SCOTUS, Will States Dismantle Exchanges?

somarco

GA Medicare Expert
5000 Post Club
36,602
Atlanta
With the SCOTUS decision, will states that built exchanges shut them down? I see no reason for them to keep them in place. Never saw a reason to build them in the first place but that is another discussion.
 
The establishment grants these states took advantage of are loans that must be repaid using fees on health plans.

No exchange, no fee, no way to repay.

Not to mention, the cost/effort/time involved with shutting down the system, laying off all the support staff, and transferring all records and info to the feds.

Can't forget the millions in sunk costs (facilities, training, development, etc).
 
The initial exchange loans do not have to be paid back.
They must be self sufficient, after those loans run out.
This causes higher fees and higher premiums.
Pennsylvania is now not going forward with state exchange.
Read today, than MN, is talking about moving to FFM
Hawaii - uh, you know, massive failure.
Only the most liberal states (NY and CA), who don't know finances, will continue with an SBE.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/u...exchanges.html?ref=health&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0
 
With the SCOTUS decision, will states that built exchanges shut them down? I see no reason for them to keep them in place. Never saw a reason to build them in the first place but that is another discussion.
This should of (maybe was) been an argument by the plaintiffs. Why did the 14 states go through the labor and expense of building their own exchanges if the Feds were willing to do it for them at LESS costs?
 
This should of (maybe was) been an argument by the plaintiffs. Why did the 14 states go through the labor and expense of building their own exchanges if the Feds were willing to do it for them at LESS costs?

That had me scratching my head over 2 years ago. GA refused to build one just for that reason.
 
This should of (maybe was) been an argument by the plaintiffs. Why did the 14 states go through the labor and expense of building their own exchanges if the Feds were willing to do it for them at LESS costs?

This was the reason they worded the law the way they did. They did not have funding in the law for all 50 states to use hc.gov. They tried to "steer" them into creating their own exchanges. This obviously came at a high price when looking back at the recent challengers to the law. Somehow during the sausage making process they failed on funding the FFM. Do you remember Sebelius having go on a fundraising mission before they opened in 2013??
 
Coogster, your comment might hold water had anyone that voted for the bill had read it.
 
Back
Top