4 ms·

It was part of an organised plan to try and sabotage Obamacare, having lost the legislative battle and the Presidential election.

hga 13y ago
These Blue or Purple states are not doing one: New Hampshire, New Mexico for the moment for individuals, Utah permanently for individuals, Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, Illinois. Plus my Purple home state of Missouri isn't doing one based on a citizen initiative in 2012, where 62% of us voted to outlaw the creation of a state exchange unless authorized by the people or the legislature (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Missouri_Health_Care_Exchange_Question,_Proposition_E_(2012) http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Missouri_Health_Care_E... ). I also find it highly questionable to score elections like you have. Not only are you ignoring Scott Brown and 2010, but the one in 2012 was between Mr. Obamacare and Mr. Romneycare, the eGOP handed voters the single worst possible candidate to have a referendum on Obamacare about. More generally, you should acknowledge this is the first ever major entitlement program that didn't pass on a widely popular bipartisan basis, from FDR's Social Security to Bush's Medicare Part D prescription one. It would be remarkable if that didn't have consequences we've never seen before. Or more specifically, how did not building an exchange "sabotage" Healthcare.gov? Sounds like you're trying to magic a perceived by you sin of omission into a sin of commission. Can't be a volume problem, seeing as how the site failed in integration testing a week before launch before achieving 200 simultaneous logins, and so much has to go through it for every exchange (remember when Verizon's goof shut them all down) and perhaps one day if they get around to it insurer (it's the only allowed source of subsidy calculations, which does make some sense).
crusso 13y ago
Right, because the States are just vassals of the Federal government. They must meekly go along with poorly written and executed laws of the Feds.

hga 13y ago

These Blue or Purple states are not doing one: New Hampshire, New Mexico for the moment for individuals, Utah permanently for individuals, Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, Illinois. Plus my Purple home state of Missouri isn't doing one based on a citizen initiative in 2012, where 62% of us voted to outlaw the creation of a state exchange unless authorized by the people or the legislature (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Missouri_Health_Care_Exchange_Question,_Proposition_E_(2012) http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Missouri_Health_Care_E... ). I also find it highly questionable to score elections like you have. Not only are you ignoring Scott Brown and 2010, but the one in 2012 was between Mr. Obamacare and Mr. Romneycare, the eGOP handed voters the single worst possible candidate to have a referendum on Obamacare about. More generally, you should acknowledge this is the first ever major entitlement program that didn't pass on a widely popular bipartisan basis, from FDR's Social Security to Bush's Medicare Part D prescription one. It would be remarkable if that didn't have consequences we've never seen before. Or more specifically, how did not building an exchange "sabotage" Healthcare.gov? Sounds like you're trying to magic a perceived by you sin of omission into a sin of commission. Can't be a volume problem, seeing as how the site failed in integration testing a week before launch before achieving 200 simultaneous logins, and so much has to go through it for every exchange (remember when Verizon's goof shut them all down) and perhaps one day if they get around to it insurer (it's the only allowed source of subsidy calculations, which does make some sense).

crusso 13y ago

Right, because the States are just vassals of the Federal government. They must meekly go along with poorly written and executed laws of the Feds.