Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
BS. The law specifically states so, Gruber said so multiple times, and the federal government spent over $1 billion to set up state exchanges. If state exchanges weren't necessary for subsidy eligibility, they wouldn't have even been needed. Everyone could have just used the federal exchange to buy insurance.
The ACA is 900 pages long. The phrase in question appears twice in a bill that is, I repeat, 900 pages long. Oh, no, there were a few errors in a 900 page document!! How could that be???
Actually, the phrase "established by the state" appears in the bill 10 times.
Furthermore, the bill itself defines "state" as "each of the 50 states and the Disctrict of Columbia."
BS. The law specifically states so, Gruber said so multiple times, and the federal government spent over $1 billion to set up state exchanges. If state exchanges weren't necessary for subsidy eligibility, they wouldn't have even been needed. Everyone could have just used the federal exchange to buy insurance.
Each state manages its own Medicare and Medicaid programs. Managing their own exchanges makes sense in that they can utilize their existing data base (one reason why Kynect was so successful), it allows for experimentation in each state, and the insurance companies themselves are largely regulated by state level agencies.
But I guess the latest talking point is that the bill was written to fail because of... reasons.
Each state manages its own Medicare and Medicaid programs. Managing their own exchanges makes sense in that they can utilize their existing data base (one reason why Kynect was so successful)
It makes NO sense whatsoever. The federal government manages Medicare, and the states that don't have their own ACA exchanges also manage their own Medicaid programs.
The federal government spent $1 billion to set up exchanges in some states because they knew damn well only state exchange buyers were eligible for subsidies. That's exactly what the ACA law states. If such weren't so, state exchanges never would have been needed, the federal government could have saved $1 billion, and everyone could have just used the federal exchange to buy insurance.[/quote]While the federal government provided startup funding for state insurance exchanges, the ongoing costs are a heavy burden to state taxpayers:
Quote:
"Even if a state decides to start an exchange, it will be costly. While the federal government would provide startup funds, it’s state taxpayers who soon would be on the hook for the cost. A state-based exchange would necessitate a new state government bureaucracy. Illinois taxpayers would be responsible for all future exchange costs, such as salaries, pensions, and IT systems and upgrades. According to the state government’s own estimates, these costs could easily exceed $100 million or more per year – without a single dime going to patient care."
Given the SCOTUS ruling, states which have established their own exchanges would be wise to sue the federal government for the ongoing costs of maintaining what SCOTUS has stupidly ruled essentially unnecessarily redundant services. Perhaps if the state governments won't sue, affected state taxpayers can form coalitions to sue.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 07-01-2015 at 09:21 AM..
BS. The law specifically states so, Gruber said so multiple times, and the federal government spent over $1 billion to set up state exchanges. If state exchanges weren't necessary for subsidy eligibility, they wouldn't have even been needed. Everyone could have just used the federal exchange to buy insurance.
The fundamental flaw in your understanding: exchanges weren't set up only for subsidies (not all members qualify). They were set up for people to be able to compare/shop for insurance. Federal exchanges were a fall back option in states that refuse to help their citizens.
It makes NO sense whatsoever. The federal government manages Medicare, and the states that don't have their own ACA exchanges also manage their own Medicaid programs.
The federal government spent $1 billion to set up exchanges in some states because they knew damn well only state exchange buyers were eligible for subsidies. That's exactly what the ACA law states. If such weren't so, state exchanges never would have been needed, the federal government could have saved $1 billion, and everyone could have just used the federal exchange to buy insurance.
The feds set up the exchange because of the states that said, "no thanks."
There is much more to the ACA than the subsidies anyway. The federal exchanges allowed people to shop for coverage (mandated by the law no less) when states shirked their responsibility by not doing so themselves. And since the states regulate and license the insurance companies it's much more efficient for them to have their own marketplaces.
Is this the talking point now that the 'The branch of government that is charged with interpreting laws should not be interpreting laws,' ridiculousness?
The fundamental flaw in your understanding: exchanges weren't set up only for subsidies (not all members qualify). They were set up for people to be able to compare/shop for insurance.
Comparing prices and shopping for insurance is done on the federal exchange, as well.
State exchanges weren't necessary if subsidies were available to federal exchange buyers. The federal government spent $1 billion on setting up state exchanges BECAUSE subsidies are legally only available to state exchange insurance buyers.
The feds set up the exchange because of the states that said, "no thanks."
There is much more to the ACA than the subsidies anyway. The federal exchanges allowed people to shop for coverage (mandated by the law no less) when states shirked their responsibility by not doing so themselves.
The ridiculously stupid SCOTUS ruling made the setup and ongoing maintenance costs of state exchanges completely unnecessary. As I said above, states which have established their own exchanges would be wise to sue the federal government for the ongoing costs of maintaining what SCOTUS has stupidly ruled essentially unnecessarily redundant services. Perhaps if the state governments won't sue, affected state taxpayers can form coalitions to sue.
I would also like to see a refund to taxpayers of the over $1 billion that was unnecessarily spent by the federal government to establish the SCOTUS-deemed redundant and unneeded state exchanges.
Comparing prices and shopping for insurance is done on the federal exchange, as well.
Of course. Whether exchange is estsblished by the state or by central government, the plan is the same: allow citizens to shop and purchase insurance under the authority of ACA. ACA even allowed states to create their own plan, within the minimum necessary baseline expected by the law. States that refused, were provided with federal exchanges instead. The same rules apply except that the states that refused, did so by giving up their participation in shaping the plans for its citizens.
Quote:
State exchanges weren't necessary if subsidies were available to federal exchange buyers. The federal government spent $1 billion on setting up state exchanges BECAUSE subsidies are legally only available to state exchange insurance buyers.
You parroted the same point I responded to earlier. Federal exchanges exist only if a state refuses to create its own plan. Your premise that exchanges exist only to provide subsidies is broken.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
