Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Arkansas private option could be in trouble

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Arkansas private option could be in trouble

    The Arkansas private option could be in trouble

    A minority of state legislators may put health coverage for 100,000 Arkansans in jeopardy.


    Here we go again.

    Last year, the news in Arkansas was dominated by months of tense debate over health care reform and a major decision for the state. With key provisions of the federal Affordable Care Act set to go into effect in 2014, should the state accept billions of dollars of federal money in order to expand eligibility for the Medicaid program for low-income Arkansans?

    Given the strong anti-Obamacare tenor of a campaign that swept in a new Republican majority in the Arkansas General Assembly, the prospects for expansion seemed dicey, if not impossible.

    The drama took an unexpected turn in late February when the feds gave the state permission to pursue a unique approach, which became known as the "private option." Arkansas would use Medicaid funds to purchase private health-insurance plans for low-income residents. Republicans took ownership of the new plan, and after a protracted battle at the Capitol, it eventually passed with a bipartisan supermajority in both houses, with Gov. Mike Beebe signing it into law in April.

    For Republican backers of the plan like Sen. David Sanders (R-Little Rock), the private option is "innovative, pioneering and transformative." The idea of a conservative version of Medicaid expansion received national attention as well; in recent testimony before the legislature, former Bush administration Health Secretary Michael Leavitt applauded the effort underway: "You couldn't get the federal government to do this countrywide. But you can do it in Arkansas. And when you do, others will follow." But for some conservatives, the plan was a betrayal, relying on an increase in government spending granted by the hated Obamacare. The split within the Republican Party in Arkansas (what Rep. Joe Farrer [R-Austin] calls "the conservatives and the real conservatives") remains raw.

    Coverage under the private option just started on Jan. 1, and — even as enrollment in the new marketplaces created by the federal ACA has faced massive hiccups — the implementation of the private option in Arkansas has been going as well as proponents could have hoped, with around 100,000 gaining coverage thus far.

    Just as the private option is getting off the ground, its future appears to be in serious jeopardy in the fiscal session of the General Assembly, which begins Feb. 10. In order to continue the policy past the end of the fiscal year this summer, three-fourths of both houses of the legislature must once again approve the appropriation to accept the federal money that funds it. The rump group of Republicans who opposed the policy are gearing up for another fight, and the path to another supermajority is uncertain at best. Rep. Nate Bell (R-Mena), who opposes the private option, said that there was "no question" that as of now, there are enough votes to block the funding. "I think anybody in the Capitol building would agree with that," he said.
    Colonel Vogel : What does the diary tell you that it doesn't tell us?

    Professor Henry Jones : It tells me, that goose-stepping morons like yourself should try *reading* books instead of *burning* them!

  • #2
    Honestly, I don't have time to read through the whole thing today, so I skimmed down through it. It sounds to me like this can be corrected with some fairly minor adjustments, so I'm not really sure what the big deal is.


    Question: do all appropriations bills require a supermajority in Arkansas, or is that something unique to this bill?
    It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
    In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
    Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
    Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Adam View Post
      Honestly, I don't have time to read through the whole thing today, so I skimmed down through it. It sounds to me like this can be corrected with some fairly minor adjustments, so I'm not really sure what the big deal is.


      Question: do all appropriations bills require a supermajority in Arkansas, or is that something unique to this bill?
      Arkansas requires a super majority on appropriations except for a few cases where only a majority is needed like education and highways, I think.
      Colonel Vogel : What does the diary tell you that it doesn't tell us?

      Professor Henry Jones : It tells me, that goose-stepping morons like yourself should try *reading* books instead of *burning* them!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Billy Jingo View Post
        Arkansas requires a super majority on appropriations except for a few cases where only a majority is needed like education and highways, I think.
        Also the lowest priority in Ar...

        Moving on...
        Robert Francis O'Rourke, Democrat, White guy, spent ~78 million to defeat, Ted Cruz, Republican immigrant Dark guy …
        and lost …
        But the Republicans are racist.

        Comment


        • #5
          More info:
          Legislative panel approves special-language amendments to Private Option


          A subcommittee of the Joint Budget Committee today approved amendments — to be added as special language to the appropriation — to the private option, the state's unique healthcare plan that uses Medicaid funds to purchase private health insurance for low-income Arkansans.

          Rep. Nate Bell, one of the sponsors of the changes, said that while he opposed the private option, he did not believe that it was possible to end the policy and develop a responsible phaseout during this fiscal session. He called the addition of the new special language "a reasonable option for all of us...to continue to allow the state move forward without becoming like Washington D.C. and playing shutdown games."

          The amendments (again, technically this is special language, not an amendment to the underlying legislation) would make the following changes:


          BTW, Rep Nate Bell is from the area my family lives in and represents them. My God is that guy a serious douchebag.
          "We're trying to create a barrier to enrollment."

          Christianity has truly lost its way.
          Colonel Vogel : What does the diary tell you that it doesn't tell us?

          Professor Henry Jones : It tells me, that goose-stepping morons like yourself should try *reading* books instead of *burning* them!

          Comment


          • #6
            "I don’t agree with what he had to say, but I do give Rep. Bell credit for at least not taking the shutdown approach," Carter said. "At least he’s engaged and willing to talk about it. Apparently some in the Senate aren’t. I commend him on at least being willing to do what he did today, even though I don’t agree with him."
            Nate Bell remains opposed to the policy but has been active in working on "tweaks and adjustments" and he may be a bellwether of whether other conservatives feel they get enough to support the appropriation this time, given the constraints of the fiscal session.
            Well, that's nice. He's a NO vote that's gonna remain a NO, but at least he's still engaged in trying to sabotage the program.
            Enjoy.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
              Well, that's nice. He's a NO vote that's gonna remain a NO, but at least he's still engaged in trying to sabotage the program.
              It has failed the first time around.

              Private option funding fails in House


              LITTLE ROCK — A bill to appropriate $915 million in federal funding for the so-called private option failed Tuesday in the House in a 70-27 vote. The measure needed a three-fourths majority vote, or 75 votes in the 100-member House, to pass. House Speaker Davy Carter, R-Cabot, said previously that if the bill did not pass on the first vote, the House would consider it again. Last week the House voted to adopt amendments to the program that uses federal Medicaid money to provide private health insurance to people earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. The amendments include one that would bar the state from promoting the private option and the Arkansas Health Insurance Marketplace. Rep. Bate Bell, R-Mena, who sponsored that amendment, urged House members Tuesday to vote for the appropriation. He said he opposed the private option when it was approved two years ago, but he said a compromise is necessary if the Legislature is to complete its work within the 45-day maximum allowed for a fiscal session. “Conservatives are going to have to accept that we are not in a position to pass a complete defund,” he said.


              Check this nugget out:
              House Majority Leader Bruce Westerman, R-Hot Springs, urged a “no” vote, asking members, “Is Arkansas going to be an enabler for Obamacare?”


              One quote that will tell you everything that's wrong with the Republican Party today. At least in the South.
              Colonel Vogel : What does the diary tell you that it doesn't tell us?

              Professor Henry Jones : It tells me, that goose-stepping morons like yourself should try *reading* books instead of *burning* them!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                Well, that's nice. He's a NO vote that's gonna remain a NO, but at least he's still engaged in trying to sabotage the program.
                Why is lawfully trying to block more government intrusion considered sabotage but accepting millions in taxpayer dollars for a website that still doesn't work not?
                "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
                -John Locke

                "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
                -Newman

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by scott View Post
                  Why is lawfully trying to block more government intrusion considered sabotage but accepting millions in taxpayer dollars for a website that still doesn't work not?
                  That is why people that owns businesses like Adam, you and I will never be rich. We can't see the big picture.
                  We are so fucked.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Billy Jingo View Post
                    More info:
                    Legislative panel approves special-language amendments to Private Option


                    A subcommittee of the Joint Budget Committee today approved amendments — to be added as special language to the appropriation — to the private option, the state's unique healthcare plan that uses Medicaid funds to purchase private health insurance for low-income Arkansans.

                    Rep. Nate Bell, one of the sponsors of the changes, said that while he opposed the private option, he did not believe that it was possible to end the policy and develop a responsible phaseout during this fiscal session. He called the addition of the new special language "a reasonable option for all of us...to continue to allow the state move forward without becoming like Washington D.C. and playing shutdown games."

                    The amendments (again, technically this is special language, not an amendment to the underlying legislation) would make the following changes:


                    BTW, Rep Nate Bell is from the area my family lives in and represents them. My God is that guy a serious douchebag.
                    You do understand that perpetually expanding government dependence is not a good thing, right? That getting ever more people on government dependence is a failure, not a success?

                    I don't really get why Bell is opposed to this "private option," only because it seems that the "private option," in my admittedly very meager understanding of it, is a hell of a lot better option than just regular Medicaid, but I suspect that there's more to this that I don't know, and I have pretty much no interest in trying to dig it up, either.

                    Originally posted by Billy Jingo View Post
                    "We're trying to create a barrier to enrollment."

                    Christianity has truly lost its way.
                    This is also a good thing. Do you genuinely think that there should be NO barriers (better known as "qualifications") to getting government assistance? Maybe the good taxpayers of Arkansas should be mandated to give the Walton family subsided health care?

                    I don't seem to recall any of the red words saying "go ye forth, and get more people on government healthcare." Maybe your concordance has something different in it.
                    It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
                    In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
                    Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
                    Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by scott View Post
                      Why is lawfully trying to block more government intrusion considered sabotage but accepting millions in taxpayer dollars for a website that still doesn't work not?
                      He's not blocking any intrusion. He's blocking advertising (and, in his own words, "trying to create a barrier to enrollment").

                      As far as Oracle's website development, if you have evidence it was purposely impaired, let's see it.
                      Enjoy.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                        He's not blocking any intrusion. He's blocking advertising (and, in his own words, "trying to create a barrier to enrollment").

                        As far as Oracle's website development, if you have evidence it was purposely impaired, let's see it.
                        Millions in payments, no working product, faked results given by state officials.



                        New documents show warnings on Oregon health exchange came early, often and went unheeded. Analysts predicted failure months before, but felt powerless to stop it.




                        "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
                        -John Locke

                        "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
                        -Newman

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          There is no evidence of intent there. Nobody is claiming that web development went well. But projects go badly for reasons other than sabotage. The "faked results" is just sensationalism. Having mock-ups to demonstrate the interface without a working back end is not unusual, and there is no indication that anyone presented the mock-ups as anything other than mock-ups.
                          Enjoy.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                            There is no evidence of intent there. Nobody is claiming that web development went well. But projects go badly for reasons other than sabotage. The "faked results" is just sensationalism. Having mock-ups to demonstrate the interface without a working back end is not unusual, and there is no indication that anyone presented the mock-ups as anything other than mock-ups.
                            Anytime you create a non working 'mock up' you are selling shit.
                            Robert Francis O'Rourke, Democrat, White guy, spent ~78 million to defeat, Ted Cruz, Republican immigrant Dark guy …
                            and lost …
                            But the Republicans are racist.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                              There is no evidence of intent there. Nobody is claiming that web development went well. But projects go badly for reasons other than sabotage. The "faked results" is just sensationalism. Having mock-ups to demonstrate the interface without a working back end is not unusual, and there is no indication that anyone presented the mock-ups as anything other than mock-ups.
                              Are you seriously saying that presenting mock-ups to demonstrate progress on the project appropriate? That's fraud unless it's clearly being shown as mock-ups.

                              No wonder this program is sucking wind. It's the big-government mindset that things don't necessarily need to work.
                              "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
                              -John Locke

                              "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
                              -Newman

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X