Associated Press
With the Supreme Court no longer threatening the future of the Affordable Care Act, and with implementation deadlines looming, Republican governors have some decisions to make. They oppose the federal law, despite the benefits it'll bring to their state and constituents, but ignoring it brings a host of other problems.
Some, including Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R), are prepared to move forward, implementing the law and creating exchanges for consumers. New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R) has also suggested she supports some of the provisions in "Obamacare."
On the other hand, we also see governors like Rick Scott (R) of Florida, whose office announced that it will simply refuse to move forward under the current framework. "We are not going to expand Medicaid and we're not going to implement exchanges,'' Scott's spokesperson told the AP. The governor's office also said Medicaid expansion would cost Florida taxpayers $1.9 billion a year -- an imaginary figure that Rick Scott appears to have made up out of whole cloth.
Steve Kornacki has a good piece today on the bigger picture.
[T]here's an element of posturing here. The question is how many GOP governors and state legislatures will ultimately relent and take the federal money.
Logic says that most, if not all, of them will. After all, the federal government is offering a pretty good deal to the states, and some powerful interests -- hospitals that now end up providing free emergency care for patients who would be eligible for Medicaid under the expansion and insurance companies offering Medicaid managed care plans -- figure to exert considerable pressure on state leaders to go along. Particularly for a governor like [New Jersey's Chris Christie], who leads a blue state and is facing reelection in 2013, it might not take much pressure to convince him to implement the expansion.
I think that's right, on all counts. Obamacare offers the states a pretty sweet deal, which the governors would be foolish to turn down. If they balk anyway, every hospital administrator in their state will be calling the governor's office, demanding that these Republican cut the nonsense.
I'm just not convinced the truly unhinged governors will care.
Last year, logic dictated that Rick Scott and Scott Walker would take federal funds for high-speed rail, too. Time and again, some GOP governors have made it clear that partisan and ideological goals trump literally every other consideration -- including their constituents' wellbeing.
And what happens if some Republican chief executives simply balk? First and foremost, millions of struggling Americans simply won't get the coverage and access to basic care they would otherwise get if they had more responsible governors. The ACA brings insurance to 30 million people, but that number will drop if Rick Scott and officials like him refuse to implement federal law.
Second, as we discussed last week, these governors are also, rather ironically, inviting more federal control over state affairs.
And finally, it's not inconceivable that we'll face another round of lawsuits if states like Florida pretend the federal law doesn't exist, and refuse to honor its provisions.
Kornacki added, however, that political conditions may yet change: "Pressure from Republican-friendly healthcare industry forces might make it more palatable to the right, and if GOP leaders in individual states present a united front in support of the expansion, the base would be more likely to go along and not consider it a big deal. But as long as Obama is president and his name is linked to it, there's always going to be some kind of an opening for a Republican politician to make a name for himself by vowing to stop or reverse the expansion."
Leave a Comment:
Temper tantrums aren't attractive, even by otherwise lovable two and three year olds. This one is particularly ugly.
So sorry for your plight, Floridians.
It's hard to feel sorry for Florida residents. They had choices in the last election for governor, and they made theirs. They knew what this guy was before he was elected. He hasn't changed character or done much of anything that any halfway mentally competent voter could have predicted.
Next time, be more careful. That "protest vote" (or the failure to vote) might just come back to bite you.
Stop with that Shmitt. You weren't here . The negative ads against anything democratic started long before Scott was even picked in the Primary . Trashing the Dem candidate , Trashing the Dem Senator Then he spent 75 million of his own money running on a "Jobs" campaign .. bipartisan all the way. This may sound familiar to Scott Walker fans. This was enough to convince all the Rural Mugwumps to get out and vote against their own self interest . 700,000 jobs said he - he has not hit 70,000. He refused 24 billion of High Speed job creating federal money on ideological grounds .
He has been a total nightmare for the state and he does not give a Fu*k . He has a Republican Supernmajority and does not have to answer to anybody.
Don't feel sorry for us but understand . This is what a Republican Supermajority looks like , scary beyond your wildest dreams
Sick-n ... There was a perfectly qualified Democrat running against him. Are we supposed to feel sorry for a bunch of Dems and foolish independents who were weak and stupid enough to fall for the junk in those ads. If those folks weren't leaning in that direction, all the ads in the world couldn't have persuaded them to vote for Scott. Mitt Romney could spend $5 million on ads directed at me, and it still wouldn't change my perception of him one iota.
Everybody knew Scott resigned as CEO of Columbia/HCA over fraud and other misdeeds. Why he wasn't thrown in jail is beyond me, but nobody, even those desperate for jobs, should have missed that signal. Republicans always put out this bipartisan job-creator baloney. It isn't like they ever live up to it.
There's another election coming up soon. Let's see if the people of Florida have learned anything. My guess is that most of them--especially those good 'ol "Reagan Democrats" (eyes rolling)--haven't.
So this rogue's gallery of incompetent right-wing hacks would rather see their own constituents die and get terminally ill due to a lack of health insurance than break with their party's hateful brand of incorruptible intransigence and demonic opposition to President Obama. This is political malfeasance and governing malpractice on a grand and deadly scale. America cannot move forward so long as partisan fools like Rick Scott or Piyush Jindal are sabotaging he country and playing games for political gain. Maybe it didn't work with Scott Walker, but surely at least one of these morons is ripe for a recall... http://www.sunstateactivist.org
What ye vote, so shall ye reap.
Gotta love Republicans putting their political pettiness above the well-being of their own citizens. Goes into what I've noticed even in the relatively brief I'm that I've been following American politics:
Republicans like winning, and they like being in charge. They just don't like having to govern anything. So when they lose on an issue they throw a temper tantrum and let their job of governing the citizens of whatever State they happen to be in fall by the wayside so they can try and make a ridiculously petty political point. (I love alliteration).
one word: entitlement
Is the feeling I have of hatred of republicans too strong???
What irks me the most is when I have friends, family or acquaintances quoting the garbage coming out of the GOP media machine. I just want to shake them say so they snap out of it.
I've recently reconnected with several people from high school, thanks to Facebook, so now I have to see their posts, and it amazes me that they're all still rabid right-wingers (and rascists), and do nothing but spout Fox talking points all day long. My high school had 2,100 students, all of them white (foothills of Southern California)
@Neil: No.
Florida is a key state for the republicans and having Rick Scott denying his constituents benefits available to the rest of the nation will only end badly for him and the republican party. (Yeah)
as soon as he figures out how to steal the funds, our GOV. SCOTT will happily accept the ACA FUNDS.
And we know where this is going - by refusing to set up exchanges, therefore triggering the federal goverment to do it for their states, these GOP governors will claim in attack ads that there's been a "gub'mint takover" of healthcare in their states, leaving out the part where they denied their constituents access to health insurance choices. It also gets them off the hook for any responsibility for how the exchanges pan out. They can freely snipe from the sidelines, while doing absolutely nothing. Typical GOP.
so exactly how will the federal government do it for their states- as you suggest? Supreme Court decision is somewhat clear that the fed can not mandate that the states expand Medicaid-
The Supreme Court decision says the federal government cannot penalize the states for failing to expand Medicaid - i.e., they cannot withdraw all Medicaid funding if the state does not set up an exchange. If the state doesn't set up an exchange, then that state's citizens will use an exchange set up for the state by the federal government - that's what I was referring to. Here's a good explanation:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Blog/2011/Jun/State-Health-Insurance-Exchange-Legislation.aspx
If these right-wing governors think that fighting the feds is a good strategy, maybe they should first hold a seance and discuss it with George Wallace and Francis Pickens.
Iowa Gov. Branstad also announced this morning that he "does not anticipate" Iowa expanding Medicaid. Hardly Shermanesque, but still not a good sign.
I thought the most disturbing part of his comments was that he didn't even want to talk about the issue. State Senator Hatch pointed out that accepting the Medicaid money would actually be a savings for the state (because we already cover some of the same people the Medicaid expansion would add), and has suggested a summit to discuss moving forward. Branstad declined, however, because he feels it would just result in a shouting match. Yet another Republican who is not interested in actually solving problems....
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/07/02/branstad-opposition-to-medicaid-expansion-could-rebuff-800-million-in-fed-aid/
The ACA will not go into effect completely until 2014. These obstructionist party line governors are sucking sour grapes and blowing out hot air. By the time their next election comes around they will be voted out due too their blatant disregard for the needs of their constituents. Their refusal to institute health care in their respective states will will be the final gesture that illustrates their hard hearted greed.
I hope it is their final gesture, but they still have another year to rape and pillage the impoverished working class. How low can you go Governors?
That's the real hope, isn't it? The people need to vote these terminally baneful Republicans OUT.
Actually, if they don't set up the health insurance exchange in the state by next January 20, the feds will step in and do it for them. The problem with that, according to what I've read, is not only actual federal intervention, but there's a problem with statutue, and federal subsidies may not be available for people who buy insurance from a federally run exchange. So people may not get help with buying insurance, but they'll still be liable for the financial penalty if they don't. That should produce a nice political backlash in those states.
Of course, they all believe the ACA will magically go away after Mitt win this November...so no use in even trying to plan for the possibility that he won't.
how can there be a problem with the statue? Thought it was written by all this great talent that figured out the perfect solution for health care?
"Timothy Jost of Washington and Lee University School of Law says that due to a simple "drafting error" it’s unclear whether the text of the law grants the federal government the ability to provide subsidies through these exchanges. (It fully intended it to.) And in such cases—ones that deal with textual interpretation rather than constitutionality—the Supreme Court usually defers to the administration implementing the law. In this case, assuming a Democratic administration is in power, Obamacare would stand."
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/104511/challenge-obamacare-conservative
The repulican party, should hide their head in shame, over their cry baby way thay are trying to hurt the people of america. It is clear, that thay are only for the rich, and if thay win, thay will dump the tea party on its butt, then laugh at for helping them take control of this country. Tea party members should realy look at what thay have done to this country, and ask themselves, one question. What the hell did I just do to this country?
No, they would rather know the food they ate was poisoned and die, when the antidote is under their noses.
I think we have to convince people more that this is going to be a big help for so many people, if they will take time to digest it, but they are refusing to taste the meal. Is that the wise thing or the reactionary thing?
Here's a timeline, pay attention to 2013, 2014 & 2015. If Romney is elected, those will all be gone, including preexisting conditions will be told to get lost.
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/full.html
http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/entry/five-ways-romneys-repeal-of-the-affordable-care-act-would-hurt-americans/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77332.html
I noticed Rmoney hands are seemingly always positioned to push down on something…. to say I will stop this, that, and the other thing. He says he will repeal ACA on day one. How? Also, all these people with 20 year old "children" on their health care plan would suddenly be having uninsured children or have to pay more for theirs?
This is what people all up in arms over a mandate that was approved by SCOTUS need to think about. Instead, the Republicans want people to get angry and feel abused, when this is designed from a Republican model plan.
If you have any question whether Republican governors will carry through on dumba$$ ideologically-driven threats, all you have to do is remember last summer's debt ceiling fiasco and the resulting Boehner credit downgrade.
They're nuts. And damn proud of it.
They are aggressively malicious, devoid of conscience, and incapable of shame.
This is a somewhat tangential topic, but I thought it might be worth noting. Governor Jindal R-LA, was on MTP this weekend and, while discussing the passage of the ACA, he mentioned how the Democrats passed the law under the cloture rules. During this portion of the discussion, he sounded almost offended that the Dems didn't have to achieve the new Senate definition of a majority (60 votes.) That's just my piece, thought it was interesting especially since he's on the short list for Romney's VP
I am not sure anyone has the answer to the question, whether people who are below 133% of FPL (federal poverty level), in a state without Medicaid Expansion, still get the benefit of the Exchange? The law assumes that the Exchange is for 133% to 400% FPL. If the Exchanges, which the feds will set up regardless, are open to everyone, then expanding Medicaid may be moot.
WI and ACA: Walker will do whatever is good for Walker and his political career. And that's about right-wing ideology, not logic, not the people of Wisconsin.
Well, if he doesn't implement the exchange himself the federal government will step in and do it for him. It won't look very good to the voters of Florida that their governor is so weak that the feds have to step in and force him to obey the law.
As for the guy responding to the first post who's saying, essentially, "don't blame Florida voters, the negative ads were pounded into them early and often": we do need to blame the voters of Florida. There are a plethora of options for finding out the truth about those ads, the fact that the voters of your state were too dumb/angry about OBUMBLE to find out the truth means that you got exactly what you deserved.
That is, and incompetent, corrupt jerk off who's going to run your state into the ground. Maybe next time, Floridians will think about their vote more.
Haha, who am I kidding?
It's not just Florida. Don't forget that the 2010 midterm results were nation-wide and the polls remain close. I'm not applauding that situation; simply observing it.
So Obama is going to sue Florida for not following Federal law, immediately after suing Arizona for following Federal law? It's good to be the King, no?
Aside from that, this is a bait and switch scheme. The Feds will pay for the first year, and then slowly go away leaving the state with a humongous program and no money. Only the left would think this is a good idea.
a little tip, Shooter, to help you spot such things more accurately: if Arizona were truly just following existing federal law, they wouldn't have had to pass SB 1070 to do it. Generally if you pass something separate from the existing federal law, its a pretty big clue for those who care to find it.
They're not going to sue Florida; just follow the federal statute and set up the pools when the state refuses to do so. As to Medicaid, the state doesn't have to accept the new money under the /supreme Court decision and the feds can't sue to try to make them accept it.
There are no lawsuits involved. Under the ACA as approved by the Supreme Court, if the state won't set up insurance pools, the feds are allowed to do it in their place and the state has no obligation to accept the increased funding for Medicaid.
Yeah, from 100% all the way down to 90%. Who wouldn't turn down 90%?
What an idiot!
Sadly Shooter, you are another misinformed wingnut. The Feds will pay 100% of the expansion the first 3 years and 90% thereafter. Another example of facts having a liberal bias.
@Shooter, not true - the fact of the matter regarding Medicaid expansion funding is:
"For the first two years, the federal government pays for 100 percent of the expansion. Starting in 2017, the states start chipping in, but they will never contribute more than 10 percent of the cost."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57465110-503544/states-opting-out-of-medicaid-expansion-could-leave-many-uninsured/
Kaiser Family Foundation detailed summary of the funding schedule (scroll to "Treatment of Medicaid"):
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf
so where is the 10% going to come from? The whole concept that the feds say- state you do this and by the way you pay for it. But in a sense not different that the ACA- where a lot of people may benefit but paid for by a few. Health care should be risk rated just like car insurance or life insurance. If you are overweight, smoke or whatever you should pay more than then those that try and be healthy. But not the ACA- you can be as unhealthy as you want- and then ask your fellow citizens to fund and/or subsidize your health insurance and your otherwise unhealthy lifestyle. What a great country.
@ST54, that is the entire point of the individual mandate, and why it was so important for it to be upheld. By increasing the pool of customers to a nationwide pool, the enrollees who are largely healthy offset the high costs for insurance companies of those who are chronically or severely ill, and it follows that because the customer pool is so large, the risk is spread around and that will reduce premiums for everyone. The only ones who will be freeloading their costs onto everyone else are those who enjoy being played for fools by GOP misinformation who will refuse to carry insurance though they can well afford it.
The ACA is also fully paid for - that's where the 10% comes from; you can read about how it is fully funded here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
Good links June, I stand corrected.
There are different motivations at work, depending on the state. Teh krazy is strong in the Iowa GOP and no Republican can resist it. Scott--well, he's an idiot who, thus far, has been isolated from any consequences for his idiocy by his supermajority in the Florida legislature. He's shown again and again and again that the fact that he's reached a level of wide-spread loathing in the polls that it took GWB eight years to achieve means nothing to him. So, of course, given the choice between doing a smart thing and doing the idiot thing, well, as it says in Proverbs 26:11, "[A]s a dog returneth to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly."
But down in the deep south? In Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and South Carolina? It's all about the dog whistle, baby! Down south, when you say "Medicaid," white Republicans hear "shiftless, lazy n*****rs and/or Mexicans defraudin' hard working white tax payers." Never mind that poor whites would benefit, never mind that millions of poor whites are already on Medicaid. Won't even make a dent on the thought process.
Getting poor and middle-class whites to support policies that hurt them if they think it will hurt blacks more has the mainstay of conservative politics in the south since Wade Hampton became governor of South Carolina in 1876. Only difference now is they're too polite to use the n-word.
I wrote a complete article and provided a blog where you can contribute your thoughts here on how Rick Scott refused Federal Funding for high speed rail in FLVisit it here: http://www.realcampaignfeeds.com