.

If the Fed has no money allocated for it then it won't be implemented........ Sequestration is gonna come back and bite BO in the a$$.

[geauxgator1]

If the Fed has no money allocated for it then it won't be implemented........ Sequestration is gonna come back and bite BO is the a$$.

We can only hope...BUT they'll come up with some money,, print/borrow more of it, and kick the can down the road.

[dadx4]

so these states are asking the federal government to step in and run it?

The supreme court said that the states could opt out in their ruling. If a state sets up the exchange then the state has to pay for it. If they don't then Obama has to pay for it.

[fredsanford]

The supreme court said that the states could opt out in their ruling. If a state sets up the exchange then the state has to pay for it. If they don't then Obama has to pay for it.

That's not even close to accurate.

[brainstorm]

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/state-actions-to-implement-the-health-benefit-exch.aspx

Gives a state by state break down on the issue of exchanges.

[g8rjd]

The supreme court said that the states could opt out in their ruling. If a state sets up the exchange then the state has to pay for it. If they don't then Obama has to pay for it.

Completely incorrect. What the Supreme Court held was that the failure to participate could not result in the removal of PRE-EXISTING Medicaid funds by the federal government. Around 90% of ACA compliance is paid for by the federal government and that reduces over time to around 55% (which is what the federal government presently pays in the Medicaid program en toto...I don't have the numbers in front of me).

[gatorman_07732]

Completely incorrect. What the Supreme Court held was that the failure to participate could not result in the removal of PRE-EXISTING Medicaid funds by the federal government. Around 90% of ACA compliance is paid for by the federal government and that reduces over time to around 55% (which is what the federal government presently pays in the Medicaid program en toto...I don't have the numbers in front of me).

Not sure you direct addressed dad's post. What the states can opt out of the state exchange and go to a federal exchange or a fed-state partnership exchange. Though I understand that this was crafted in the plan and not part of the ruling.

[g8rjd]

Not sure you direct addressed dad's post. What the states can opt out of the state exchange and go to a federal exchange or a fed-state partnership exchange. Though I understand that this was crafted in the plan and not part of the ruling.

My point was that the Supreme Court's ruling dealt only with the withholding of pre-existing Medicaid funds for failure to meet the requirements of the ACA. It dealt with nothing else, including prospective additional Medicaid funds, the federal government's ability to pay for state exchanges, etc.. Therefore, the premise of dad's post was entirely incorrect.

That the federal government is "footing the bill" for most of the ACA compliance is, as you point out, directly in the law. That was never an issue or ever asserted to be a problem in the health care cases before the Supreme Court.

[gatorman_07732]

The question is, how does the federal government afford this?

[Dreamliner]

The question is, how does the federal government afford this?

... by the means of more of our money.