WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

Are Republican-dominated states now the ticking time-bomb undermining the President's health-care overhaul?

It's now become pretty obvious Congressional Republicans intent on gutting the President's health-care overhaul will come up short.

But, perhaps it won't matter. Perhaps Republican governors and legislatures - and clumsy moves by the Obama Administration itself -- have put the Affordable Care Act on a threatened trajectory.

Take the traffic snarls on the massive Federal insurance exchange: When nearly all G.O.P. governors bailed on creating state exchanges of their own, that set the stage for incredibly heavy volume on the Federal exchange. Perhaps further contributing to the on-line traffic jam: The way the Obama Administration set up the exchange, directing consumers to figure out their eligibility for subsides before they can compare various insurance option. Companies not particularly known for being at the technological cutting-edge winning lucrative contracts to set up the on-line network.

Jill Lawrence at NATIONAL JOURNAL captures the essence of this ticking time-bomb threatening to undermine the Affordable Care Act:

"Some of the states that left exchanges to the Federal government have not put any or many resources toward signing people up. Since the law depends on high enrollments to broaden the risk pool and keep coverage costs relatively low, these governors may have helped create conditions ripe for higher rates and consumer backlash against the law..."

Later in Jill's analysis:

"The upshot has been a beleaguered business community up in arms about the burdens of the law, a one-year delay in the employer mandate, and endless fodder for anecdotes about jobs cut, expansions nixed, and health benefits dropped. That's just one example of how implacable G.O.P. hostility toward Obamacare, and ironclad resistance to making it work better, is producing political dividends for Republicans. And there's more where that came from, if they can manage to shift the focus from their own dysfunction to the health care launch from hell."

You can read Jill Lawrence's entire piece, "Relax, G.O.P.! You've Already Wounded Obamacare" ---


http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/relax-gop-you-ve-already-wounded-obamacare-20131016?mrefid=HomepageRiver

Posted at 8:51am on October 16, 2013 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts



Comments on this post:

kavips
Wed, Oct 16, 2013 9:40am
Just sifting through yesterday's news and found that Cruz met with House Republicans at a Tortilla restaurant in the a.m. and that, yesterday, is what spooked Boehner into his rapidly concocted House Bill. Obviously he was threatened and wanted to hold on to his leadership role. McConnell let him play it out, for they really don't want him to get kicked out. Remember Boehner agreed in '11 to the 4-trillion-dollar deal, a deal that would have saved us these past two years from all this posturing. That deal back then was killed by Cantor, Ryan, and the Tea Party. The same group more or less that has stalled the government now.

It appears that this whole episode was to stab Boehner in the back, for Cruz knew well there would be no deal from the Democrats.

It was successful. Boehner has promised to pass with Democratic votes whatever the Senate passes.

The Senate Bill seems to have all the demands from the Republicans pulled, and will come our pretty much like the clean bill Obama and the Democrats wanted. The medical device tax is in. The re-insurance tax is in. The only Republican demand that seems possible, is the $5,000 pay cut Federal employees would have to pay for their own insurance...

Into the 3rd week over a $5,000 pay cut for Federal Employees...

So, it is over, just have to see how much of the Democratic demands McConnell will accept before he signs...

And we will be right back to where we were in August...

Arthur
Wed, Oct 16, 2013 10:50am
OK, let me understand this. The G.O.P. governors are the problem with the Federal exchange program because they didn't utilize their own resources to implement a Federally mandated law, and now, because the Federal program was nowhere near being ready to handle the crush of traffic, the G.O.P. governors are to blame? Yet, Markell isn't fingered in this even though he elected to utilize the Federal exchange? I can understand the blame in Congress going to the G.O.P., but this is a bit overreaching.

Allan Loudell
Wed, Oct 16, 2013 11:04am
Arthur---

Because of its small size, Delaware opted for a Federal--state partnership.

Allan Loudell

Arthur
Wed, Oct 16, 2013 11:14am
"Delaware will retain plan management and consumer assistance functions, and defer other exchange management functionality to the federal government." Meaning they will do their work AFTER the insurance is in force

Mike from Delaware
Wed, Oct 16, 2013 1:19pm
In defense of Markell, with Delaware being so small population-wise, it probably is more cost-effective [saving Delawareans tax dollars and getting a far larger pool of folks in this exchange, thus keeping the premiums also lower] to use the Fed Exchange rather than create Delaware's own exchange. Sounds like good thinking on the Governor's part.

mrpizza
Wed, Oct 16, 2013 7:53pm
Not only is this big piece of insurance fraud wounded, it's going down. "We the people" SHALL PREVAIL!

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Oct 17, 2013 1:41pm
Mrpizza: Please explain how will Obamacare go down. Granted, many don't like it today [mostly those who already have insurance via their employers], but as more and more folks who don't have insurance start getting the benefits of it, it will become more difficult to convince folks that it is "bad and evil".

This same problem existed in the 1930's with Social Security, as the G.O.P./A.L.L. [American Liberty League - the forerunner of today's TEA party] said all this same stuff then; note they lost that battle as the G.O.P./TEA folks are losing today]. The reason they lost then, and the TEA folks will lose today, is your group has the attitude of 'I've got mine, too bad for you'. Prior to Social Security, millions of elderly folks who worked their entire lives were living in poverty in their retirement years. Without Social Security, millions today would be in that same boat.

Yes I know, if they sewed seeds and would have enough faith, that magic check would arrive in the mailbox. So any person who's struggling to make ends meet hasn't worked hard enough and must be some sort of heathen, because if he/she had, that person would be as rich as a Rockerfeller, or a Forbes. So why are you delivering pizzas as a second job? I certainly could find a more interesting hobby to spend my non-work hours doing.

I noticed in your reply to me yesterday, you blew off my suggestion that IF you truly believe these government social safety-net programs are evil, then you should lead the way by refusing to receive YOUR benefits. So you can insult those of us all you want who don't see the Bible or their walk with Christ in the same way as you, etc., but it appears that you can be bought off, sir. You'll bash the source of those benefits and somehow not give God the credit for maybe inspiring folks years ago to make such programs to help the lesser than thee, but you aren't THAT convicted to your beliefs that you'll not accept those benefits when your time comes to get your share. So as long as you get yours, too bad for the other guy??? Not a very Christ-like attitude.

Helping the lesser than thee is very Biblical as the Old Testament tells how the farmer was required to not harvest in the corners or his fields and to not pick up any he dropped while harvesting [so you didn't want to hire clumsy laborers], so that the poor had food they could come and get on their own. Gee, a Biblical version of a Food Stamp/Food Distribution program for the lesser than thee.

I agree that Jesus would tell the poor to not sit around and be idle, but to go and try to find work, [but they still had that way of providing free food for these folks as even if they found some work, they still might have needed a helping hand to feed their families].

In case you haven't noticed, many people have full-time jobs in America today [working 35-40 hours a week] and make $9.00/hr. These folks can not afford to rent a cheap apartment which in this area goes for around $650---$700 month, much less afford food, utilities, and health insurance, etc.

Many of these folks have college degrees too. They can't find work in their chosen field that would pay better, so rather than be on Welfare and have you and I support them, they're working crap jobs making next-to-nothing in salary for their efforts [These folks now have a student loan to repay on top of all that]. Then you post here with your smug arrogant attitude that these folks are takers and Jesus would tell them to sew and be prosperous. I think you might want to re-read the red letter parts of your Bible again, sir, because no matter how hard I try to see it your way, my spirit, my knowledge, my heart, and my understanding of what God's word says, you're incorrect and have misinterpreted Jesus' words. He was all about love, grace, forgiveness, and helping the lesser than thee.

But I too see through smoke-colored glass and I am sure I'm not getting it totally correct either, so we both need to be in prayer and further study of God's holy word.

I'll not bother you again on this topic as we totally disagree and it's not my desire to argue with you; I'm simply trying to challenge you to re-study Jesus' words. I respect your right to understand God's word as you do, I just don't see it your way. Be at peace.

EarlGrey
Thu, Oct 17, 2013 2:55pm
"I noticed in your reply to me yesterday, you blew off my suggestion that IF you truly believe these government social safety-net programs are evil, then you should lead the way by refusing to receive YOUR benefits."

Sorry Mike, but these "benefits" have already been paid for from our paychecks into the system...IF the government would like to refund my "contributions" I would gladly take care of the rest of my retirement myself. I already know that as a Gen-Xer I am not going to get very much "return" on my "investment" into Social Security.
So, why should those who have already had this money taken from them let the government keep it?

Same with ACA...most would be better off shopping around for the health insurance that works best for them/their families...but why force everyone (even those who don't want/need insurance) to have it or be punished for not having it? Doesn't sound like a very free society that mandates we purchase a product we don't want!

I agree that many people need health coverage help...why not allow special breaks for doctors/hospitals who help out those in need rather than forcing everyone into this government controlled system.

But all this is old news anyway, ACA is in and common sense is out...let's see how well ACA performs between now and 2014 and the elections will tell everyone how popular ObamaCare is.

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Oct 17, 2013 3:52pm
EarlGrey: I agree and totally understand why you'd want your Social Security benefits, just as I have been paying through the nose for 43 years of full time employment, will be [Lord willing] 46 years of full time employment when I hope to retire at age 66.

No I don't want them to just give me my money back unless its with some great interest that's compounded, etc, for those 46 years they've had use of my money. Social Security is the one insurance plan that you don't have to die to get to collect, you just have to get old enough. That's why I was so incensed at Romney for lumping retirees into that 47% of takers during the election. Those of us who've paid for our Social Security insurance premiums as we both have don't want to hear any non-sense about them NOT paying the benefit.

Social Security is NOT an entitlement, we've paid for the benefit unlike many of the folks on Welfare. They ARE takers. Now granted there are some of those folks who truly can not work due to physical or serious mental issues, so those folks we should be helping. The others we should be helping to find work so they can support themselves and their families. Unfortunately neither GOP or DEMS seem to be very motivated to do that. You just can't kick folks off Welfare if there's no work for them to do. Somehow, we've got to do more to create jobs for the lesser educated. Problem is, those jobs other than McDonald's, etc, have moved over seas. This isn't the 1950's where America was king of factory production type jobs, where a high school diploma would land you a good paying job at a factory. Those days are gone. THAT's part of the problem.

I was just Hyperbolting Mrpizza a bit on him taking his benefits, since he's been so over the top on this issue and seems to have no compassion at all for the lesser than thee. His responses sound more like Ebenezer Scrooge from Charles Dickens than Jesus in the New Testament [at least on how I read and my pastor's read Jesus' words in both United Methodist, ELCA Lutheran, and LCMS Lutheran Churches]. So yes, I'd expect Mrpizza to also take his benefits when he crosses the milestone as he too has paid for them just as we have.

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Oct 17, 2013 3:54pm
Typos, should be 44 years of full time and when I retire 47 years of full time.

mrpizza
Sat, Oct 19, 2013 1:03pm
"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." - Proverbs 14:12


Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.
Username:
Password:
Comment:
 










Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach