Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Monday, June 25, 2018

States Saying No To Health Care Marketplaces Is Good News

States Saying No To Health Care Marketplaces Is Good News

Obamacare has a better chance at success if it’s taken out of the hands of Republican governors who want to see it fail.

The headlines – “Many States Say ‘No’ to Health Insurance Exchanges,” to take one example – make it seem like bad news. But it’s not. It is good news that half the states are refusing to have anything to do with the new health insurance marketplaces being set up under the Affordable Care Act.

One of the biggest differences between the good version of Obamacare passed by the House and the mediocre Senate version that became law was the question of whether the federal government or states would run the new health insurance marketplaces (called “exchanges” in the law). But resistance by Republican governors is leading to implementation of the law in a way that is much closer to the vision in the House bill.

The new health marketplaces are the centerpiece of Obamacare, the mechanisms through which people who don’t get health coverage at work but make too much for Medicaid will be able to purchase subsidized health coverage, even if they have a pre-existing condition. The marketplaces, which are projected to cover 12 million people in 2012 and 29 million by 2021, will also offer more affordable insurance plans to small businesses.

The House legislation would have had the federal government run the marketplaces while allowing states the option of taking over if they could demonstrate the ability to do at least as good a job. Consumer advocates hoped that the result would be a good national marketplace, with some exemplary states demonstrating how to do an even better job at providing quality coverage and good access while controlling costs.

But the Senate legislation, which became law, gave the primary responsibility to each state to set up a marketplace, with the federal government as backup. Advocates were not pleased for two reasons. The first was a concern that states would do a very minimal job of protecting consumers. The second worry was that states would fumble the complicated task of getting the exchanges up and running by October 1, 2013, when they are open for enrollment.

In reality, the reluctance of so many Republican governors to cooperate with Obamacare has led to the creation of a system that looks more like the House bill. The federal government will run the exchanges in 25 states and will have primary responsibility, in partnership with states, in seven more.

The last thing consumers needed was for governors who want the ACA to fail – like Florida’s Rick Scott and Texas’ Rick Perry – to be in charge of the law’s implementation. We can be sure that governors in these states would do the minimum amount under the law to sign people up or to protect consumers from high-priced, poor-quality health insurance plans.

On the other hand, some of the states that have decided to set up their own marketplaces are doing what the authors of the House law hoped: being models. Massachusetts, which has been running a marketplace since 2007, is the trailblazer. The state did an excellent job promoting health care coverage and making it easy to sign up, either online or in person. There are strict conflict-of-interest protections for the individuals who govern the marketplace. And they have only contracted with health insurance providers, including community providers, that offer quality coverage at a reasonable cost. As a result, premium inflation has been low.

15 Responses to States Saying No To Health Care Marketplaces Is Good News

  1. I cannot understand why Dems support “for profit health care” so much. This failed republiCON policy, made law by the “trickle down” expert in 1982 should have been repealed but the first thing Obama did was to reinforce this failed republiCON policy supported by most Dems.

    The best way to fix the health care problem is to remove Obama’s friends from it but that would mean that wall street would be forced out and there is no way Obama is going to jepordize those board positions that will pay him 2 MILLION per year for doing nothing.

    Remember the Who tune?

    We got fooled again.

    • I would have preferred a single payer system, but I understand that major changes in direction can only be achieved incrementally. If a system that uses for profit insurance companies to administer it is labeled “socialist”, can you imagine what would have happened if the administration had insisted on a system similar to those in the UK, Canada and other industrialized nations? What a lot of Americans don’t seem to understand, or don’t want to hear, is that in addition to moral considerations and improvements derived from the availability of effective and affordable healthcare, our industry would benefit and would be more competitive if they were relieved from the burden of corporate-funded insurance coverage for their employees. The latter represents almost half of the cost of the benefit package that most corporations offer to their employees. That cost is built in into the services and products they offer, making them so expensive that we can’t compete against other industrialized nations.

      • Really, Dominick? Then how was raygun able to implement the 1982 health care bill that legalized “for profit” health care and ordered the sale of all county owned, taxpayer built and paid for hospitals, sold to the “for profi” cabal, over night with NO push back from the Dems?

        Just think how our health care system would be today if the Dems fought the “for profit” cabal as hard as republiCONs have fought the concept of birth control and abortion.

        Hence, my opinion that Obama is a plant and just a continuation of the republiCON plan.

  2. Last June,I had a emergency gall bladder attack. I had been layed off since March 1, but my company insurance hadn’t taken me off the roster. I got better and and the bill was $45k which the insurance company after deliberating came to the conclusion that I wasn’t covered at the time I was hospitalized. It doesn’t seem right that their lawyers have to review the case for the insurance company benefit. I was extremely lucky that they were so lax with their bookkeeping or I would have had (lesser) care. But nobody won and I’ve been sent to collection by the individual doctors involved. So it’s a LOSE/LOSE situation for everyone. I was only looking at a about 20K of the bill till the insurance opted for denial.

Leave a reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.