- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,244
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
https://www.atr.org/hawaii-s-205-million-obamacare-exchange-implodesDespite over $205 million in federal taxpayer funding, Hawaii’s Obamacare exchange website will soon shut down. Since its implementation, the exchange has somehow failed to become financially viable because of lower than expected Obamacare enrollment figures. With the state legislature rejecting a $28 million bailout, the website will now be unable to operate past this year.According to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser the Hawaii Health Connector will stop taking new enrollees on Friday and plans to begin migrating to the federally run Healthcare.gov. Outreach services will end by May 31, all technology will be transferred to the state by September 30, and its workforce will be eliminated by February 28.
While the exchange has struggled since its creation, it is not for lack of funding. Since 2011 Hawaii has received a total of $205,342,270 in federal grant money from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In total, HHS provided nearly $4.5 billion to Hawaii and other state exchanges, with little federal oversight and virtually no strings attached.
So let me get this straight, when a state and all Republicans in Congress wanted to assure that the states were able to control the implementation of health insurance, it's all good, and by golly don't let the feds butt in at all, because the state will know what's best for it's citizens... well, until it fails miserably, then the feds are blamed because they funded the state effort without putting enough conditions on the funding. Do the nutters yet understand what inanity they present and just embarrass yourselves because of all the hateful hysteria you promote, or are y'all just so enrapt in your delusional hatred that y'all truly cannot see?
So let me get this straight, when a state and all Republicans in Congress wanted to assure that the states were able to control the implementation of health insurance, it's all good, and by golly don't let the feds butt in at all, because the state will know what's best for it's citizens... well, until it fails miserably, then the feds are blamed because they funded the state effort without putting enough conditions on the funding. Do the nutters yet understand what inanity they present and just embarrass yourselves because of all the hateful hysteria you promote, or are y'all just so enrapt in your delusional hatred that y'all truly cannot see?
So let me get this straight, when a state and all Republicans in Congress wanted to assure that the states were able to control the implementation of health insurance, it's all good, and by golly don't let the feds butt in at all, because the state will know what's best for it's citizens... well, until it fails miserably, then the feds are blamed because they funded the state effort without putting enough conditions on the funding. Do the nutters yet understand what inanity they present and just embarrass yourselves because of all the hateful hysteria you promote, or are y'all just so enrapt in your delusional hatred that y'all truly cannot see?
Okay, drop the insults. MMkay, otherwise don't ever quote me again.
There is no hatred, you are blind by partisanship. Hawaii, couldn't make their state exchange WORK. Despite hundreds of millions of dollars poured in. Another example of the failure of the system, Obamacare was DESIGNED for the States to run their own exchanges.
she is usually insulting along his line of bias. It's only a matter of style.
Maybe, but to start off like that was uncalled for.
Despite this generous funding, the exchange has underperformed from day one. In its first year, Hawaii enrolled only 8,592 individuals – meaning it spent almost $23,899 on its website for each individual enrolled. Currently over 37,000 individuals are enrolled in Hawaii’s exchange - well below the estimated 70,000 enrollees that is required to make the website financially viable. Unfortunately, taxpayers will have to hand out an additional $30 million so that Hawaii can migrate to the federal system.
Oh the irony.So let me get this straight, when a state and all Republicans in Congress wanted to assure that the states were able to control the implementation of health insurance, it's all good, and by golly don't let the feds butt in at all, because the state will know what's best for it's citizens... well, until it fails miserably, then the feds are blamed because they funded the state effort without putting enough conditions on the funding. Do the nutters yet understand what inanity they present and just embarrass yourselves because of all the hateful hysteria you promote, or are y'all just so enrapt in your delusional hatred that y'all truly cannot see?
I find it ironic that you blast someone else for being "blind[ed] by partisanship," then go off on a blind partisan rant. The main failing of your argument, namely, that Obamacare is a failure, is that many other states are successful with their exchanges. Thus, if the failure was Obamacare itself, it wouldn't be just Hawaii having trouble.Okay, drop the insults. MMkay, otherwise don't ever quote me again.
There is no hatred, you are blind by partisanship. Hawaii, couldn't make their state exchange WORK. Despite hundreds of millions of dollars poured in. Another example of the failure of the system, Obamacare was DESIGNED for the States to run their own exchanges.
I find it ironic that you blast someone else for being "blind[ed] by partisanship," then go off on a blind partisan rant. The main failing of your argument, namely, that Obamacare is a failure, is that many other states are successful with their exchanges. Thus, if the failure was Obamacare itself, it wouldn't be just Hawaii having trouble.
According to the Washington Post, the Hawaiian "exchange needs $28 million to fund operations until 2022, when it is projected to become self-sustaining, officials say. Without the money, “it’s going to be very difficult to keep the doors open,” said Jeff M. Kissel, executive director of Hawaii Health Connector." That doesn't sound like a huge amount of money.
The big costs are running call centers, which have staffed operators answering questions. The next cost is computer and software work, that once performed isn't a cost. However, none of this is a mark against Obamacare itself, that has increased the number of insured by millions; reduced the uninsured rate; has kept costs low, etc.
Ezra Klein directed us last Fall to the latest from the Kaiser Family Foundation, which asks what the average Obamacare 2015 premium increase will be for those places for which we have full information. It finds that premiums were actually set to decline slightly. Ezra tries to get us to appreciate just how good the Obamacare news has been with a thought experiment:You'll need to explain that with some actual numbers. What is being measured is the number of insured at precisely what cost. That is the telling feature of the ACA's relative success or failure, and not an arbitrary amount guestimated to sustain it into a projected future solvency guess.
Imagine taking a time machine back to 2010 and telling Republicans in Congress, who were arguing that the CBO was wildly underestimating Obamacare’s cost, that the law would be cheaper than predicted and, at least in the states that accepted its Medicaid dollars, cover more people than the Congressional Budget Office thought. After the laughing and mocking and the calling of security, let’s say you offered this prediction in the form a of a bet. What odds do you think Obamacare’s critics would have offered? 2:1? 5:1? 10:1?
Ezra Klein directed us last Fall to the latest from the Kaiser Family Foundation, which asks what the average Obamacare 2015 premium increase will be for those places for which we have full information. It finds that premiums were actually set to decline slightly. Ezra tries to get us to appreciate just how good the Obamacare news has been with a thought experiment:
So let me get this straight, when a state and all Republicans in Congress wanted to assure that the states were able to control the implementation of health insurance, it's all good, and by golly don't let the feds butt in at all, because the state will know what's best for it's citizens... well, until it fails miserably, then the feds are blamed because they funded the state effort without putting enough conditions on the funding. Do the nutters yet understand what inanity they present and just embarrass yourselves because of all the hateful hysteria you promote, or are y'all just so enrapt in your delusional hatred that y'all truly cannot see?
Nah. I don't want Kaiser numbers. I want actual government numbers. I'm not being picky - I don't want numbers from a health provider that benefits greatly from the program telling me how cheery it all is. I want impartial numbers, if you can find them. I'm not certain that even federal government numbers are trustworthy, but perhaps from the individual states something close to the truth might be found. I appreciate what you and Klein are saying, but the evidence seems to lean in another direction.
Obama has done some controversial things that can be argued to have a good effect.
Obama are is not one of them. It was, is, and will be a failure.
Please provide examples.
You'll need to explain that with some actual numbers. What is being measured is the number of insured at precisely what cost. That is the telling feature of the ACA's relative success or failure, and not an arbitrary amount guestimated to sustain it into a projected future solvency guess.
Nah. I don't want Kaiser numbers. I want actual government numbers. I'm not being picky - I don't want numbers from a health provider that benefits greatly from the program telling me how cheery it all is. I want impartial numbers, if you can find them. I'm not certain that even federal government numbers are trustworthy, but perhaps from the individual states something close to the truth might be found. I appreciate what you and Klein are saying, but the evidence seems to lean in another direction.
sorry Humbolt,you are indeed being picky. Kaiser family foundation is not a healthcare provider. I could show the numbers from the CBO show that Obamacare is costing less than the republican plan of status quo but you've already "pre nit picked" gubment numbers. Hey I know, post the "evidence" you think "leans in another direction" so we can judge its veracity. Here's what we know so far so I really cant wait for your "evidence"
Obamacare is not only costing less than predicted, healthcare costs are coming in lower than if we didnt pass Obamacare
Obamacare is improving the quality of care
There is no magic plan alternative
Obamacare is not a govt takeover of healthcare
Kynect is Obamacare (its only one state but still)
There were never death panels
50-100 million people wont lose their healthcare
Obamacare not only didn't kill jobs but the first year of Obamacare had the best job growth in 15 years
The Kaiser Foundation is linked to Kaiser Permanente. Show me some independently verified numbers - not stuff from Kaiser affiliated groups.
The lead article was from a source antagonistic to obamacare but that seems ok by you. If you don't like the sources provided by me and Vern, you can't just snap your fingers and say, 'not good enough,' and demand more. It is up to you to refute the evidence provided.
we are not your research assistants.
The lead article was from a source antagonistic to obamacare but that seems ok by you. If you don't like the sources provided by me and Vern, you can't just snap your fingers and say, 'not good enough,' and demand more. It is up to you to refute the evidence provided.
we are not your research assistants.
I would like some research assistants, though. I'll cross you and Vern off the list. I don't, for example, accept "evidence" supplied by Kaiser. Their healthcare business is way too big with too much vested interest in it for me to consider them unbiased because they have a foundation.
notice he simply reiterated his "nit picking" of the Kaiser Family Foundation and didn't bother to post any "evidence". shocking I know.
If you don't like Kaiser, then find your own sources that say something else. It's not debate to dismiss the other side as if you are the moderator.I would like some research assistants, though. I'll cross you and Vern off the list. I don't, for example, accept "evidence" supplied by Kaiser. Their healthcare business is way too big with too much vested interest in it for me to consider them unbiased because they have a foundation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?