Expanding this single payer program [medicaid] is a problem on two fronts. First is the shrinking provider network http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08... and second is the funding aspect that is not there to support it.

This was the right decision, just like refusing to take money for the "high speed" train was a good decision.
-
We need to move toward a single-payer system (like expanding Medicare and Tri-Care to cover everyone) rather than cave in to this half-baked approach designed to appease the greedy insurance industry.
-
The fact that the insurance companies opposed Walker's decision serves to demonstrate that it was the right thing.
-
P.S.: Can't you people blog about intelligent ideas instead of always being agents for the dysfunctional two-party system?

Kindness may help you get over whatever eats at your heart.
I'll repeat for poobah and mouse if you aren't one in the same.
Grow up.

Bowlgal, in response to my comment about feeling sorry for 916WI and wislady, you said, "thank you for the example of adult bullies." I do appreciate your support but wouldn't go as far as to call either of them an adult bully.

In a statement Tuesday, Meriter Health Systems said it will see a significant drop in Medicare reimbursements beginning in January and the layoffs are a result of a plan that realigns positions in preparation for the cuts in Medicare reimbursement.
716 billion taken from Medicare for ObamaNoCare.

Meriter confirmed that 140 positions are being eliminated. More jobs lost under Obamanomics.

Obama continuing to agree with the debt as being the truth set forth from Congressman Ryan. The last of his speech JAN. 2009.

. You remember? We're going to start cutting benefits for seniors. That was the story that was perpetrated out there -- scared the dickens out of a lot of seniors. No, no, but here's my point. If the main question is going to be what do we do about Medicare costs, any proposal that Paul makes will be painted, factually, from the perspective of those who disagree with it, as cutting benefits over the long term. Paul, I don't think you disagree with that, that there is a political vulnerability to doing anything that tinkers with Medicare. And that's probably the biggest savings that are obtained through Paul's plan. And I raise that not because we shouldn't have a series discussion about it. I raise that because we're not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterized, whatever proposals are put out there, as, well, you know, that's -- the other party is being irresponsible; the other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens; that the other party is doing X, Y, Z. That's why I say if we're going to frame these debates in ways that allow us to solve them, then we can't start off by figuring out, A, who's to blame; B, how can we make the American people afraid of the other side. And unfortunately, that's how our politics works right now. And that's how a lot of our discussion works. That's how we start off -- every time somebody speaks in Congress, the first thing they do, they stand up and all the talking points -- I see Frank Luntz up here sitting in the front. He's already polled it, and he said, you know, the way you're really going to -- I've done a focus group and the way we're going to really box in Obama on this one or make Pelosi look bad on that one -- I know, I like Frank, we've had conversations between Frank and I. But that's how we operate. It's all tactics, and it's not solving problems. And so the question is, at what point can we have a serious conversation about Medicare and its long-term liability, or a serious question about -- a serious conversation about Social Security, or a serious conversation about budget and debt in which we're not simply trying to position ourselves politically. That's what I'm committed to doing. We won't agree all the time in getting it done, but I'm committed to doing it.

Obama agrees with Congressman Ryan.
January 29, 2010.

OFFICIAL WH TRANSCRIPT: [PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA]:

Now, Paul's approach -- and I want to be careful not simplifying this, because I know you've got a lot of detail in your plan -- but if I understand it correctly, would say we're going to provide vouchers of some sort for current Medicare recipients at the current level -- CONGRESSMAN RYAN: No. THE PRESIDENT: No? CONGRESSMAN RYAN: People 55 and above -- THE PRESIDENT: Fifty-five and -- well, no, I understand. I mean, there's a grandfathering in, but just for future beneficiaries, right? That's why I said I didn't want to -- I want to make sure that I'm not being unfair to your proposal, but I just want to point out that I've read it. And the basic idea would be that at some point we hold Medicare cost per recipient constant as a way of making sure that that doesn't go way out of whack, and I'm sure there are some details that -- CONGRESSMAN RYAN: We drew it as a blend of inflation and health inflation, the point of our plan is -- because Medicare, as you know, is a $38 trillion unfunded liability -- it has to be reform for younger generations because it won't exist because it's going bankrupt. And the premise of our idea is, look, why not give people the same kind of health care plan we here have in Congress? That's the kind of reform we're proposing for Medicare. (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT: No, I understand. Right, right. Well, look, as I said before, this is an entirely legitimate proposal. The problem is twofold: One is that depending on how it's structured, if recipients are suddenly getting a plan that has their reimbursement rates going like this, but health care costs are still going up like that, then over time the way we're saving money is essentially by capping what they're getting relative to their costs. Now, I just want to point out -- and this brings me to the second problem -- when we made a very modest proposal as part of our package, our health care reform package, to eliminate the subsidies going to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage, we were attacked across the board, by many on your aisle, for slashing Medicare.

Poobah and Mouse -thank you for the example of adult bullies. Kindness may help you get over whatever eats at your heart.

Bowlgal said, "Girls??? WOW is that how your refer to the women in your life? Sorry for them...."

Bowlgal, neither 916WI or wislady are women in my life. But, like you, I feel sorry for both of them.

poobah
Nov 23, 2012 at 12:33 Single payer poobah

Girls??? WOW is that how your refer to the women in your life? Sorry for them....
- long waits for doctors who still want to stay in the profession. Downgraded and unkept hospitals, poor quality care, 15 member death panel and the IRS on your BUTT for not paying the forced "tax"..

Walker and 20 other Govs are doing the right thing because the Federal Government is going to run it anyway. LET THEM DEAL WITH THE SET UP.

They didn't expect it and now they are scrambling. They don't have the money and Obama now is re-visiting taking your 401K.
So deal with that too.

His greedy self serving career politician motives won't let him do the right thing.

Excuse me mooshoo but the entire Obamacare is a self serving greedy career politician partisan tax bill.

Arms twisting, public screaming, back door deals, pass the bill before we know what's in it tax bill.

I'm glad to hear that type of policital wind doesn't blow your way.

wislady and 916WI, you both seem to fail to understand the significant differences between ObamaCare and a national single-payer healthcare system. Which, by the way, Medicare is not. To obtain the level of coverage in most national single-payer systems, Medicare has to be supplemented by payments to insurance companies, providers and pharmacies by the insured. And, of course, insurance companies still play a major role in the Medicare structure.

So, girls, don't choke on your turkey sandwiches as you ponder a national single-payer healthcare system where there are no insurance companies involved, no billings for service and no additional expenditures when receiving benefits. Happy Holidays.

Poohboy......We already have a national single payer system that covers a segment of our population. Subsidized by the insurance companies that you seem to be so against, that single payer system is only drowning in $500 billion in waste and fraud. I think that the majority of Americans(this group doesn't include you, of course) are smart enough to rally against unleashing that mess on the entire population. If you haven't noticed, insurance companies will be further entrenched in our health care system with the implementation of Obamacare........

Poobah

If you believe everyone is going to be covered under insurance, you are greatly misinformed. It is not going to happen.

wislady, relax. Can't you take at least one day off from being so confrontational?

I was referring to everyone being covered under a national single-payer healthcare system. Happy Thanksgiving!

"Everyone will be covered, independent of their employment."

NO, they won't.

Businesses, for decades, have avoided paying healthcare benefits by using part-time employees.

ObamaCare is a great first step to the inevitable national single payer healthcare system. Then we won't have stories like this one that have been repeated millions of times over the last fifty years in America. Everyone will be covered, independent of their employment. Happy Thanksgiving!

2013 is going to be a GREAT year for Wisconsin!

Your head is buried in the sand if you didn't see this coming. More to follow I'm sure.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...

Surprise: PA College Slashes Instructors' Hours to Avoid Obamacare

More part time nation on the road to poverty in full swing.

MooShoo seems to forget that Benghazi Barry represents the people of USA, not just the marxist party.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Dems seem to forget......they are the MINORITY in Wisconsin.

How about another John Wayne quote WISLADY - LOL - Toooo Funny.

Maybe Obama repealed it? Someone needs to tell the CBO.

So, wislady, I'll tske your failure to back up your claim that the Senate is required by law to pass a budget as an acknowledgement that no such law exists.

Right-on ... Walker and Wisconsin are 'winning'.

Thank You Governor Scott Walker for your prudent decision - this is why Wisconsinites overwhelmingly elected you and re-elected you.

Yeh, I can figure it out for ya' Eagle. The insurance companies would get the money for the exchanges from their (now) bloated profit margins (often more than 40% of premiums) which they are required by the law to trim to a reasonable level to be allowed in the exchange. Now you've hit on the real reason why Walker is opposed to the plan: his campaign contributors in the health insurance industry, who currently are ripping off consumers, want to keep doing so.

"Walker is lying again. Wisconsin taxpayers would not be on the hook for the costs of operating the health insurance exchange...it's in the law that the insurance companies themselves are required to fund the exchange.
" where will the insurance companies get that money? It's not tough to figure out just give it a shot. Good lord.

poobah

"President Obama, each year, has fully complied with that law."

Really? Are you referring to the Obama plan that got 0 votes from his democrats?

Maybe you should contact the House, they seem to think there is NO budget.

BunBun is correct....the 1974 Act actually created the CBO and set up the guidelines for formulating the Budget. Thankfully, it also gave more control to the CBO in setting the budget.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/se...

Congressional Budget Act of 1974.....just throwing it out there...

Walker is lying again. Wisconsin taxpayers would not be on the hook for the costs of operating the health insurance exchange...it's in the law that the insurance companies themselves are required to fund the exchange.

'That is why young voters chose Obama..no work ethic, lazy, whiny, live with mom and dad, play Xbox all day, handout crazy, feel entitled to things, sleep all day, a perfect recipe of voters for Obama'

We see what we choose to see.

Obama removed the Bill Clinton requirement to look for work rule.

Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-575522...

The good old days when the left is all in Bush's business about the Patriot Act. What Hyprocrites.

States up to 21 opting out and the gaint tax mandate.

"Opposed by a clear majority of Oklahomans, further implementation of a law that threatens to erode both the quality of American healthcare and the fiscal stability of the nation"

Actually jowner, you EARN those benefits when you serve.

poo I never said they were my rulzzz, I said accurately they were yourzzz. Hardly plagiarism, but deflection was the your real point as usual.

I get a kick out of the ignorant and their false assumptions.

I get a kick out of ReTiredAirforce. He doesn't realize that he is one of the 47% users that Romney is talking about. Living off the the taxes that other people (The so called Job Creators) pay. Gov. pension, Gov. healthcare and complaining about the Gov. Hello

This is another wise and frugal decision by Scott Walker. Unlike Obamailleans he understands who really pays the bills. The first rule of management is that authority and responsibility run together. The state exchanges would have responsibility (including administrative costs) but authority would still lie with the Federal Government. That would be a bad recipe. Thus another good decision by Walker. On a state level most people understand they will pay the bills. On the federal level, Obama has convinced people that others, including their children and grandchildren, will pay the bills. That is a recipe for Greece.

Obama does not understand the deficit problem, he just gave Myanmar 170 million dollars.

wislady said, "1,300 Days since Senate Dems have passed a Budget (as required by law)."

As required by WHAT law? The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 specifies that the President is legally required to submit a budget each year to Congress. President Obama, each year, has fully complied with that law. You must be aware of some other law that requires Senate Democrats, or Senate Republicans for that fact, to pass a budget. Please, do tell!

1,300 Days since Senate Dems have passed a Budget (as required by law).

Dems, where is YOUR plan?

poo....divert, divert, divert, that's your game.

916WI said, "Rather than comment on your disagreement with the authors politics, please point out the inaccuracies that you seem to have a problem with within the excerpt......thanks."

Why hold others to a higher standard than yourself?

I guess I thought I was clear in my request, but allow me to repeat myself. Rather than comment on your disagreement with the authors politics, please point out the inaccuracies that you seem to have a problem with within the excerpt......thanks.

Using someone else's work with giving them credit is called plagiarism, RetiredAirForce.

Being the "thoughtful poster" you've said I am, I want to help you out with this one. Your "rulzzz" were taken from, "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals by Saul D. Alinsky, 1971"

William F. Buckley, a conservative hero, once said in a Playboy interview that Alinsky, a community organizer, was, "very close to being an organizational genius." That makes at least two.

old badger....try NPR (not exactly a bastion of conservative thought) for the source of the figures (see my previous post on this topic) it was estimated to cost between $30-40 million initially...of course the govt ALWAYS underestimates what benefit programs are going to cost. It is estimated it will cost $64 million by 2016.

916WI, first off, there was a good reason you improperly cited the work you quoted from Avik Roy. That being, you knew very well his association with Willard Mitt and Bain Capital. Or perhaps you suddenly forgot how to cite in article. I think the former. Secondly, one only needs read, "States gain nothing by implementing Obamacare’s exchanges," to know the opinion editorial has no factual basis.

Poohboy......rather than comment on your disagreement with the authors politics, please point out the inaccuracies that you seem to have a problem with within the excerpt......thanks.

Come the 1st Government will cut reimbursement to medicare doctors 27%. Throw Granny from the cliff? Obama not Ryan.

Can you say Doctor shortage?

GE Healthcare Laying Off 10 Percent of Workforce

http://www.healthtechzone.com/topics/hea...

More Lay offs due to Obamacare and the huges taxes on the medical device industry. Probably why Obama's good bud Jeffrey moved the x-ray devision to China. Those 1%'ers are only good if they are Obama donors.
But hey, keep tagging our innovators, Obama is getting our nation closer to Cuba type poverty.

funny poo, music in your head was never part of your rulzzz;

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Come on, you know the tune...

You've got to accentuate the positive

Eliminate the negative

Latch on to the affirmative

Don't mess with Mister In-Between

Yet the thoughtful poster skips right past her hypocrisy by only bringing up the idea, the source matters, ONLY when it goes against her left tainted meme. Just more proof the left lives in the motto, do as I say not as I do.

In your haste to compliment me as a "thoughtful poster," you apparently overlooked mention of Avik Roy's Google Plus site. This is the "About" page from that site:

"I am a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and a member of Mitt Romney’s Health Care Policy Advisory Group.

Professionally, I am a health care investment analyst. Previously, I worked as an analyst and portfolio manager at J.P. Morgan, Bain Capital, and other firms." [ https://plus.google.com/1164802001064105... ]

And, lest I forget, thank you for the compliment.

A perfect example of the left fringe hypocrisy, complaining about the national review using quotes from mother jones. Imagine that a right wing source not liked by a left wing source...yep that is quotable.

More hypocrisy from the do as I say not as I do fringe left? Say it isn't so...

What the poster doesn't expound on is conviction of position. I have always stated sources do matter just like I have said all media has bias. The other "tiny" nugget not put forth by the same thoughtful poster is how her links to TP, and other lefty sources, are to be treated as gospel, since they espouse the same ingrained thought process. While at the same time this poster only brings forth the "source matters" meme when it goes against her learned echoed wording and taught phrases from the left; how typical.

"Over at National Review Online, Avik Roy takes issue with my scoop on Romney's investment in a Chinese appliance-manufacturing firm that sought to profit from US outsourcing. Roy says he used to work at Brookside Capital, the Bain-affiliated entity that made this investment, but he doesn't indicate whether he was around (or in a senior position) at the time of this particular deal in 1998. (On his Google+ page, by the way, Roy notes he was at Bain Capital, not Brookside. Yeah, I suppose, this stuff can be confusing.) Moreover, Roy now serves on Romney's health care policy advisory group. Thus, he has a stake in this venture." [ http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/07/... ]

Yes, the "source" does matter.

Let's spend a few seconds reading how the "source" matters.

RetiredAirForce on August 13, 2012 at 7:36 a.m. said, "Soros funded think progress is less credible than MSNBC...lol"

RetiredAirForce on June 18, 2012 at 8:35 a.m. said, "The internet is easy to use for things besides TPM, huffpost, msnbc, dailykos, moveon, wisdems, prwatch, mmfa, and the like."

RetiredAirForce on November 5, 2012 at 9:33 a.m. said, "thinkprogress ? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL"

RetiredAirForce on October 17, 2012 at 6:34 a.m. said, "Yes motor whatever you say, as you echo your countless remarks from msnbc, huffpost, and TP..."

Yep the "source" matters to the left fringe only when it goes against what they have been taught to think and echo.

I wonder if Mitt Romney still has a Health Care Policy Advisory Group?

Nevermind, 916WI. I found the Opinion Editorial you conveniently didn't cite and for obvious reasons. It was written by Avik Roy. As Roy describes himself, "I am a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and a member of Mitt Romney’s Health Care Policy Advisory Group."

Thanks anyway.

916WI, please cite the link to that "article." I would like to read it in context and see who the author was, if it was an opinion piece, "article," etc.

An excerpt from an interesting Forbes article on the exchanges.....

States gain nothing by implementing Obamacare’s exchanges

In a nod to conservatives’ interest in state-based solutions, Obamacare gives states the option to set up their own exchanges, rather than having the federal government do it. But there’s almost no point in states setting up their own exchanges, because states have no flexibility to improve upon Obamacare’s creaky design.

If states set up the exchanges themselves, they are liable for the costs of operating them. And setting up these exchanges is no picnic. “To call it complex would probably be an understatement,” observes Sarah Kliff. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has already been forced to push back the timelines for exchange implementation.

Given that it’s Sebelius who authored the avalanche of regulations that govern Obamacare’s exchanges, many states understandably feel that it’s Sebelius that should take responsibility if things go wrong with their implementation. Politically speaking, states that hit snags setting up their own exchanges face the risk of blowback from voters. They’d much rather have that voter anger directed toward Washington.

Thank You Governor Scott Walker for doing what we elected (and re-elected) you to do. All complaints will be forwarded to the clocktower for further review.

Are you all trying to set a record for amount of hypocrisy on a thread? The Walker haters love the Federal Government yet are mad at him for giving the responsibility of the exchange to the Feds? and the Walker lovers are for states rights however support Walker in this? Really? It is true however many Walker supporters have ripped him as well for the very reason they don't want the Fed involved in this, however there is no proof the Fed will reimburse the State and Wisconsin runs the risk of being on the hook for this, either way it is bad we are a broke country. I personally have no real opinion, I am watching more insanity increased Government causes, it is very comical and entertaining what isn't is watching all the fools go along with it.

lovemycountry - "This coming disaster would have cost Wisconsin taxpayers $60M+ if the state set it up."
.
Where is your source on this. The only place that I have heard this is from Walker and some other Republicans. What non-partisan source states this.
.
Thanks!

Olderandornerier - Not me. I don't trust Walker! I think the State would be better off setting it up but I don't Walker screwing it up like he has the rest of the state. Therefore, I think it would be better for Wisconsin to have the Feds set it up.

This coming disaster would have cost Wisconsin taxpayers $60M+ if the state set it up. Let the fed set it up and Bernanke can pay for it with his printing press.

So the Dems want their hated foe Walker to set up exchanges instead of their messiah Obama and the Feds? Hmmmm...

If you are not outraged by Scott Walker's LACK of real leadership...Then you are NOT paying attention! ...OF COURSE....The move pleased Republican state lawmakers and tea party groups ..BUT his decision ran contrary to several conservative business and health care groups, including supporters of broader coverage, that joined together to call for a state-run exchange....
Yes, It is astounding that Walker is putting the demands of ideological extremists over the interests of health care consumers across Wisconsin who need access to quality affordable health care options..BUT Walker doesn't care as long as he pleases Republican state lawmakers and tea party groups that FUND his campaigns

"The argument that has been made is that the cost of Wisconsin's exchange, implementing it and maintaining it year after year, will be spread out among all 50 states rather than have Wisconsin's residents taxes cover the entire expense."
Hey look everyone, 916WI is promoting SOCIALISM.
-
If Walker is against a Federally run health care system then it would make MORE sense for the State to take control of the health care exchange. He claims it's because of the cost yet he was clueless when asked about those costs. Walkers decision affecting ALL Wisconsin residents is based on his personal prejudice and misconceptions surrounding health care reform. It's clear he lacks the intellect and courage to make informed coherent and difficult decisions.

Let the Feds set up the mess. Stay far away from the bogus D.C. crap.

BBob--I read many of your comments; it's clear you've had too much of the Fox kool-aid. In particular, your comments about welfare. The R's have been trying this line since St. Reagan and his thoroughly discredited 'welfare queen' claim. Wasn't true then, and not true now. But I guess in your eyes, THIS kind of 'class warfare' (that you guys say you hate when we ask the uber-rich to pay a bit more)is ok.

"I am sad a single payer system wasn't implemented. The ACA is the first step toward the inevitable single payer system we need."
-------------
Are you forgetting about the single payer system that our Federal government is already responsible for maintaining? So financially secure and efficient that it only survives by being subsidized by the insurance companies that you seem to despise. This amazingly well run single payer system only cost taxpayers a mere $500 billion in waste and fraud to cover a relatively small amount of our population. It is a wonderful example of federal government accountability blazing a bright light into the future! Yep, this is, without a doubt, exactly what the American taxpayer needs........if you want to push the country into a state of complete financial ruin:)

"you guys don't believe in federal control. You believe in state and local control. But, now, you have reversed yourselves and admitted that the state cannot do the job, that they need the feds to step in and do this"
-----------------
Clearly there are areas that need to fall under federal control. Most republicans believe that health care should not have been one of them. We haven't reversed ourselves at all. Ask almost any Republican if they are against Obamacare being forced on the states. My guess is that you will get a lot of "yes" responses. As far as the exchanges are concerned, it's not a matter of the states being able to do the job, it's rather a question if it's cost effective and efficient for them to do so........

According to NPR the state exchanges will cost $54 million in 2015, and $64 million in 2016. Surprise, surprise, they were estimated to cost between $30 and $40 million. Any guess on which way the costs will go? Glad Walker let the Feds have it.

"This is further exasperated by the fact that for every $1 the Wisconsin taxpayers pay in federal taxes they receive 86 cents back. So your logic that Walker made the right choice by having the federal government administer the exchange in effect adds another 14% overhead to our healthcare administration costs."
----------
Are you serious poohboy? Once again, you're making absolutely zero sense. For your construct to come even close to playing out from the perspective of a Wisconsin taxpayer, the federal government would have to invoice the state 100% of the fed cost to implement the Wisconsin exchange. Unless you can show me the specific line in that legislation that spells this out, I will continue to praise Walker for letting them handle this at the Federal level so the costs can be spread out over all the states.........

"I believe the Feds will do a better job than Walker could ever do."
-------------
Of course the Feds will do a better job that Walker could do. It's THEIR program that the exchange is tied to. As they make up and change the rules as they go-the latest one revising the cut-off date-they should be in a position to more quickly adapt. They also have an unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars to throw at this mess. Their last foray into health care resulted in over $500 billion in waste and fraud before they decided to do anything about it. Let it be paid for at the federal level so that the costs can be absorbed by all the states rather than just ours......

Some of the biggest supporters of the state-run exchange were the insurance companies and hospitals/service providers, according to the article. You know...the ones who stand to benefit the most financially. Who among the complainers really think your best interests would be served here?

Has anyone even read what Obama care will do?
Or are you all being fueled by the media?
Which ones have read Obama Care?
How will it change your life?

bob, after 8 years of GWB and 2 of Walker, how are those people in the urban areas faring? Did the repubs fix the unemployment, education and health care there?

I thought not.

I for one think that Walker shouldn't have the State run the Exchange program. Normally I would want the State to run the program but not in this case. Knowing Walker and his cronies they would screw it up and the people of Wisconsin would get screwed too. How many times hasn't he screwed the people of Wisconsin. One example of many would be the WEDC scandal and the scam he and his cronies are running there.
.
I believe the Feds will do a better job than Walker could ever do. Thank you Walker for not accepting this responsibility and scamming the system for yourself and your cronies!

smallBIZ - what was my comment? You don'teven know...or maybe you requested it be removed? There was nothing other than an opinion that the right wing "patriot" radical censors cannot allow in their shrinking world.

Hand out, mouth open...pockets empty.

GoodAmerican, you posted "Thank You President Obama. This is why we elected you AND re-elected you. America is 'winning'." So you voted for Obama after all???? When I said that you would vote for him in spite of what you said you'd do, (vote for someone else) you got your nose all out of joint over it. It seems in retrospect that I know you better than you know yourself.

Now that's a picture accompanying this story headline that truly shows Walker to be what he is!

The Wisconsin Manufacturers Commerce really wanted the state run exchange. Good to see Walker not doing what the big business lobbyists and greedy health insurance corporations wanted.

fordfan - to answer your question, NO - nobody cares to tell you why your tasteless comment was removed.

Thank You Governor Scott Walker. This is why we elected you AND re-elected you. Wisconsin is 'winning'.

does anyone care to tell me why my comment was removed? blisslady at it again? Amazing how the Gazette does all of her bidding....

A crying session will be held at the clocktower on Sunday.

W o W ! Talk about your stereotypes!

Here is your answer.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/08/01/obam...

The thing I worry about is this how are we going to pay for Obama Care without raising taxes or asking Congress for extra money to fund Obama Care?

What if Governor Walker had set up a state health insurance exchange??? Then what say all you liberal democrats??? Comments are so NOT INTERESTING anymore, too predictable. All you have to know is whatever Governor Walker says or does the liberal democrats are against.

It's stoner dude !

poobah

I am glad that the mandate that everyone get a microchip embedded after March 2013 was removed. So, that is one positive thing.

The ACA is one of the best things for this country that has come along in a long time, R hysteria notwithstanding.

poobah
YOU won, enjoy it. I accept that, and I am glad we have a governor (who exercised the OPTION), looking out for the taxpayers. It was a democrat, after all, who put that option into the ACA in order to "sell" it to democrats who actually opposed the ACA.

There is no point in citing the UN affordable Obama law....it is still being written.

Walker and other States have made the best decision for the taxpayers. Just because some of the states didn't play into the liberal game plan, is no reason to demonize everyone who disagrees with you. Nice try though, you act like the Obama administration.....extending the deadline, and still trying to SELL the plan.

wislady said, "poobah YOU voted for the ACA when you voted Obama, is that simple enough?"

The important issue isn't whether you or I voted for the ACA. As I've repeatedly stated for years, I support a single payer national healthcare system. ObamaCare is a start toward that inevitability and it is surely an improvement over what McCain and the Republicans wouldn't have done. The important issue is to alert people to the misinformation you and others are spreading about the ACA and to make sure people understand what their governor's choice means to them.

wislady said, "Please....to suggest that the website (which is run by HHS, Sebelius) is providing ALL pertinent information is laughable."

That's not a laughing matter, but the site provides enough pertinent information to correct your simple misunderstandings. You will note it is just one of the resources I recommended that you read to hopefully correct your multiple misunderstandings of the ACA and healthcare exchanges. If you don't trust Sebelius then read the Act itself which I also cited for you.

People shouldn't be upset, the Feds like setting up bureaucracies, they will enjoy it. Now after they set the exchange up don't forget to pay your "affordable" amount each month.

Very well put Wislady!! And I love the headline for this story! No sh-t! Dems would rip any decision by Walker! Just because its walkers! It could be word for word the same as Obama's and they would still rip it!!

Please take time to go to the article in this link.

This explains point by point WHY some states exercised their OPTION, (as allowed by the ACA), not to set up the state exchange.

Obamacare Is Still Vulnerable

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/3...

The phrase, "cut off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind....

I don't see the problem. I would think the democrats would rather see the Fed take over the exchange. As a consumer who will be using the exchange I'd much rather purchase through a federal exchange than through a state exchange.

Before all you Know It all less informed run your mouths why don't you read the ACA. http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/index...

poobah
YOU voted for the ACA when you voted Obama, is that simple enough?

Even Motorman agrees....

"The majority of voters voted for President Obama, and thus support the ACA"

Please....to suggest that the website (which is run by HHS, Sebelius) is providing ALL pertinent information is laughable. Sebelius has already been proven a liar when she testified about "double counting". I bet you get the rest of your misinformation from AARP.

Governor Walker, elected by a majority (twice) made the decision for Wisconsin. This is no different than Obama making decisions that almost half the country disagrees with. Dems can't have it their way all the time.

Workers from the public & private sectors are expressing anxiety because of the dramatic increase in insurance costs created by the details in the new health care law. Maybe it's time to hit the reset button & decide which aspects of the law we can actually afford to implement without leaving lots of folks caught in the middle.

It seems like even Democratic political leaders don't want the federal government running the exchange. Why would they vote for it then? Why complain when states comply with the law? The phrase "I can't win for losing" applies to everyone in the country when it comes to Obamacare. The law has wonderful intentions. However, the costs are too burdensome.

It's amusing to see all the Walker-haters who spent months posting cut-n-paste messages about the Governor's supposed incompetence are now complaining because he is going to let the Federal government manage The Amazing Obama's health care shell game in Wisconsin.

They should be complimenting Governor Walker on not taking on something they don't think he can handle. Are they mindlessly flip-flopping, or do they know in their hearts that Obamacare is going to be an unmitigated disaster, and want to have Governor Walker (and other Republican governors) accepting responsibility for the upcoming disaster when it will be the Obama administration which has all the authority?

If we get back 86 cents on the dollar we will be one of the lucky states.

This is just more proof all the left wing wants in this state is to complain. They wanted obamacare but they complain about it. They wanted the federal government to run the plan, when they get it that way they complain about it.

Proof of their disingenuous claims is easy. If they really wanted a state run system, something supported under the 10th amendment (state's rights) why did the elect people that voted for obamacare?

I was under the impression that the Federal government has a good plan and
many people want single payer.
This will be getting close to that??
Democrats would want this --if not why not?
I also can see that the taxpayers don't want to agree to covering anything more than the basics the Feds would offer.
There you go single payer --like Medicare??

wislady said, "I do not understand what your problem is...you voted for the ACA, you want the ACA, it is going forward, and not you don't want it"

There are clearly many things you do not understand as evidenced by your comments. I did not vote for the ACA, I am sad a single payer system wasn't implemented. The ACA is the first step toward the inevitable single payer system we need.

wislady said, "The OPTION afforded to the States was the choice to implement it by the state, or let the Feds do it."

Now you're just trying to play dumb and pretend the discussion about flexibility was limited to the decision the governor had to make on whether to manage the exchange or let the federal government do that. All along the discussion between you and I has been about the flexibility the state loses by having the federal government manage the exchange. I have cited many resources that outline the options states are afforded if they manage the exchange. Options that are forfeited if the state dies not manage the exchange.

poobah
I do not understand what your problem is...you voted for the ACA, you want the ACA, it is going forward, and not you don't want it?
Obama and the dems created it, with no input from republicans. Why do they not want to be responsible for it now?
The OPTION afforded to the States was the choice to implement it by the state, or let the Feds do it.

Quit whining, you got what you wanted.

wislady said, "The only "flexibility" is making the choice to have the state set it up, or defer to the Feds to do it."

You might as well have said that you do not understand the exchange provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

"Walker's health care decision ripped by Democrats." Interesting headline, but not surprising. Ripping everything Walker does is standard operating procedure for the Democrats. Just as ripping other posters is all the Democrats who comment on the Gazette ever do any more. If anyone thought all that nonsense would stop after the election, they must be disappointed by now. It's obvious that some folks think a good rip passes for intelligent commentary. The leaders of the Democrat party seem to think so too.

poobah
The only "flexibility" is making the choice to have the state set it up, or defer to the Feds to do it.

Motorman

ACA is what you wanted, now that you have it, what's the problem?

Walker said he would comply with the ACA, and the "choice" he made for the State, is to let the Feds set it up.

CJENSEN
We elected Walker to act in the best interest of Wisconsin taxpayers. Thousands of people have weighed in on this decision, by phone calls and emails. Walker is doing what he was elected to do, work for us. Did you call the Governor's office, or send an email? If you didn't make your voice heard, you don't get a do over (this time).

State Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills, co-chair of the Legislature's budget committee, said, "It would be irresponsible to commit our state to a program that isn't fully defined yet." Precisely. Sign here - we'll let you know the details later. Ummmm....no thanks.

TO all the democrats and socialists who want this monstrocity I say, blah - blah - blah. Read the tenth amendment.

It is probably best if john doe doesn't get involved with anything. He doesn't have a good track record....

916WI said, "The argument that has been made is that the cost of Wisconsin's exchange, implementing it and maintaining it year after year, will be spread out among all 50 states rather than have Wisconsin's residents taxes cover the entire expense. You do see how this would signifiantly reduce the financial burden for each WI resident, can't you?? Walker made the correct decision on this...."

Are you serious, 916WI? "...spread out among all 50 states rather than have Wisconsin's residents taxes cover the entire expense..." You surely have no clue how federal expenditures are paid for, do you? If you think Wisconsin not running its own exchange means that the expense is spread out among all 50 states, that also mean Wisconsin taxpayers pay for every other state that also has the federal government run their exchanges.

This is further exasperated by the fact that for every $1 the Wisconsin taxpayers pay in federal taxes they receive 86 cents back. So your logic that Walker made the right choice by having the federal government administer the exchange in effect adds another 14% overhead to our healthcare administration costs.

2700 pages of taxes that say the HHS can "determine" which she is still writing. She's on about pg 1023 of her own version. Republican Governors are smart to reject. Feds are going to tell them what they can and can't do anyway so let them just do it.
Besides, one big hammer not falling now is businesses aren't on the hook (local not national) for coverage.
I'm sure Obama will find a way around that just like making religious groups pay for abortions. Authoritarian law by authoritarian party.

Let's see here...help those who are sick, poor suffering and in need who do not have health insurance OR bow to the Tea Party and their hate filled brand of politics....
Huh?? Walker made it clear that he is supporting compliance and is going to entrust the federal government set up Wisconsin's exchange. How is this not helping the people you speak of? Please apologize for your ignorant remark....

I've seen more than one person claim support for Walker's decision based on their misunderstanding that state taxpayers will not have to pay for the exchanges if they are run by the federal government. What a ridiculous, and inaccurate, argument. As if there is some difference between where state tax dollars and federal tax dollars come from -- the taxpayers.
--------------
The argument that has been made is that the cost of Wisconsin's exchange, implementing it and maintaining it year after year, will be spread out among all 50 states rather than have Wisconsin's residents taxes cover the entire expense.
You do see how this would signifiantly reduce the financial burden for each WI resident, can't you?? Walker made the correct decision on this....

donnaw said, "One of the reasons for letting the Feds do the program is that Obama wants to have the states take on more and more of the financial responsibility for Medicaid, which could run in the billions."

It is just endless, isn't it? The misinformation and misunderstanding of Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act... Much of it is deliberate misinformation and the rest of it is the result of choosing to remain ignorant.

Medicaid expenditures by the states is not impacted by who administers the exchange. If you truly felt that was the case, donnaw, then why would you be in favor of letting the federal government administer the program? It is contrary to all of the rest of the rhetoric and misinformation that says if the federal government runs the exchange the taxpayers in the state won't have to pay for it... Just absolutely ridiculous. Opponents of ObamaCare are all over the board on this rhetoric -- taking both extremes at the same time.

I don't understand... I thought the conservatives wanted more State controll. I thought that was one of their platforms.
.
Also, Obamacare is a republican idea started by the Heritage Foundation. I would think they would be for it. They wanted it when Clinton was in office. So, why are they against it now? It can't be race because I can't believe that many republicans would be racist.
.
It could because they are obstructionist. Why would one want to be an obstructionist at the expense of all Americans? Gotta love the GOP! (Grand Obstructionist Party!)
.

One of the reasons for letting the Feds do the program is that Obama wants to have the states take on more and more of the financial responsibility for Medicaid, which could run in the billions. That would be financial disaster for the states' budgets. Their plan is to let the states pay for the program but the Feds set all the requirements and pull all the strings. They drive the bus but the states pay for the gas.

Thank You Governor Scott Walker for sparing Wisconinites from the costs of running this ridiculous and needless Obama handout.

I've seen more than one person claim support for Walker's decision based on their misunderstanding that state taxpayers will not have to pay for the exchanges if they are run by the federal government. What a ridiculous, and inaccurate, argument. As if there is some difference between where state tax dollars and federal tax dollars come from -- the taxpayers. States don't fund anything and neither does the federal government. Taxpayers fund the exchanges regardless if they're run by the state or the federal government, Wisconsin taxpayers will end up paying for the exchange. Given that, Walker apparently felt the federal government was much better equipped to run the exchange than his own administration, and he was right about that. But he gave up a lot of flexibility the state would have had if the state had set up the exchange. So, once again, citizens of the state will have less flexibility because of the ineptness of Walker and his administration.

wislady said, "The dems wanted the State to fund the setting up of the plan, but really the control is managed by the Feds in how it is set up and maintained. It would have been "state fun" in name only (SINO)."

How can you continue to spread this junk after being told and pointed to documents proving it is not true? Have you already forgotten this exchange from last night?

wislady said, "the "state run" was in name only, all guidelines were already set up by Feds."

wislady, that is not correct. This, just one of the flexible options states have if they manage their own exchange, from Kaiser: "States have flexibility in determining the role of the exchange with respect to contracting with health plans. All exchanges are required to contract only with health plans the meet minimum federal requirements for qualified health plans. States can choose to have the exchange contract with all qualified health plans (clearinghouse) or states can choose to have the exchange contract with selected health plans and/or negotiate premium prices with health plans (active purchaser)." [ http://statehealthfacts.kff.org/comparem... ]

If you want to hear it from the government directly, and learn of other flexibilities the states have, check out: [ http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/... ]

Or, better yet, read the Affordable Care Act itself: [ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr... ]

motorman...and the majority of Wisconsinites voted for Walker so the majority of us like what he is doing, even if you lefties don't. But then logic was never one of your strengths. Enjoy your stay in Wisconsin, home of Republican state govt, which must really gaul you.

"The repubs are figuring out they need to be concerned about more than just rich old white men". I agree with you dtb, however, when that is what your REAL basic beliefs are, it is difficult to change them or hide them. You will hear the same tired comments from the rank and file Republicans along with some of the pols themselves.

Why don't you all re read patriotsal's itemized list as to what it entails for the state's to run the program. It's on another article. No thanks! Walker is making the right decision. You lefties are not thinking straight.

Good choice. As most people here clearly have no understanding of what the choice was. If walker says ok to letting the state run it-he gains no control over how it is run-that is run by the feds. we would then be responsible for costs as their is nothing in the law that says the fed will pay for it, but their is something that says the IRS can tax the state exchanges. So what benefit do we get to run it? none. It is the feds problem and they can pay for it. Those who think he made a bad choice do not have the info or are the same political hacks who tried and failed to recall him.

If Walker does run in 2016, he will fall by the wayside as fast as Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain and Rick Perry did. The repubs are figuring out they need to be concerned about more than just rich old white men - there aren't enough of those around to win an election anymore.

Dick Cheney got it, why shouldn't you? Except for the fact that he's really rich and at the same time probably got the government to pay for his new heart.

If you check with people that have private healthcare you will find that an individual may not get the healthcare they need based on their age and whether the insurance company deems it necessary to spend their money helping the individual get the treatment they need. We can only wish that that this is not happening to us. Leaving this in the insurance companies’ hands may not be what you think it will mean. So my questions to our insurance companies is will I be able to get treatment for ALL my needs? When I'm 80 and need heart surgery will I be able to get it since I probably only have a few years left? Or will the insurance company say NO, she isn't worth it?

Will you be able to afford heart surgery when you are 80 without the government?
Are you sure and, if so, how are you sure?

If you check the other countries that have healthcare you will find that an individual may not get the healthcare they need based on their age and whether the government deems it necessary to spend their money helping the individual get the treatment they need. We can only hope that will not happen to us. But placing this in the governments hands may not be what you think it will mean. So my questions to our government is will I be able to get treatment for ALL my needs? When I'm 80 and need heart surgery will I be able to get it since I probably only have a few years left? Or will the government say NO, she isn't worth it?

Due to lack of planning and irresponsibility, my brilliant and mentally ill son turned from 25 to 26 (for the irony-impaired, this is sarcasm). On his birthday he was dumped off my insurance, and now finds himself number 88,000 on the BadgerCare waiting list. Until he can again afford medical care and prescription medicine, he can not hold a job. Since he is physically healthy, he doesn't qualify for SSN. A couple prescriptions a month (albeit expensive prescriptions) would allow him to return to being a contributing member of society, but because Walker is penny wise and pound foolish, my son is denied basic care. This is completely outrageous and is a severe blight on our state. The US is the only industrialized country that allows this to happen. We need our Governor and Congress to stop preening for radical conservatives, and start making decisions based on the needs of Wisconsin residents. A society that turns its back on the most unfortunate is not long a society worth living in. Walker, please stop campaigning for the 2016 GOP nomination and do what is right for people in need!

If you want to end Obamacare, let Walker run it. He will destroy it like he has Wisconsin.

That's the whole problem with politics - it's all about playing to your base and getting reelected rather than actually doing the job you were elected for - serving the people, whether they voted for you or not..

Why not let voters have a say in this decision...put it on the ballot.
Walker is in the back poctket of Big Corporations & Insurance Companies. Of course he is looking out after THEIR best interests...he ran around collecting Millions of dollars to save himself with misleading ads during the RECALL.......In the end, a resolute Walker's motivation was protecting the special interests corporations wanting special favors who bankrolled ALL those misleading ads ... and he thinks we are NOT paying attention...Mitt Romney thought the same...and the beat goes on, eh!

I doubt any plan will cover every doctor's visit. It will be interesting how this healthcare will play out. Let me get this straight, Walker is letting Obama set up the healthcare plan, yet we still have people bashing the republican for letting the democrat take the lead on this issue? Who is fighting whom? My feeling is healthcare is so costly, nobody is going to get insurance for free. We the people go into nursing or become a doctor because the pay is better, yet to go to the doctor you have to pay the high doctor's visit, and if you have to have treatment we are talking 10's of thousand of dollars. That is why insurance costs so much, and lets not forget the difference in the charge if you have health insurance vs. no health insurance.... we are all screwed.

Walker is up for election in two years.
If he doesn't play to his base,
who does he have left?

I too, work for a living. But, I do see a need for some form of socialized healthcare. Even working people cant afford the premiums, let alone the hospitals and Doctor bills. Co-pays are getting out of hand. Something needs to be done and this is just the beginning. Its a good start and maybe we all can work to improve it together.

Walker is going to have a tough time selling to anyone that he thinks states can run programs better than the feds; especially when he could have had federal funds to jump start the process.

And he turned his back on the WMC? He really isn't a very smart one is he?

Yes, NoVerticle - yawn as others suffer and die. It is your choice. I choose to care, advocate and help.

NV, when you resort to childish name calling you lose all credibility. As for working for a living, do you think Mittens relates to that at all?

I don't see how setting up a website to connect consumers with insurers can cost $60 million. I guess for a government agency run by repubs who outsource everything to their overpriced cronies waiting to get rich off of government contracts that would be the price tag.

Th insurance companies should do the heavy lifting on this; they are the ones who will profit by the business.

garyprimer

I thought you wanted Obamacare, what's the problem?

The dems wanted the State to fund the setting up of the plan, but really the control is managed by the Feds in how it is set up and maintained. It would have been "state fun" in name only (SINO).
If the dems were pushing for Walker to do the "state run", you can bet on it that it would have been for the benefit of the Feds/Obama, and not the taxpayers of Wisconsin.

Thank you, Governor Walker, for following the wishes of the majority of Wisconsin voters.

Romneyo, Romneyo,
wherefore art thou, Romneyo?

fordfan, yawn....

Let's see here...help those who are sick, poor suffering and in need who do not have health insurance OR bow to the Tea Party and their hate filled brand of politics....I guess choose the tea party as he is one of them and his family is very well taken care of (by all of us).

Outstanding! Thank you Mr. Walker for not caving to the failures who keep running to Rockford. Personally, everyone who voted for Oblameo should foot the bill for Oblameocareless and leave the rest of us, who actually have to work for living, alone. Or perhaps they could go work for Hostess... oh wait, on second thought.