Gov. Scott Walker sent a letter Friday to the federal government that he will not build a state-based health insurance exchange.
The letter was addressed to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and outlines the governer's basic objection to any of the options offered.
"No matter which option is chosen, Wisconsin taxpayers will not have meaningful control over the health care policies and services sold to Wisconsin residents," Walker's letter reads.
The options mandated by the Affordable Care Act are as follows: an exchange built and managed by an individual state subject to federal control; a partnership plan requiring the state to perform functions on behalf of the federal government; or a federal exchange developed by the federal government.
"In Wisconsin, we have been successful in providing health insurance coverage to over 90 percent of state residents without the creation of an exchange and absent federal regulation," the letter continues. "We have a long history of being a leader on health reform issues, and with more guidance and greater state flexibility, our competitive market system would have ensured health insurance coverage to the most vulnerable Wisconsinites without federalization of our market."
The Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, though they supported the creation of the exchange, stand behind Walker's decision.
“While WMC supported the creation of a Wisconsin-specific exchange, we acknowledge that Governor Walker makes a good case for not doing so. As the state’s largest business association, our mandate is to help our members navigate through the burdensome requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA),” said Kurt R. Bauer, president/CEO of WMC, in a written statement.
Some Wisconsin lawmakers want to be able to arrest officials who implement Obamacare. In a story from The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Rep. Chris Kapenga, R-Delafield, is one of nine state Republicans who want the healthcare law declared illegal, giving police the ability to arrest officials who try to enact the law despite the US Supreme Court's ruling that the ACA is not unconstitutional.
"Just because Obama was re-elected does not mean he's above the constitution," Kapenga is quoted as saying.
Other state legislators who have publicly announced their support for this stance include Sen. Mary Lazich, New Berlin; Rep. Don Pridemore, Hartford; Rep. Erik Severson, Star Prairie; Tom Larson, Colfax; and Scott Krug, Wisconsin Rapids. The list rounds out with three newly elected Republicans: Rob Hutton, Brookfield; Mark Born, Beaver Dam and Dave Murphy, Greenville.
Walker, though, doesn't think arresting officials is such a great idea.
In response to an inquiry from Democratic Rep. Jon Richards, Cullen Werwie, Walker's spokesperson, said, "Governor Walker doesn't support arresting people for implementing federal law."
Ohio on Tuesday also refused to create a state-based health insurance exchange.
“We still think it’s best at this time to let the federal government run the exchange," Ohio's Republican lieutenant governor Mary Taylor said in a story running on The Huffington Post.
But, by not building a Wisconsin-based health insurance exchange, Walker's decision hands complete control over to the federal govenment.
Still, Rep. Robin Vos, R-Rochester, the newly elected Speaker of the Assembly here at home, supports Walker's decision.
"I vehemently oppose Obamacare as it is a major step toward socialized medicine which I am against. The individual and their doctor should make health care decisions not government bureaucrats," he said in a written statement. "The reality is, like it or not, Wisconsin will have an exchange. I'm pleased that Governor Walker had the best interest of Wisconsin taxpayers' in mind when he made this decision."
So you voted for Obama. Well then you as part of WE will harvest the consequences as there is no "I" in WE.
Unlike you, Hoffa understands that nothing in life is truly free - someone always has to pay. Obamacare provides no cost and subsidized coverage to tens of millions of people. That coverage needs to be paid for by someone. And despite the title and purported purpose of the Act, Obamacare doesn't do a single thing to actually lower the costs of health care in this country, does it? Thus, logic dictates that rates will go up. Too bad that we elected a President that apparently doesn't even understand such a relatively simple and logical correlation. Remember, Obama promised that Obamacare would lower rates by an average of $2,500. Since it was passed into law, rates have actually gone up by $2,500 and are projected to indefinitely increase into the foreseeable future by all reputable accounts. It's also a fact that both the CBO and OMB estimates of the cost of Obamacare have been revised upwards ever since it was first proposed. Finally, how can the insurance companies be "making huge fortunes on the medical fears of the middle class, which actually, yes, includes the Hoffa," when Obamacare limits their ability to appropriate premium to overhead expenses and profit? If what you say is in fact true, then how come Obama and Holder aren't suing every single insurance provide that has raised rates in the last 2 years for violating the law? Dirk, you continue to prove that you're low-information, non-thinking stooge, easily susceptible to propaganda!
70% of Counties with Fastest Growth of Food Stamps voted Republican. http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2012/11/70-of-counties-with-fastest-growth-of.html Bloomberg: Republican-Heavy Counties Eat Up Most Food-Stamp Growth: Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said in May that he’d written off votes from 47 percent of Americans who are collecting government aid. Turns out many of them are part of his political base. Seventy percent of counties with the fastest-growth in food-stamp aid during the last four years voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. .........
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/070912-617564-states-start-to-revolt-against-obamacare-mandates.htm?p=full That's because, under the law, the insurance subsidies can only be run through state-administered exchanges, not federally operated ones. And the penalty only applies if employees can get subsidized coverage through an exchange.
65% healthcare $dollars flow from government(Medicare/Medicaid/VA...) 25% self insured large group@ 10% OH (Approximate Canadian overhead rate) 20% Small/single plans @ 20 overhead 10% X 20 % = .02 or 2%
I have no experiences negotiating directly with healthcare providers;I have always contracted with the insurance company to be my negotiating agent. Of the many medical bills I have reviewed, all 'processed'(must pay deductibles) through insurance, the 'allowable' amounts range from 80% to 15%, of the 'billable' amount. Tests/xray/scans seem to be 'allowed' near the lower percentage and Dr. charges tend to pay-out at the higher end. I cant find any 'logic' to the variances. Averaged all of it out, over time, it ends up around 50% of the billable is allowed(including deductible). Based on my experiences with the 'allowable amount', Hoffa could negotiate a 90% discount. Although, one would expect the discount to vary widely.
I'm also currently attempting to get an elderly relative a bed in a rehab/skilled care facility and discovering that they want a check in hand before we can even come in the door. I think any attempt at negotiation will result in my being told to try elsewhere.
The Bloomberg article also covered Pitkin County in Colorado (Aspen area) having the largest increase at 463%. But... that was based on going from 48 to 273 households, or going from .62% of all households to 3.57%, still well under the 14.9% for the entire country. The point to be made though, is that when an area as successful as Aspen has a spike in things like food stamp, we are definitely headed in the wrong direction!
$$andNonsense, where did you pull that analysis from? The 14th Amendment dealt with emancipation and the needed legislation in the aftermath of the Civil War. The only part dealing with debt is Section 4 that states the United States, and individual states would not be accountable for debts incurred by the Confederacy, or other future rebellions. Seriously, what are you thinking with these posts? Section 4. ...But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
The problem is that B.O.Care shoveled the burden onto the middle class. I have stated repeatedly how much my payments have gone up. Personally, I don't see why the uninsured can't get catastrophic coverage and take care of their little boo-boos on their own. Unfortunately, they make up a large part of B.O.'s voter base, and B.O. will cater to them for their vote....at the expense of the middle class!
If you're serious about negotiating prices for medical care, then you have to do it right. You have to be ready to cite the real cash prices of competitors and provide proof of such prices. You have to know the price of test machines, the number of patients that annually use the test machines at the facility you're negotiating with, the total number of annual patients, the per patient overhead expenses that the facility experiences, etc. You just can't go blindly in to negotiations with no negotiating power. You should start by preparing a fair itemization of the costs/expenses/profit margin of the procedure you're negotiating over, with the best available information that you have. So long as you start out with a relatively fair offer, and can back up your notion of fairness with facts and numbers, instead of trying to dick around with unrealistic low-balls, Hoffa has found that most care providers are at least willing to talk numbers with you. And you also must be willing to shop around, as not everyone will negotiate and there are variances amongst those who will, sometimes substantially so. And when Hoffa says cash, he means $100 bills - not a personal check, cashiers check, money order, etc. Good luck and be sure to let us know the results from your attempted negotiations
Spud Lovr @SpudLovr Scott Walker’s “tools” can’t stop yet another month of job losses in Wisconsin http://ow.ly/fn5zr #wiunion #wright
@millbot How very brave. "Gov. Scott Walker unveils agenda for Wisconsin during speech in California" http://bit.ly/ROAych #wipolitics
More news from Walker. te he. poor scooter. @katie_foody Apparently Gov. Walker not happy with coverage of his California speech. Deleted tweets @politwoops: http://ow.ly/fpLzL #wipolitics
“@RedState: How Obamacare’s Taxes Will Hit Your Pocketbook bit.ly/ZvmbNk" FSA tax cap of $2,500--families w special needs hit hardest
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Remember that little ditty? It wasn't just some song written by a hippy in the 70's, it's the Preamble (kind of like a thesis statement) of the U.S. Constitution. Don't confuse the order of promote and provide.