Entire ACA upheld by Supreme Court

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

You mean that insuring another 60 million people won't pay for itself? I thought that Obamacare won't add to the deficit and Riot assured us it wouldn't, how could this be? She even gave us a pie chart.

perry came out today and said (no surprise) no expansion of medicaid, no exchanges. he joins fla, south car, louisiana....
26 states sued fighting obamacare. what will happen with that legislation if over half the country doesn't opt in?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

perry came out today and said (no surprise) no expansion of medicaid, no exchanges. he joins fla, south car, louisiana....
26 states sued fighting obamacare. what will happen with that legislation if over half the country doesn't opt in?

Notice that it is the poorest, most uninsured, least healthy red states doing this: they choose to simply be killing their poor and lower middle-class citizens by denying them the health care access afforded them legally by the #ACA Medicaid expansion.

Those losers need to be kicked out of office.

What happens? Those states still get to take the money, but don't have to use it for it's intended purpose. Their citizens suffer by remaining out of the health care system.

As far as refusing to set up the exchanges, the federal government comes in and does it for the state, if the state refuses. So the state loses any "states rights" to tailor the exchanges specifically to the needs of that state. They get the generic federal plan.

That will affect you, Danzig, as your governor is refusing to follow the benefits the law gives you. Too bad for you.

Ezra Klein's WonkBlog explains it easily and well

If governors opt their states out of the health law’s Medicaid expansion — as many are now threatening to do — it’s the poorest Americans who would find themselves getting the rawest deal.

This set of charts from our graphics department helps explain why: People who earn less than 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Line (about $11,170 for an individual) are ineligible for tax credits to purchase health insurance. In a state like Arkansas, for example, that could be a big deal:

[Riot]

The states whose Republican governors so far say they will refuse to expand Medicaid, or have state-specific health insurance changes for their citizens under the ACA are:

Mississippi
Arkansas
New Jersey
Florida
South Carolina
Louisiana
Texas

That is to say, the less you’ve been doing on Medicaid so far, the more the federal government will pay on your behalf going forward. And that gets to an irony of the health-care law: Red states have, in general, done less than blue states to cover their residents, so they’re going to get a sweeter deal under the terms of the Affordable Care Act.

[slotdirt]

Lots of states have said they won't accept the Medicaid expansion; too bad Riot's list doesn't include many of them.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Lots of states have said they won't accept the Medicaid expansion; too bad Riot's list doesn't include many of them.

Can you list the other ones? I've just listed the ones where I've seen the govs come out publicly and said they will not.

Kentucky, thank goodness, has a Democratic governor who has already instructed the state to start creating our exchanges - much to the displeasure of our KY Republican senators Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell, who would prefer to have our poorest people continue to be uninsured and not receive health care.

Found two more:

Republican Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin
Republican Gov. Terry Brandstadt of Iowa.

Too bad, poor people of those states - your governor denies you health care. And too bad, insured citizens of those states - you will continue to personally pay for these uninsured (freeloaders) in your ER costs and insurance premium costs.

[slotdirt]

You list Louisiana, where the only thing the Governor has said is that he'll take the new Medicaid population only if he can block grant the entire program. You also list New Jersey, where while Gov. Christie has criticized that portion of the law, also hasn't said definitively whether he wouldn't take the new population or not.

Arkansas has a Democrat governor, so there's that.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

You list Louisiana, where the only thing the Governor has said is that he'll take the new Medicaid population only if he can block grant the entire program. You also list New Jersey, where while Gov. Christie has criticized that portion of the law, also hasn't said definitively whether he wouldn't take the new population or not.

Arkansas has a Democrat governor, so there's that.

A bunch of them came out immediately and said they would refuse it, but the pressure is on, as their citizens are angry - the citizens don't want to keep paying for the uninsured freeloaders, when the ACA will instead insure them and pay the majority of the cost across states.

Glad to hear Jindal is changing his mind - one of the poorest and least-insured health care states. I've only read that Christie has said no so far.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

You list Louisiana, where the only thing the Governor has said is that he'll take the new Medicaid population only if he can block grant the entire program. You also list New Jersey, where while Gov. Christie has criticized that portion of the law, also hasn't said definitively whether he wouldn't take the new population or not.

Arkansas has a Democrat governor, so there's that.

beebe has said he's open to expansion, but i'm figuring that the ledge isn't. it's odd how many down here are 'democrats' but then when you start talking to many citizens here, they're actually very conservative minded. anti-abortion, anti-civil rights, pro-gun, fiscally conservative....the only thing democratic that i know of is they're often pro-union.

You're talking about state exchanges versus the Medicaid expansion. One can set up one without tackling the other. They're not mutually exclusive. Jindal's statement above is that he's not going to set up an exchange, which was well within his rights as a state governor before the Supreme Court ever acted on the law

yeah, arkansas already said months ago they weren't going to set up an exchange. it's not a requirement, the feds will have one set up. and the scotus removed the medicaid funding rule, so states are free to do as they wish there. they can't be coerced.


i have a webinar upcoming that talks about changes from aca. ought to be interesting.

[Riot]

TPM2012
GOP Governors Split On Whether To Implement Obamacare
Benjy Sarlin June 29, 2012, 10:54 AM 11403

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...-obamacare.php

Their best shot at eliminating the Affordable Care Act gone, Republican governors say the next step is to ensure Mitt Romney and a Republican Senate have another chance to axe it in Congress. In the meantime, though, the ACA is the constitutionally sound law of the land and each state has to figure out how to actually implement it.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), in a press call with fellow Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) of Virginia, offered up a pretty simple approach: Just pretend the law doesn’t exist.

“We’re not going to start implementing Obamacare,” Jindal said flatly. Under his watch, Louisiana will not set up any of the required state heath care exchanges where, starting in 2014, Americans will be able to buy subsidized private health insurance.

McDonnell was more cautious. “There’s still some uncertainty at this point as to what the right course is,” he said. McDonnell also said he would be “evaluating the case.”

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Lots of states have said they won't accept the Medicaid expansion; too bad Riot's list doesn't include many of them.

yeah, too bad i can't see the list.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, too bad i can't see the list.

How's that high horse, Lady Disdain?

[slotdirt]

You're talking about state exchanges versus the Medicaid expansion. One can set up one without tackling the other. They're not mutually exclusive. Jindal's statement above is that he's not going to set up an exchange, which was well within his rights as a state governor before the Supreme Court ever acted on the law.