How will your state's Health Exchange Look?

Unabogie · 1st July 2012, 02:11 PM

Now that Obamacare has been upheld, it will now be up to each state to implement its own vision of how to create an insurance exchange.

I have to be honest, I haven't been following how my state will do this, since there was so much uncertainty about whether or not the law would be struck down.

But how will your state's exchange look?

Here' how Oregon is doing it:

http://www.orhix.org/faqs.html

So my lay understanding is that it will work like this:

Oregon created a public corporation to oversee the exchanges. The corporation will create a "benchmark" plan from which to compare plans on the exchanges. People will get help on buying a plan all the way up to $92,0000. Some other notable features:

Employers can use a set dollar amount that goes directly towards the exchange. Then employees can choose any plan on the exchange and pay the difference, if one exists. That seems like you get your pick of any plan, which is far different than now, where you have to go with the insurer your employer chooses.
There's lots of auditing to make sure it's working.
The projections are that within one year, it'll be self-sustaining based on fees from the insurance companies.
Companies will get tax credits for buying plans on the exchanges.

So what will your state do?

shemp · 1st July 2012, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Now that Obamacare has been upheld, it will now be up to each state to implement its obeen following how my state will do this, since there was so much uncertainty about whether or not the law would be struck down.

But how will your state's exchange look?

Here' how Oregon is doing it:
wn vision of how to create an insurance exchange.

I have to be honest, I haven't
http://www.orhix.org/faqs.html

So my lay understanding is that it will work like this:

Oregon created a public corporation to oversee the exchanges. The corporation will create a "benchmark" plan from which to compare plans on the exchanges. People will get help on buying a plan all the way up to $92,0000. Some other notable features:

Employers can use a set dollar amount that goes directly towards the exchange. Then employees can choose any plan on the exchange and pay the difference, if one exists. That seems like you get your pick of any plan, which is far different than now, where you have to go with the insurer your employer chooses.
There's lots of auditing to make sure it's working.
The projections are that within one year, it'll be self-sustaining based on fees from the insurance companies.
Companies will get tax credits for buying plans on the exchanges.

So what will your state do?

New Hampshire? Dick.

Unabogie · 1st July 2012, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by shemp

New Hampshire? Dick.

So they will refuse to set up an exchange at all? Apparently the deadline is fast approaching before the Feds take over.

Next question is: what would the federal version look like, if a Governor just refuses to come up with anything?

The Dark Lord · 1st July 2012, 05:52 PM

The AZ government isn't too happy about the ruling. But it looks like they are going to go ahead and implement the exchange because they think it is better than they feds doing it.

Unabogie · 1st July 2012, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

The AZ government isn't too happy about the ruling. But it looks like they are going to go ahead and implement the exchange because they think it is better than they feds doing it.

Any word on how they'll set it up? My understanding is that it can be in any form that hits the number of insured with coverage that meets the federal standard. Vermont is going single payer, perhaps.

What will AZ do <shudder>?

The Dark Lord · 1st July 2012, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Any word on how they'll set it up? My understanding is that it can be in any form that hits the number of insured with coverage that meets the federal standard. Vermont is going single payer, perhaps.

What will AZ do <shudder>?

As far as I am aware, they haven't released anything about how they might implement it.

KoihimeNakamura · 1st July 2012, 06:22 PM

Washngton has a few policy documents up for analysis. I'll take a look at it tommorow, but it's going to spend time.

ETA: It seems they're simply going to be a market for 'pick these 3 or 4 plans'

fuelair · 1st July 2012, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Now that Obamacare has been upheld, it will now be up to each state to implement its own vision of how to create an insurance exchange.

I have to be honest, I haven't been following how my state will do this, since there was so much uncertainty about whether or not the law would be struck down.

But how will your state's exchange look?

Here' how Oregon is doing it:

http://www.orhix.org/faqs.html

So my lay understanding is that it will work like this:

Oregon created a public corporation to oversee the exchanges. The corporation will create a "benchmark" plan from which to compare plans on the exchanges. People will get help on buying a plan all the way up to $92,0000. Some other notable features:

Employers can use a set dollar amount that goes directly towards the exchange. Then employees can choose any plan on the exchange and pay the difference, if one exists. That seems like you get your pick of any plan, which is far different than now, where you have to go with the insurer your employer chooses.
There's lots of auditing to make sure it's working.
The projections are that within one year, it'll be self-sustaining based on fees from the insurance companies.
Companies will get tax credits for buying plans on the exchanges.

So what will your state do?

Like so many other things our "Governor" will make sure it is a steaming pile of fecal matter. Would love to see it eat same.

WildCat · 1st July 2012, 09:18 PM

They haven't started it here yet, but this being Illinois it likely will go down like this: Mike Madigan and his Dem-bots will huddle together in secret while Madigan puts together a list of cronies and insiders who will be given 6 figure part-time jobs with full benefits and a pension after 6 hard days of work to administer the program. They will recommend that a study be done to study the issue, and another group of cronies and insiders will miraculously win the contract to study the issue. After cashing several million dollars in state-issued checks they will come up with a plan to create the exchange. Madigan and the Dem-bots will ignore this plan, and form another group of cronies and insiders to do it all over again. Yada yada yada, eventually we'll have an insurance exchange that features at most 3 insurance companies, all of which will have hired ex-Illinois legislators and influence peddlers to get a seat at the table. They will offer Illinois citizens one of the most expensive plans in the country, with the least benefits. Insiders and cronies will walk away with millions while Illinois taxpayers hand over sacks of cash.

Halfcentaur · 1st July 2012, 09:40 PM

Last I heard the Oklahoma governor was frustrated and disappointed with the supreme court for this ruling.

PhantomWolf · 1st July 2012, 09:57 PM

What still amazes me is that Americans are paying more out of their taxes for health care that they can't use than virtually every "socialist" country in the world with a 'free" medical care system, and then have to go and pay huge money to insurance companies to get covered. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The Insurance companies are making huge profits, the hospitals are making huge profits, the pharmacutical companies are making huge profits, but it seems no one is willing to ask who is paying for those profits.

The Dark Lord · 1st July 2012, 10:07 PM

I don't pay huge money to my insurance company (unless you think that $65/month is huge money) but yeah, I get your point.

Pope130 · 1st July 2012, 10:13 PM

Just read the Oregon plan. Even they say it won't reduce costs, and that it "shouldn't" increase costs. At work we've been told that benefits will decrease and costs will increase. We have a three tier plan. We will have a new basic plan, with less benefits than the current basic plan, at a slightly higher cost. The new middle tier is the old basic plan, higher price still. The top plan will not be quite as good as the old middle plan. I take this as a pretty authoritative answer, as the company I work for is owned by a health insurance company.

Fortunately, I don't participate in the company plan, I'm still covered by my old job (and haven't used that in the last fifteen years anyway).

gabeygoat · 1st July 2012, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Pope130

Just read the Oregon plan. Even they say it won't reduce costs, and that it "shouldn't" increase costs. At work we've been told that benefits will decrease and costs will increase. We have a three tier plan. We will have a new basic plan, with less benefits than the current basic plan, at a slightly higher cost. The new middle tier is the old basic plan, higher price still. The top plan will not be quite as good as the old middle plan. I take this as a pretty authoritative answer, as the company I work for is owned by a health insurance company.

Fortunately, I don't participate in the company plan, I'm still covered by my old job (and haven't used that in the last fifteen years anyway).

I'm pretty sure the exchanges are set up for people who aren't covered by their employer.

Unabogie · 1st July 2012, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by gabeygoat

I'm pretty sure the exchanges are set up for people who aren't covered by their employer.

Right. They are. Also, they haven't announced the benchmark plan, so no one knows what the tiered plans will be, yet.

Pope130 · 1st July 2012, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by gabeygoat

I'm pretty sure the exchanges are set up for people who aren't covered by their employer.

Initialy they will be optional for companies with existing coverage. It is not clear to me whether that will remain the case.

I should have made it clear that the details of the Oregon plan, and the effect Obamacare has at work are separate issues.

Beerina · 2nd July 2012, 11:42 AM

The OP assumes states will set them up. IIRC, Florida just bailed.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

So they will refuse to set up an exchange at all? Apparently the deadline is fast approaching before the Feds take over.

Next question is: what would the federal version look like, if a Governor just refuses to come up with anything?

What will it look like? It will look like the Democrat-controlled federal government is beating up one of the largest states just before a presidential election.

Accidental Martyr · 2nd July 2012, 12:23 PM

I'm sure here in Alabama everything possible will be done to make sure nothing that Pres. Obama supports will ever get implemented and no one who needs it will be able to get affordable health care.

Unabogie · 2nd July 2012, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

The OP assumes states will set them up. IIRC, Florida just bailed.

What will it look like? It will look like the Democrat-controlled federal government is beating up one of the largest states just before a presidential election.

I get that you don't support the law. But there's already a thread on the ruling itself, and several on the law itself. I was hoping that people could discuss the various ways different states are approaching this, since we'll have 50 different ways of solving the same problem.

What state are you in and how will your state set it up?

pgwenthold · 2nd July 2012, 01:03 PM

I disagree that having the feds having to come in and do it will look like federal intrusion. It will look more like the states being pissy and refusing to set up these exchanges to give their citizens healthcare options. For sure, if I were the president, that's how I'd characterize it. Insurance exchanges are designed to benefit the citizens, to keep costs down. Your state refuses to do it. What does that tell you about what your state thinks of you?

korenyx · 2nd July 2012, 01:09 PM

I have no idea because Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback returned the federal money.

theprestige · 2nd July 2012, 01:14 PM

California: Not sure yet, but almost certainly under-funded and over-managed.

Which is to say, adequately but not generously funded, somehow not producing results commensurate with the funding it receives, hotly defended against any cuts by the program staff, and constantly with its hand out for more funds so that it can hypothetically achieve the results expected from the funds already allocated.

Unabogie · 2nd July 2012, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

California: Not sure yet, but almost certainly under-funded and over-managed.

Which is to say, adequately but not generously funded, somehow not producing results commensurate with the funding it receives, hotly defended against any cuts by the program staff, and constantly with its hand out for more funds so that it can hypothetically achieve the results expected from the funds already allocated.

It's not funded by taxes. It's paid for by the insurance companies paying a fee. Are you in CA? Any word on what the system will look like? As I understand it, it can be literally any program at all, so long as they have benchmark health plans and an open market.

threejr · 2nd July 2012, 01:54 PM

Ohio is going to wait for the federal exchange, which, according to our Lt. Governor, is the "lesser of two evils". I think what they are actually doing is hoping against hope that Obama loses and they can somehow forget the whole thing.

Complicating things is a state constitutional amendment passed here in November, which prohibits Ohioans from being forced to participate in any health care system. We have a lawyer here all set to sue should the federal mandate be initiated.

Should be interesting to see what happens next.

WildCat · 2nd July 2012, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

It's not funded by taxes. It's paid for by the insurance companies paying a fee.

Where does the insurance company get the money?

Unabogie · 2nd July 2012, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Where does the insurance company get the money?

Please stop trying to derail. I would like this thread to be about educating posters about how the states will set up the exchanges. There are other threads to debate the merits of the bill.

Thanks.

theprestige · 2nd July 2012, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

It's not funded by taxes.

I never said it was.

Quote:

It's paid for by the insurance companies paying a fee.

And if the state government showed any more competence at administering programs funded by "fees from merchants" than it does at administering programs funded by "taxes from citizens", that would be a worthwhile distinction.

As it is, I'm left wondering what it is you think is so magical about taxes that California tends to end up administering programs such as I described, or so magical about fees that this program will be different somehow.

Quote:

Are you in CA? Any word on what the system will look like? As I understand it, it can be literally any program at all, so long as they have benchmark health plans and an open market.

Yes. Not yet. I'm sure California will find some way to stuff it up even so.

Unabogie · 2nd July 2012, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by threejr

Ohio is going to wait for the federal exchange, which, according to our Lt. Governor, is the "lesser of two evils". I think what they are actually doing is hoping against hope that Obama loses and they can somehow forget the whole thing.

Complicating things is a state constitutional amendment passed here in November, which prohibits Ohioans from being forced to participate in any health care system. We have a lawyer here all set to sue should the federal mandate be initiated.

Should be interesting to see what happens next.

I can't see how that will fly. Now that Obamacare has been upheld, there is no precedent for refusing to follow federal laws. I think the deadline is in a few months, right?

Howie Felterbush · 2nd July 2012, 02:23 PM

Well, depending on who you ask, ours is either going to be located at the end of a rainbow with free candy kisses and balloons for everyone, or it's going to be a drab, concrete box with a hammer and sickle painted on the side in baby's blood.

I expect the truth lies somewhere in between these two ideas.

Unabogie · 2nd July 2012, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I never said it was.

And if the state government showed any more competence at administering programs funded by "fees from merchants" than it does at administering programs funded by "taxes from citizens", that would be a worthwhile distinction.

As it is, I'm left wondering what it is you think is so magical about taxes that California tends to end up administering programs such as I described, or so magical about fees that this program will be different somehow.

Yes. Not yet. I'm sure California will find some way to stuff it up even so.

I'm not claiming that anything is magical. I am trying to see what the different states are doing. It's a pretty important undertaking, and instead of spending my time researching each state, I opted to ask my fellow JREFers, so I'm hoping to keep the thread on topic.

AlBell · 2nd July 2012, 02:56 PM

FL, waiting for the feds plan.

Kestrel · 2nd July 2012, 03:08 PM

the Colorado Health Benefit Exchange has a website up and is planning to open for business in October 2013.

Unabogie · 2nd July 2012, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

the Colorado Health Benefit Exchange has a website up and is planning to open for business in October 2013.

Thank you. So far, most of the states are doing the vanilla version. An online shopping site that is sort of like eInsurance, except it's run by the state and uses a baseline coverage metric.

Nothing too innovative or exotic.

http://dvha.vermont.gov/administrati...fits-exchange/

Vermont will be the only state I know of with a pure single-payer system.

So no private insurance in Vermont, at all, if you don't want it!

1st July 2012, 02:11 PM	#1
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,846	How will your state's Health Exchange Look? Now that Obamacare has been upheld, it will now be up to each state to implement its own vision of how to create an insurance exchange. I have to be honest, I haven't been following how my state will do this, since there was so much uncertainty about whether or not the law would be struck down. But how will your state's exchange look? Here' how Oregon is doing it: http://www.orhix.org/faqs.html So my lay understanding is that it will work like this: Oregon created a public corporation to oversee the exchanges. The corporation will create a "benchmark" plan from which to compare plans on the exchanges. People will get help on buying a plan all the way up to $92,0000. Some other notable features: Employers can use a set dollar amount that goes directly towards the exchange. Then employees can choose any plan on the exchange and pay the difference, if one exists. That seems like you get your pick of any plan, which is far different than now, where you have to go with the insurer your employer chooses. There's lots of auditing to make sure it's working. The projections are that within one year, it'll be self-sustaining based on fees from the insurance companies. Companies will get tax credits for buying plans on the exchanges. So what will your state do?

1st July 2012, 05:04 PM	#2
shemp Timothy, Timothy, where on earth did you go? Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: trapped in a cave-in with Joe Posts: 12,885	Originally Posted by Unabogie Now that Obamacare has been upheld, it will now be up to each state to implement its obeen following how my state will do this, since there was so much uncertainty about whether or not the law would be struck down. But how will your state's exchange look? Here' how Oregon is doing it: wn vision of how to create an insurance exchange. I have to be honest, I haven't http://www.orhix.org/faqs.html So my lay understanding is that it will work like this: Oregon created a public corporation to oversee the exchanges. The corporation will create a "benchmark" plan from which to compare plans on the exchanges. People will get help on buying a plan all the way up to $92,0000. Some other notable features: Employers can use a set dollar amount that goes directly towards the exchange. Then employees can choose any plan on the exchange and pay the difference, if one exists. That seems like you get your pick of any plan, which is far different than now, where you have to go with the insurer your employer chooses. There's lots of auditing to make sure it's working. The projections are that within one year, it'll be self-sustaining based on fees from the insurance companies. Companies will get tax credits for buying plans on the exchanges. So what will your state do? New Hampshire? Dick.
	__________________ Church on Sunday, sleep and nod Tryin' to duck the wrath of God Preacher's fillin' us with fright Tryin' to tell us what he thinks is right He really got to be some kind of nut (I can't use it!) Tryin' to make it real - compared to what?

1st July 2012, 05:52 PM	#4
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860	The AZ government isn't too happy about the ruling. But it looks like they are going to go ahead and implement the exchange because they think it is better than they feds doing it.
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860

1st July 2012, 06:08 PM	#6
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860	Originally Posted by Unabogie Any word on how they'll set it up? My understanding is that it can be in any form that hits the number of insured with coverage that meets the federal standard. Vermont is going single payer, perhaps. What will AZ do <shudder>? As far as I am aware, they haven't released anything about how they might implement it.
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860

1st July 2012, 06:22 PM	#7
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,852	Washngton has a few policy documents up for analysis. I'll take a look at it tommorow, but it's going to spend time. ETA: It seems they're simply going to be a market for 'pick these 3 or 4 plans'
	__________________ Don't mind me. Last edited by KoihimeNakamura; 1st July 2012 at 06:28 PM.

1st July 2012, 05:45 PM	#3
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,846	Originally Posted by shemp New Hampshire? Dick. So they will refuse to set up an exchange at all? Apparently the deadline is fast approaching before the Feds take over. Next question is: what would the federal version look like, if a Governor just refuses to come up with anything?

1st July 2012, 06:00 PM	#5
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,846	Originally Posted by The Dark Lord The AZ government isn't too happy about the ruling. But it looks like they are going to go ahead and implement the exchange because they think it is better than they feds doing it. Any word on how they'll set it up? My understanding is that it can be in any form that hits the number of insured with coverage that meets the federal standard. Vermont is going single payer, perhaps. What will AZ do <shudder>?

1st July 2012, 09:00 PM	#8
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,911	Originally Posted by Unabogie Now that Obamacare has been upheld, it will now be up to each state to implement its own vision of how to create an insurance exchange. I have to be honest, I haven't been following how my state will do this, since there was so much uncertainty about whether or not the law would be struck down. But how will your state's exchange look? Here' how Oregon is doing it: http://www.orhix.org/faqs.html So my lay understanding is that it will work like this: Oregon created a public corporation to oversee the exchanges. The corporation will create a "benchmark" plan from which to compare plans on the exchanges. People will get help on buying a plan all the way up to $92,0000. Some other notable features: Employers can use a set dollar amount that goes directly towards the exchange. Then employees can choose any plan on the exchange and pay the difference, if one exists. That seems like you get your pick of any plan, which is far different than now, where you have to go with the insurer your employer chooses. There's lots of auditing to make sure it's working. The projections are that within one year, it'll be self-sustaining based on fees from the insurance companies. Companies will get tax credits for buying plans on the exchanges. So what will your state do? Like so many other things our "Governor" will make sure it is a steaming pile of fecal matter. Would love to see it eat same.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,911	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

1st July 2012, 09:18 PM	#9
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,985	They haven't started it here yet, but this being Illinois it likely will go down like this: Mike Madigan and his Dem-bots will huddle together in secret while Madigan puts together a list of cronies and insiders who will be given 6 figure part-time jobs with full benefits and a pension after 6 hard days of work to administer the program. They will recommend that a study be done to study the issue, and another group of cronies and insiders will miraculously win the contract to study the issue. After cashing several million dollars in state-issued checks they will come up with a plan to create the exchange. Madigan and the Dem-bots will ignore this plan, and form another group of cronies and insiders to do it all over again. Yada yada yada, eventually we'll have an insurance exchange that features at most 3 insurance companies, all of which will have hired ex-Illinois legislators and influence peddlers to get a seat at the table. They will offer Illinois citizens one of the most expensive plans in the country, with the least benefits. Insiders and cronies will walk away with millions while Illinois taxpayers hand over sacks of cash.
	Last edited by WildCat; 1st July 2012 at 09:19 PM.

1st July 2012, 09:40 PM	#10
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,944	Last I heard the Oklahoma governor was frustrated and disappointed with the supreme court for this ruling.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,944

1st July 2012, 09:57 PM	#11
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,905	What still amazes me is that Americans are paying more out of their taxes for health care that they can't use than virtually every "socialist" country in the world with a 'free" medical care system, and then have to go and pay huge money to insurance companies to get covered. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The Insurance companies are making huge profits, the hospitals are making huge profits, the pharmacutical companies are making huge profits, but it seems no one is willing to ask who is paying for those profits.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

1st July 2012, 10:07 PM	#12
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860	I don't pay huge money to my insurance company (unless you think that $65/month is huge money) but yeah, I get your point.
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860

1st July 2012, 10:13 PM	#13
Pope130 Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Oregon Posts: 965	Just read the Oregon plan. Even they say it won't reduce costs, and that it "shouldn't" increase costs. At work we've been told that benefits will decrease and costs will increase. We have a three tier plan. We will have a new basic plan, with less benefits than the current basic plan, at a slightly higher cost. The new middle tier is the old basic plan, higher price still. The top plan will not be quite as good as the old middle plan. I take this as a pretty authoritative answer, as the company I work for is owned by a health insurance company. Fortunately, I don't participate in the company plan, I'm still covered by my old job (and haven't used that in the last fifteen years anyway).
	Last edited by Pope130; 1st July 2012 at 10:15 PM.

1st July 2012, 10:17 PM	#14
gabeygoat Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hard Corvallis, Oregon Posts: 667	Originally Posted by Pope130 Just read the Oregon plan. Even they say it won't reduce costs, and that it "shouldn't" increase costs. At work we've been told that benefits will decrease and costs will increase. We have a three tier plan. We will have a new basic plan, with less benefits than the current basic plan, at a slightly higher cost. The new middle tier is the old basic plan, higher price still. The top plan will not be quite as good as the old middle plan. I take this as a pretty authoritative answer, as the company I work for is owned by a health insurance company. Fortunately, I don't participate in the company plan, I'm still covered by my old job (and haven't used that in the last fifteen years anyway). I'm pretty sure the exchanges are set up for people who aren't covered by their employer.

1st July 2012, 10:36 PM	#15
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,846	Originally Posted by gabeygoat I'm pretty sure the exchanges are set up for people who aren't covered by their employer. Right. They are. Also, they haven't announced the benchmark plan, so no one knows what the tiered plans will be, yet.
	Last edited by Unabogie; 1st July 2012 at 10:37 PM.

1st July 2012, 10:41 PM	#16
Pope130 Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Oregon Posts: 965	Originally Posted by gabeygoat I'm pretty sure the exchanges are set up for people who aren't covered by their employer. Initialy they will be optional for companies with existing coverage. It is not clear to me whether that will remain the case. I should have made it clear that the details of the Oregon plan, and the effect Obamacare has at work are separate issues.
	Last edited by Pope130; 1st July 2012 at 10:45 PM.

2nd July 2012, 11:42 AM	#17
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	The OP assumes states will set them up. IIRC, Florida just bailed. Originally Posted by Unabogie So they will refuse to set up an exchange at all? Apparently the deadline is fast approaching before the Feds take over. Next question is: what would the federal version look like, if a Governor just refuses to come up with anything? What will it look like? It will look like the Democrat-controlled federal government is beating up one of the largest states just before a presidential election.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? Last edited by Beerina; 2nd July 2012 at 11:45 AM.

2nd July 2012, 12:23 PM	#18
Accidental Martyr Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Treading water in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry. Posts: 1,852	I'm sure here in Alabama everything possible will be done to make sure nothing that Pres. Obama supports will ever get implemented and no one who needs it will be able to get affordable health care.
	__________________ "Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!" Kurt Vonnegut

2nd July 2012, 12:42 PM	#19
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,846	Originally Posted by Beerina The OP assumes states will set them up. IIRC, Florida just bailed. What will it look like? It will look like the Democrat-controlled federal government is beating up one of the largest states just before a presidential election. I get that you don't support the law. But there's already a thread on the ruling itself, and several on the law itself. I was hoping that people could discuss the various ways different states are approaching this, since we'll have 50 different ways of solving the same problem. What state are you in and how will your state set it up?

2nd July 2012, 01:03 PM	#20
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,067	I disagree that having the feds having to come in and do it will look like federal intrusion. It will look more like the states being pissy and refusing to set up these exchanges to give their citizens healthcare options. For sure, if I were the president, that's how I'd characterize it. Insurance exchanges are designed to benefit the citizens, to keep costs down. Your state refuses to do it. What does that tell you about what your state thinks of you?
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

2nd July 2012, 01:09 PM	#21
korenyx Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: 19th Century Kansas Posts: 827	I have no idea because Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback returned the federal money.

2nd July 2012, 01:14 PM	#22
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,565	California: Not sure yet, but almost certainly under-funded and over-managed. Which is to say, adequately but not generously funded, somehow not producing results commensurate with the funding it receives, hotly defended against any cuts by the program staff, and constantly with its hand out for more funds so that it can hypothetically achieve the results expected from the funds already allocated.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,565

2nd July 2012, 01:30 PM	#23
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,846	Originally Posted by theprestige California: Not sure yet, but almost certainly under-funded and over-managed. Which is to say, adequately but not generously funded, somehow not producing results commensurate with the funding it receives, hotly defended against any cuts by the program staff, and constantly with its hand out for more funds so that it can hypothetically achieve the results expected from the funds already allocated. It's not funded by taxes. It's paid for by the insurance companies paying a fee. Are you in CA? Any word on what the system will look like? As I understand it, it can be literally any program at all, so long as they have benchmark health plans and an open market.

2nd July 2012, 01:54 PM	#24
threejr Thinker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 226	Ohio is going to wait for the federal exchange, which, according to our Lt. Governor, is the "lesser of two evils". I think what they are actually doing is hoping against hope that Obama loses and they can somehow forget the whole thing. Complicating things is a state constitutional amendment passed here in November, which prohibits Ohioans from being forced to participate in any health care system. We have a lawyer here all set to sue should the federal mandate be initiated. Should be interesting to see what happens next.
threejr Thinker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 226

2nd July 2012, 02:04 PM	#25
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,985	Originally Posted by Unabogie It's not funded by taxes. It's paid for by the insurance companies paying a fee. Where does the insurance company get the money?

2nd July 2012, 02:09 PM	#26
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,846	Originally Posted by WildCat Where does the insurance company get the money? Please stop trying to derail. I would like this thread to be about educating posters about how the states will set up the exchanges. There are other threads to debate the merits of the bill. Thanks.

2nd July 2012, 02:11 PM	#27
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,565	Originally Posted by Unabogie It's not funded by taxes. I never said it was. Quote: It's paid for by the insurance companies paying a fee. And if the state government showed any more competence at administering programs funded by "fees from merchants" than it does at administering programs funded by "taxes from citizens", that would be a worthwhile distinction. As it is, I'm left wondering what it is you think is so magical about taxes that California tends to end up administering programs such as I described, or so magical about fees that this program will be different somehow. Quote: Are you in CA? Any word on what the system will look like? As I understand it, it can be literally any program at all, so long as they have benchmark health plans and an open market. Yes. Not yet. I'm sure California will find some way to stuff it up even so.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,565

2nd July 2012, 02:14 PM	#28
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,846	Originally Posted by threejr Ohio is going to wait for the federal exchange, which, according to our Lt. Governor, is the "lesser of two evils". I think what they are actually doing is hoping against hope that Obama loses and they can somehow forget the whole thing. Complicating things is a state constitutional amendment passed here in November, which prohibits Ohioans from being forced to participate in any health care system. We have a lawyer here all set to sue should the federal mandate be initiated. Should be interesting to see what happens next. I can't see how that will fly. Now that Obamacare has been upheld, there is no precedent for refusing to follow federal laws. I think the deadline is in a few months, right?

2nd July 2012, 02:23 PM	#29
Howie Felterbush Bow Tie Daddy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: In the twilight, singing all the old lullabies Posts: 5,333	Well, depending on who you ask, ours is either going to be located at the end of a rainbow with free candy kisses and balloons for everyone, or it's going to be a drab, concrete box with a hammer and sickle painted on the side in baby's blood. I expect the truth lies somewhere in between these two ideas.
	__________________ "Don't be too offended by the likes of him - I hear he doesn't even own ascots." -JoeyDonuts "I must be more tired than I thought. Howie, you are starting to make sense." -MG1962 "You're a mean old evil cynic. And mean." Halfcentaur

2nd July 2012, 02:40 PM	#30
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,846	Originally Posted by theprestige I never said it was. And if the state government showed any more competence at administering programs funded by "fees from merchants" than it does at administering programs funded by "taxes from citizens", that would be a worthwhile distinction. As it is, I'm left wondering what it is you think is so magical about taxes that California tends to end up administering programs such as I described, or so magical about fees that this program will be different somehow. Yes. Not yet. I'm sure California will find some way to stuff it up even so. I'm not claiming that anything is magical. I am trying to see what the different states are doing. It's a pretty important undertaking, and instead of spending my time researching each state, I opted to ask my fellow JREFers, so I'm hoping to keep the thread on topic.

2nd July 2012, 02:56 PM	#31
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,490	FL, waiting for the feds plan.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,490	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real.

2nd July 2012, 03:08 PM	#32
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,203	the Colorado Health Benefit Exchange has a website up and is planning to open for business in October 2013.

2nd July 2012, 04:12 PM	#33
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,846	Originally Posted by Kestrel the Colorado Health Benefit Exchange has a website up and is planning to open for business in October 2013. Thank you. So far, most of the states are doing the vanilla version. An online shopping site that is sort of like eInsurance, except it's run by the state and uses a baseline coverage metric. Nothing too innovative or exotic. http://dvha.vermont.gov/administrati...fits-exchange/ Vermont will be the only state I know of with a pure single-payer system. So no private insurance in Vermont, at all, if you don't want it!