Nevada’s health-care exchange is going
dark, becoming the fourth state exchange so far to fail. The four
terminated exchanges received $744.9 million in federal grants, much of
which has already been spent. The health-care-exchange board voted
Tuesday to forgo the Silver State’s health-insurance exchange and use
the federal Healthcare.gov website.
The four states that have
called it quits — Nevada, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Maryland — have
been awarded a total of $744.9 million in federal grants to help pay for
their failed insurance exchanges, according to the latest count from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The high cost to taxpayers may not be recovered. It
remains unclear whether the federal government will be able to claw back
any of that cash.
What's 3/4 of a billion when it comes to the ACA? Chump change. Why is it that contractors always get paid regardless of contract performance? Why is it government contracts are so lacking in recovery terms, performance criteria?
Forty percent of that was borrowed money anyway. So since we owe it to ourselves it's really not lost.
ReplyDeleteOr so I've been told.
DeleteIf the states spent 744 million and have nothing to show for it, it's lost money unless someone wants to hold the companies and the states that wasted it responsible.
But that would go to accountability which doesn't exist in this government.
You get a gold star William.
DeleteIt's nothing until the interest is due.
DeleteI wonder why they failed.
ReplyDeleteDid they have trouble setting up their death panels?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/23/opinion/shapiro-mcconnell-senate/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29
ReplyDeleteOne opinion piece deserves another:
DeleteJanuary 14, 2014 4:00 AM
Harry Reid’s Obstructionism
The Senate majority leader’s hostility toward amendments is finally catching up to him.
By Andrew Stiles
It took a while, but the media seem to have finally noticed Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s unprecedented obstructionism.
The New York Times reported last week on Reid’s “brutish style” and “uncompromising control” over the amendments process in the Senate. Why are more people finally catching on to Reid’s flagrant disregard for Senate customs? In part because conservatives aren’t the only ones complaining.
Democrats such as Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota — who wants to repeal Obamacare’s medical-device tax — and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York — who has waged a highly publicized campaign to reform the way the military handles sexual-assault cases — have been denied votes on their proposed amendments to various bills. Gillibrand had hoped to attach her sexual-assault amendment to the defense-appropriations bill that passed in December, but no amendments were allowed. Klobuchar has called for “a more open amendment process” because she’d like a vote on repealing the medical-device tax.
Reid’s tight control of the amendments process has become a point of contention in the debate over unemployment benefits, which he’d like to extend without providing funding for the program. After signaling that he would not allow any Republican amendments on a bill to temporarily extend the benefits, Reid appears to be backing down, however begrudgingly. “I am open to considering a reasonable number of relevant amendments to [the bill], if that’s what it takes to end Republican obstruction,” he said Monday on Twitter.
Allowing a “reasonable number of relevant amendments” from the minority party has not always been considered a concession in the Senate. It was once referred to as “regular order.” Despite Reid’s claims that he has been “very generous with amendments,” the number of amendment votes per year (not counting non-binding budget amendments, which by law cannot be limited) has declined from 218 in 2007, when Reid became majority leader, to 67 in 2013. Since July of last year, Republicans have been allowed a grand total of four amendments.
Republicans complain that the media’s reporting on the “unprecedented obstructionism” of a “do-nothing Congress” has focused almost exclusively on GOP filibusters in the Senate and the refusal of the Republican-controlled House to take up Senate-passed bills, such as the Gang of Eight immigration-reform legislation. They note that House Republicans passed more than 200 bills in 2013, many of which Reid has refused to hold votes on in the Senate. House-passed legislation is readily dismissed as “dead on arrival” in the upper chamber, while the storyline surrounding Senate measures, such as the immigration bill, tends to focus on House speaker John Boehner “facing pressure” to hold a vote in the House. In reality, of the 72 bills President Obama signed into law last year, only 16 originated in the Senate.
Reid has refused to bring up measures that would almost certainly pass with bipartisan support, such as legislation approving construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, or the aforementioned medical-device-tax repeal. He has also refused to consider legislation to impose new sanctions on Iran: A majority of Senate Democrats support the idea, but it’s strongly opposed by the White House. On the Iranian issue, Republicans have accused Reid of “playing defense for the president” against the wishes of his own conference.
Well then, may we conclude that they are all bums? This is the most obstructionist congress on record. Also has more multi millionaires than any other in history.
DeleteIt's called an obstructionist government. The House obstructs the Senate. The Senate obstructs the House, the president is my way or the highway.
DeleteThe perfect storm and yes, this is the government the people wanted.
We have been atmthis for over two hundred years. Why do we need hundreds of bills each year?
DeleteLess is more. Term limits and reform base line budgeting.
I disagree, this is not the government people wanted, not by a long shot. This is the government people voted for. Because our elections are pre-rigged by the moneyed interests, we decidedly do not have a free choice of candidates. Only those who are super funded make the final ballots. So, we the chumps, are left the option of voting for the perceived lesser evil, and that perception is further skewed by false and misleading advertising by the candidates.
DeleteIn the end, people wanted Obama not once but twice. No doubt people listen to the 15 second political advertisement touting how they are for the little guy when in reality as proven in the last 5 years, it just isn't so.
DeleteEither Americans are completely foolish, naive or just want what ever candidates offers the most.
Unions and lawyers on one side, the chamber of commerce and business on the other. Both backed by studied professionals. How do you break this down?
DeleteMan on the street interviews in Cambridge and Columbia where undergrads display their complete lack of knowledge of civics and current political events. How donyou break this down?
Government running health web sites. Government promoting lowest common denominator educational standards. Government renaming professional football mascots for crying out loud!
How do you break this down?
It's called over reach.
DeleteTime for smaller government.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete