Twenty-six states sued the federal government to prevent the implementation of Obamacare, saying healthcare is best handled at the state level.
Did they mean it? Or would they refuse to improve health care in their own states too, just because it would fit Obama’s agenda?
We’ll find the answer soon: As part of the Affordable Care Act, states have a mandate to create their own insurance exchanges — places where ordinary people like you and me can shop for private insurance the way we’d shop for books. (It’s an idea that came out of conservative think tanks.)
If healthcare is really best handled at the state level, this is the chance to prove it: States that can actually control costs while providing good private health care options will become models for the rest of America. If a state or two can do it better than the federal government does, that will turn the entire debate about healthcare on its head.
So: How many of those 26 states do you think are actively working to create excellent insurance exchanges and a compelling case for state efficiency … and how many are dragging their feet, refusing to provide health care for their own citizens, on their own terms, because any action on health care is something the White House might want?
The answers are trickling in.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie vetoed a bill that would have set up a state exchange program.
South Carolina’s director of Health and Human Services has said he sees no reason to invest in a state-run health-care exchange.
New Hampshire lawmakers passed a bill forbidding the state from establishing a health exchange.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said his state “will not take any action.”
Isn’t that interesting. Not only do they oppose the federal government trying to get their state residents health care … they refuse to do it themselves.
If it wasn’t obvious before that many objections to Obamacare aren’t really principled concerns about how to best deliver health care, or state sovereignty, it is now. Across the country, state officials are announcing they would rather let their uninsured die than work on health care — even purely at the state level — while Obama is in office.
This is why America can’t solve its problems — not because they’re so difficult, but because enough of us would rather see our nation fail than support each other.
Twenty-six states sued the federal government to prevent the implementation of Obamacare, saying healthcare is best handled at the state level.
Did they mean it? Or would they refuse to improve health care in their own states too, just because it would fit Obama’s agenda?
We’ll find the answer soon: As part of the Affordable Care Act, states have a mandate to create their own insurance exchanges — places where ordinary people like you and me can shop for private insurance the way we’d shop for books. (It’s an idea that came out of conservative think tanks.)
If healthcare is really best handled at the state level, this is the chance to prove it: States that can actually control costs while providing good private health care options will become models for the rest of America. If a state or two can do it better than the federal government does, that will turn the entire debate about healthcare on its head.
So: How many of those 26 states do you think are actively working to create excellent insurance exchanges and a compelling case for state efficiency … and how many are dragging their feet, refusing to provide health care for their own citizens, on their own terms, because any action on health care is something the White House might want?
The answers are trickling in.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie vetoed a bill that would have set up a state exchange program.
South Carolina’s director of Health and Human Services has said he sees no reason to invest in a state-run health-care exchange.
New Hampshire lawmakers passed a bill forbidding the state from establishing a health exchange.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said his state “will not take any action.”
Isn’t that interesting. Not only do they oppose the federal government trying to get their state residents health care … they refuse to do it themselves.
If it wasn’t obvious before that many objections to Obamacare aren’t really principled concerns about how to best deliver health care, or state sovereignty, it is now. Across the country, state officials are announcing they would rather let their uninsured die than work on health care — even purely at the state level — while Obama is in office.
This is why America can’t solve its problems — not because they’re so difficult, but because enough of us would rather see our nation fail than support each other.
Wall Street would rather sink the global economy again than allow common-sense regulation — and that’s your retirement fund and your house and your community they’re putting on the line, not theirs.
Anti-tax crusaders would rather see America go into default than let the Bush tax cuts expire — as though America would be better off in bankruptcy than it would with slightly higher marginal tax rates for the rich. What do they care — your job might disappear if America is insolvent, but they’ll still be rich.
Too many Americans would rather Social Security go bankrupt for the next generation than make minor changes, like a small increase in the retirement age and means testing. I mean, why not? It’s the next generation’s problem.
And, of course … state officials who have government-provided health insurance would rather their state’s uninsured die than work with the Obama administration. It’s not their own health care they’re putting on the line.
This isn’t the same as having honest disagreements about policy: This is sabotaging the other guy’s ideas because you’re afraid they might work.
America’s biggest problems are ones it can solve with a little sacrifice: Higher taxes on the wealthy combined with moderate entitlement reform would dramatically reduce the deficit while freeing up money to invest in our infrastructure; investing in our infrastructure would put Americans to work and keep America competitive in the 21st century.
No, America’s problems are not really that big. It’s just that Americans have become so small.
Benjamin Wachs writes for Messenger Post Media, and is the editor of Fiction365.com. Email him at Benjamin@Fiction365.com.
