3 ms·

Sort of short on details or perspective. I do remember reading articles six months ago or so that the federal government was disappointed that they would be ma

Sort of short on details or perspective. I do remember reading articles six months ago or so that the federal government was disappointed that they would be managing the exchanges for so many of the states. They were originally hoping that they'd only be managing the exchanges for a handful of states, rather than the 36 they're having to shoulder the load for. I can see how that level of political uncertainty adds an extra challenge for estimating load.

marknutter 13y ago
Ah, and here I thought $600,000,000 was too much for a website.
TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago
I think it's mostly red states that aren't running their own ones.
- hga 13y ago
  Idaho is the only solidly Red state that's doing its own. A number of Blue or Purple states are also punting to the federal exchange, or doing a "partnership" where the federal exchange is doing the heavy lifting: New Hampshire, New Mexico for the moment for individuals, Utah permanently for individuals, Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, Illinois. In many of these cases of partnership, whatever the governor of whatever party wanted, the legislature didn't buy off. New York is the only case I know of where the governor told the legislature to jump in a lake and set up one for the state through an executive order using the temporary money the Feds are donating early on. And there's Missouri, who's people outlawed a state run exchange, and New Jersey's governor vetoed 2 bills to set up one.
  - hga 13y ago
    Further reading my source (http://www.healthinsurance.org/idaho-state-health-insurance-exchange/ http://www.healthinsurance.org/idaho-state-health-insurance-...) after seeing the map in a DailyKos item linked to by shavenwarthog2, Idaho is depending on the Feds for 2014 while it is working on its own full exchange. Still, the exception that proves the rule.
- shavenwarthog2 13y ago
  On NPR the other day they said solidly red Kentucky is running their own site, and is doing really well. It sounded like they were more specific in what they wanted, and perhaps had reduced functionality thus complexity. Either way, kudos! I would have thought California (note: I live in CA) would have had a good healthcare site, considering all the techies, but I guess in this case that didn't work out. map of state/fed/joint-run sites: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/03/1243855/-Kentucky-s-success-makes-a-mockery-of-GOP-Obamacare-foes http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/03/1243855/-Kentucky-s...
  - hga 13y ago
    A state with Democratic governor, lieutenant governor and one of two legislative bodies is "solidly red"??? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky#Executive_branch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky#Executive_branch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_House_of_Representatives#Current_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_House_of_Representati...) Not to mention the top vote counter (Secretary of State) and Attorney General? In Wikipedia's list of elective state offices, only the Commissioner of Agriculture is a Republican. Kentucky is as about as "red" as the current Federal government; even the DailyKos article you link to is self-refuting, first claiming it's "one of the only reliably red states" and then claiming "the biggest factor of all [in its claimed success] is Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear". As I note elsewhere in this thread, Idaho is the only truly Red state implementing a full state exchange, although the map you cite claims it's not full. And that turns out to be in theory temporary, further reading my source (http://www.healthinsurance.org/idaho-state-health-insurance-exchange/ http://www.healthinsurance.org/idaho-state-health-insurance-...) it's in the process of building its own and depending on the Feds for 2014.
    - MaysonL 13y ago
      Kentucky is as about as "red" as the current Federal government Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul would disagree... (although of course, given that Obama is somewhere to the right of Nixon on most issues, it's not so far off)
      - 13y ago

marknutter 13y ago

Ah, and here I thought $600,000,000 was too much for a website.

TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago

I think it's mostly red states that aren't running their own ones.

hga 13y ago
Idaho is the only solidly Red state that's doing its own. A number of Blue or Purple states are also punting to the federal exchange, or doing a "partnership" where the federal exchange is doing the heavy lifting: New Hampshire, New Mexico for the moment for individuals, Utah permanently for individuals, Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, Illinois. In many of these cases of partnership, whatever the governor of whatever party wanted, the legislature didn't buy off. New York is the only case I know of where the governor told the legislature to jump in a lake and set up one for the state through an executive order using the temporary money the Feds are donating early on. And there's Missouri, who's people outlawed a state run exchange, and New Jersey's governor vetoed 2 bills to set up one.
- hga 13y ago
  Further reading my source (http://www.healthinsurance.org/idaho-state-health-insurance-exchange/ http://www.healthinsurance.org/idaho-state-health-insurance-...) after seeing the map in a DailyKos item linked to by shavenwarthog2, Idaho is depending on the Feds for 2014 while it is working on its own full exchange. Still, the exception that proves the rule.
shavenwarthog2 13y ago
On NPR the other day they said solidly red Kentucky is running their own site, and is doing really well. It sounded like they were more specific in what they wanted, and perhaps had reduced functionality thus complexity. Either way, kudos! I would have thought California (note: I live in CA) would have had a good healthcare site, considering all the techies, but I guess in this case that didn't work out. map of state/fed/joint-run sites: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/03/1243855/-Kentucky-s-success-makes-a-mockery-of-GOP-Obamacare-foes http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/03/1243855/-Kentucky-s...
- hga 13y ago
  A state with Democratic governor, lieutenant governor and one of two legislative bodies is "solidly red"??? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky#Executive_branch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky#Executive_branch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_House_of_Representatives#Current_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_House_of_Representati...) Not to mention the top vote counter (Secretary of State) and Attorney General? In Wikipedia's list of elective state offices, only the Commissioner of Agriculture is a Republican. Kentucky is as about as "red" as the current Federal government; even the DailyKos article you link to is self-refuting, first claiming it's "one of the only reliably red states" and then claiming "the biggest factor of all [in its claimed success] is Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear". As I note elsewhere in this thread, Idaho is the only truly Red state implementing a full state exchange, although the map you cite claims it's not full. And that turns out to be in theory temporary, further reading my source (http://www.healthinsurance.org/idaho-state-health-insurance-exchange/ http://www.healthinsurance.org/idaho-state-health-insurance-...) it's in the process of building its own and depending on the Feds for 2014.
  - MaysonL 13y ago
    Kentucky is as about as "red" as the current Federal government Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul would disagree... (although of course, given that Obama is somewhere to the right of Nixon on most issues, it's not so far off)
    - 13y ago