Nope, sounds like a legitimate concern. If the report comes back negative and they open anyways then folks are certainly taking their chances. Hopefully the long experience CMS has had managing Medicare and Medicaid will pay off here and they will get the security in place on time.
Sabotage would be if the GOP cut the funding required to build the security, or refused to confirm the person required to make the authorization.
The latter, I agree with. The former I do not, since all funding for the ACA should have been in the original bill. Leaving out funding was a way to game the CBO. Democrats not only claimed it would reduce the deficit, they called Republicans liars for saying it wouldn’t. It’s quite reasonable for Republicans to hold them to their deficit neutrality claims by insisting that only money expressly appropriated in the ACA bill should be provided.
Not sabotage, that is grasping at straws. Technical problems, and once again likely due for lack of support from a few states, are not a good reason to criticize a new plan, they are a reason to criticize the IT people, but it deserves to be mentioned as an area of concern, after all it is the squeaking wheel the one that gets the oil.
The lack of support from states isn’t sabotage, it’s using the discretion the law gave them.
Grasping at straws it is, not sabotage. Yes, even at the state level, because the end result is getting clear, most of the states that are supportive will get the better deals and support, eventually most of the ones that oppose this will appear to all their citizens as the inefficient entities that they always were.
And that’s one aspect of implementation that is going to be very interesting to me.
In states with reasonably well-regulated insurance markets and supportive state governments Obamacare is likely to be relatively successful. Of course, in those states it is also reasonably popular. In states with largely unregulated individual insurance markets and unsupportive state governments, Obamacare is likely to have significant issues. And, of course, the majority in those states are opposed to the law.
So I can very easily see the ACA becoming more popular in liberal states and even less popular in less liberal ones. Horay for more polarization!
The problem with implementation in red states is that because there weren’t many mandates on insurance coverage, the new mandates will cause major cost increases.
Suits me. Red states can reap what they sow as far as I am concerned. Wonder what voters there will think when they see blue states getting lower rates and better coverage?
And Blue States having more autonomy than Red States. People in states that don’t participate in their own (or multi-state) exchanges will be placed in the Federal exchange. GOP makes Washington control your health insurance.
The red states will have the same costs as the blue states. Since they had lower costs before, they’ll just notice it more.
As for federal control, there is no state control over the exchanges. Sure, the states run them, but there’s very little decisionmaking the states are allowed to make. The regulations for what constitutes acceptable insurance is the same nationwide, the states can only make the regulations tougher, not laxer. The decision to implement the exchanges wasn’t based on autonomy considerations, it was a decision to be politically supportive of the President.
Not implementing the exchanges will save the states money. It’s the federal government’s program, let them run it.
Today, the NYT has an article about a one year delay in caps on out of pocket costs for some health plans under the ACA. Basically, medical and drug costs for some plans will be allowed separate OOP costs until 2015 - because some insurers and employers cannot modify computer systems that must communicate with each other (to add two numbers - sheesh…)
Disappointing and it will hit some hard, but hardly new information. Kaiser Health New reported it back in June, with much less gloom and doom.
It will only affect grandfathered plans which use separate benefits administrators for drug coverage during 2014 - not all health plans. OOP costs will not increase from current levels, but may not be as low as they should be for affected individuals.
Changes that get rid of the parts of the law that just don’t work are a good thing. But they should really get serious. Some of these things can’t just be delayed, they need to go away.
Oooh! Oooh! Is that a hint about what the second part of “repeal and replace” is? Good, we’ve been waiting for that.
Sounds like Obama’s doing the repealing and replacing all on his own by executive fiat. It’s quite the gift he’s given to a Republican successor. We’ve established that a future President doesn’t have to enforce the law if he doesn’t want to.
Oh, no, I guess not. Pity. Guess we’ll have to wait a few more years for it.
Just three, hopefully. Then we can repeal this law by executive order.
This law will never be repealed buddy. Get your ass out of the conservative bubble and realize that.
We’ll see about that. Just takes one election, and the only chance the law has is if it becomes popular. If the law stays in the low to mid-40s in approval, it’ll be all too easy.
Besides, you’re changing the talking points. Many progressives insist this is just a transition law. If voters truly become attached to it, single-payer never happens.
I don’t think I can hammer this point home clearly enough to penetrate the idiotic GOP skull, but here it goes:
Once the central provisions of the ACA take effect - guaranteed issue, government subsidies, insured kids under 26, etc. - and there are millions of newly insured people benefiting from the law, the dynamics of the ACA are going to swerve dramatically away from the GOP. Full stop. Period. And those protections will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be taken away.
This is what the GOP has failed to realize. By the time of the next presidential election, the ACA will have been expanding access to health care for three fucking years, and you Republinuts are flat out deluding yourselves if you seriously think that you will be able to take away these kinds of expansions after they’ve been in place for so long. Of course, at that point, you’ll all probably just come back around and say that you were secretly FOR the law all along.
After all, Republicans created Obamacare in the FIRST FUCKING PLACE. I just love how you all of you right wingers just refuse to acknowledge that. Hypocritical morons, really.
Sorry if that post came out kind of Pit-worthy.
And yes, I still say that the ACA is largely a transition law to something much better, but as I’ve indicated before, anything better that arises out of the law will only ever take root on an individual state-by-state basis. Single-payer on a national level may never happen in my lifetime, but it’ll most assuredly happen in individual states.
I’m looking at you, Vermont.