Were Frist still in the Senate I'm quite sure he'd be obstructing with all the other senators.

Now, of course, he is out of office and is powerless to do anything but pontificate in the newspaper, making his support just about worthless.

Last edited Sat Jul 21, 2012, 11:58 PM - Edit history (1)

He is showing how extreme the Republicans are for opposing even the exchanges.

Since ACA was based on romneycare and many of it's parts are repub ideas. The rant over ACA is because when Bush had Congress they was into spending and starting wars. I am tired of the mandate I have had to pay to cover the uninsured.

Last edited Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:49 AM - Edit history (1)

If your state does not set up an exchange then you can participate in the federal exchange which might actually be better. If your state creates an exchange then you may not participate in the federal exchange.

The state exchanges in this sense can be used to artificially fragment the market, reducing people's choice and inflating costs relative to what costs would be under a single exchange.

Republican state governments can also design the state exchanges to make them intimidating or hostile, to try to defeat the spirit of the law. They might try to make it hard to use, or confusing. I am hoping my state does not create an exchange so we can use the federal exchange, for those who need to. I understand states can get money from the federal to create this but that's no big whoop imo.

I don't know, I could be wrong. Is this wrong? Anybody know of any benefit of having 50 separate state insurance exchanges instead of a larger federal exchange? Thanks.

On Edit: just found this article
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/are-federal-exchanges-going-to-bring-down-obamacare/

It says some lawyers found a loophole in the ACA that will deny subsidies to people in the federal exchange. Don't know how true this is. Another wrinkle. A good reason to move to single payer IMO. Get rid of all these rules and loopholes.