While more than half of our American U.S. states are proficient enough at math to conclude that free dollars from the federal government to expand healthcare access to low-income citizens is a really good deal, some Republicans who are terrible at math and terrible at legislating and terrible in general still can't quite add it up. Five years after passage of the Affordable Care Act, some red states are still debating, or outright refusing, free money
You seem nice .... except that the web sites have nothing to do with the health care provided or the law. As far as the Medicaid expansion "in a couple of years" .... have any facts or references or citations for that? Or is it just an anally extracted "fact"?
Your tale of woe hinges on your sentence, "All at the state's taxpayer expense."
This turns out to be total bullshit. States wasted a ton of money building their own exchanges compared to how much the federal website cost. This was a bad thing. But it was federal money. They weren't left hanging with empty promises.
Don't worry though. The Supreme Court will probably solve these problems by eliminating subsidies on the federal exchange and forcing all the states to build their own exchanges. It is the ideal Republican solution to any problem: fuck things up even more, have your brother's company profit from lucrative government contracts, then declare that government doesn't work.
I just wrote a paper on the potential impact of a ruling for the plaintiff in King v. Burwell. The stupidity, partisan or general, of at least 30 state governments is staggering.
The subsidies are available to families earning up to 400% of the FPL. A family of 4 earning $95k per year has their premium expense capped at 9.5% of their annual income. No subsidies in 34 states will result in approximately 16 million newly uninsured people in 2016. This affects my family. Shit is personal.
You do understand that the actual correct part of your previous post was that every single one of the state exchanges was far more expensive per person covered than the Federal site, right?
Because what you just said makes absolutely no sense in light of any of the evidence we have. From what I remember reading, there may have been some over-charging by the company that built the Federal site, but it works like a dream compared to every other effort at doing the same thing This strongly suggests it may have been the job itself that was difficult rather than the company being wasteful and incompetent.
Which do they hate more? Poorz or Obama?
Is this a trick question?I guess Hillary
"For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee!"
All of them, Katie.
...banks, hedge funds, ranchers, corn and sugar...
Huh, the stuff one learns on Wonkette.
Still, Republican legislature.
You seem nice .... except that the web sites have nothing to do with the health care provided or the law. As far as the Medicaid expansion "in a couple of years" .... have any facts or references or citations for that? Or is it just an anally extracted "fact"?
If it was called 'The Bridge to Nowhere' Alaska would be all over it like wine coolers and a abstinence believer .....
Whichever one they're talking about at the moment.
Your facts suck:
http://www.csmonitor.com/US...
Your tale of woe hinges on your sentence, "All at the state's taxpayer expense."
This turns out to be total bullshit. States wasted a ton of money building their own exchanges compared to how much the federal website cost. This was a bad thing. But it was federal money. They weren't left hanging with empty promises.
Don't worry though. The Supreme Court will probably solve these problems by eliminating subsidies on the federal exchange and forcing all the states to build their own exchanges. It is the ideal Republican solution to any problem: fuck things up even more, have your brother's company profit from lucrative government contracts, then declare that government doesn't work.
The comments on the GoFu**Yourself (okay, okay GoFundMe) page are spectacular.
I just wrote a paper on the potential impact of a ruling for the plaintiff in King v. Burwell. The stupidity, partisan or general, of at least 30 state governments is staggering.
The subsidies are available to families earning up to 400% of the FPL. A family of 4 earning $95k per year has their premium expense capped at 9.5% of their annual income. No subsidies in 34 states will result in approximately 16 million newly uninsured people in 2016. This affects my family. Shit is personal.
Praying that's the case. I'd take a sane Congress and any white, male POTUS just to get the temper tantrums to stop.
You do understand that the actual correct part of your previous post was that every single one of the state exchanges was far more expensive per person covered than the Federal site, right?
Because what you just said makes absolutely no sense in light of any of the evidence we have. From what I remember reading, there may have been some over-charging by the company that built the Federal site, but it works like a dream compared to every other effort at doing the same thing This strongly suggests it may have been the job itself that was difficult rather than the company being wasteful and incompetent.