are we heading towards another George Wallace state vs. federal?

[Johonny]

Florida will not implement two provisions of the U.S. healthcare law involving an expansion of Medicaid for the poor and creation of a private insurance exchange, Governor Rick Scott said on Sunday.

Two other states with Republican governors, Wisconsin and Louisiana, opted out of the two provisions last week in the wake of the Supreme Court decision upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

If states do not create insurance exchanges, the federal government says it will set up them. The exchanges are intended to extend health coverage to an additional 16 million people. The Kaiser Family Foundation says 17 states have made no significant progress toward an exchange or rejected the idea.


This isn't going to get goofy messy with Obama having to send in the national guard to protect the federal workers setting up exchanges for the states run by people like Scott, is it?

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Yes

[BumRushDaShow]

2. The more thug states that refuse

the more they move the ACA towards the idea of single payer (with their action currently triggering a government-created and managed exchange vs a state-created and managed exchange). Just because they refuse to setup an exchange doesn't mean one won't be setup anyway.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Agree. Sometimes it's better building something state-by-state.

It's always easier to find consensus among a smaller group, and while it may delay reform hitting the more conservative states, it's better than reform never having a chance at all for trying to enact it nationally.

:1

[bluestateguy]

4. The exchanges can be set up electronically by staffers in a office in Washington D.C.

And if any states continue to be obstructionist then, well, let's just say these things tend to be remembered the next time there is a hurricane, tornado, fire or flood and a state comes begging the feds for aid.

[LiberalFighter]

7. States that are challenging having their state implementing ACA are being stupid.

They are clueless of the tools that the federal government now can use compare to 40 years ago. You are right that staffers can just do this all electronically. The federal government can also get this info out to the public about the benefits available. And instead of the state getting the praise the federal govt will be given the credit. The difference now is that the federal government will be managing it themselves instead of the state. Is that what they really want? But this possibly would speed up universal health care because instead of state exchanges there will be federal exchanges that may end up similar to Tri-Care and other federal employee insurance plans. Maybe they will just offer them the same plans create just a few additional for those that need something but can't afford what is available to federal employees.

[bluestateguy]

10. The feds can also set up insurance exchanges that cover abortion

The law allows states to set up exchanges that exclude abortion coverage (that's the Nelson compromise), but that requires the states to actually set up the exchanges.

if they don't and opt to have the feds do it for them then the feds can set up an insurance exchange with health plans that cover abortion.

Bobby Jindal in Louisiana may want to think about that.

[LiberalFighter]

12. I just as soon that all states let the federal govt do the exchanges.

Tell Jingle Jingle that if he has LA set up the exchanges that there is a 20% tax on seafood.

[Johonny]

13. maybe he thought about it

and thinks it is great to get a lot of air time fighting against the big evil Obama and his oppression of his state rights. I imagine he thinks that will looked good come 2016 running for president. Can you imagine the good free press he gets in a GOP primary being the guy that fought again big government and it's abortion insurance exchange. These people aren't about the people, they are about themselves. Honestly most GOP probably don't give a rats ass about abortion accept as a political item to use to manipulate voters. If Obama forces these exchanges on them, well probably all the better for them come primary time. Now come general election time...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Not at all

Those states are using provisions in the law, not flouting Federal Court decisions.

It dumb, it hurts the state, but its quite legal.

In the long term I expect a successor governor to have the state join in.

[LiberalFighter]

8. I think that with any state ignoring the requirement to implement state exchange

are forgetting that their failure will result in the federal govt doing it for them. It will happen with or without them.

[Johonny]

11. aren't they counting on that

I imagine a lot of 2016 GOP hopefuls are looking forward to a 1 on 1 symbolic tilting at the windmills. Just like Wallace liked getting face time on TV champion fighting against the "evil" federal government. Some people are really attracted to pointless anger projected against "big government". I imagine these GOP governors see this as good election fodder. When Obama does it for them, they turn around and complain about being oppressed. It's like everything old and stupid is new and stupid again.

[LiberalFighter]

14. Except it won't effect his election because they won't see it happening until after the election.

And the rebuttals can be that they are offering plans similar to what federal employees are receiving at lower cost compared to what they can get on their own. They aren't forced to buy insurance from any exchange. They can buy it privately if they can get it. But it is likely to be more expensive than from the exchange.

[Johonny]

16. They don't care about this election cycle

These governors don't care about 2012, they care about 2016 and the GOP free for all that will be the primary. All exchanges must be fully certified and operational by January 1, 2014. That means any real battle of wills takes place at the right time for 2016 and the GOP primary.

[LiberalFighter]

17. By that time more people will be on board supporting ACA.

And those with insurance will realize their fear of a takeover is wrong.

[Thumper79]

6. It seems if republican governors can basically 'nullify' a federal law

the governors from blue states should be able to nullify Citizen's United. Both laws deemed constitutional by the SCOTUS. Why can one be ignored and the other one not? Republicans have (car) elevators that don't go to the top.

[PoliticAverse]

15. Nobody is 'nullifying' any law. The law doesn't require any state to set up an exchange nor does it

require any state to participate in the Medicaid expansion.

[ananda]

9. Yes.

And don't forget Gov. Ross of Mississippi during the James Meredith crisis.

Troops had to be sent in to the southern states, there were armed battles,
many people died for minority education rights and for Civil Rights.

It's hard to believe we're going through the same states' rights stuff over,
of all things, healthcare.

Will the South ever learn?


On edit, I should add the problem of voting rights being eroded in the South
as well, with governors and attorney generals not only defying federal law
but also threatening to sue the federal government over it.

The mind boggles.

[spanone]

18. a bunch of the thug governors said the same thing about the stimulus...they ALL took it