Letters: One certainty with Care Act

In a recent letter to the editor, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu chided Gov. Bobby Jindal for refusing to set up health care exchanges in Louisiana.

Sen. Landrieu failed to mention there is still uncertainty about who will ultimately be in charge of these exchanges — individual states or the federal government? It has been proposed that a new federal executive branch called Health Choices Administration be created to oversee and administer insurance exchanges. This certainly sounds like the federal government managing yet another massive spending program regardless of who sets up the exchanges. We are all familiar with the track record the federal government has on managing spending programs. Why, even before the exchange has begun, the federal government has given $49 million to states just to conduct research on how to plan and build the exchange system.

Sen. Landrieu also fails to mention the federal government has enticed the states to set up their own exchanges by offering a lucrative 100 percent reimbursement for insuring the uninsured. However, this reimbursement decreases, eventually leaving the states to fund 100 percent of the costs. How federal government is this: States (taxpayers) picking up the tab while Washington tells them how to spend the dollars?

I believe Gov. Jindal recognizes the future financial burden the Affordable Care Act places on our state. Louisiana already spends about 25 percent of its budget on indigent care and this program will consume more budget dollars. Gov. Jindal has been joined by several other state governors who also refused to set up state exchanges. Is it really ideology or fiscal responsibility?

While there is still uncertainty on the administration, coverage and the costs of the Affordable Care Act, of one thing I am certain: Any time Washington wants to appoint itself as the watchdog over a massive spending program, you can bet your hard-earned dollar that the working taxpayers best grab their wallets and run.

Elizabeth Eure

• urse practitioner

Donaldsonville

Comments

1) Comment by InPVille - 19/12/2012

DMJ: Torte reform would not only have an impact on powerful corporations. There are many doctors whose medical practice is not part of a powerful corporation.

2) Comment by DMJ - 18/12/2012

Torte reform.... let's just take a minute to consider what this really means. 1. it takes away the only tool an individual has against a powerful corporation 2. it would require setting federal standards that would supercede state laws (the very thing conservatives usually claim they're against.) Also, I fail to see how making people buy insurance from a PRIVATE company is a "government power grab." A government power grab would be instituting a single-payer health care system. The ACA does no such thing. Not even close... Too bad, too. It's the only thing that can realiistically keep costs down.

3) Comment by billynurse - 18/12/2012

Common sense approaches, such as serious torte reform, and allowing healthy competition among providers across state lines, weren't even considered. Let's just call the "affordable care act" what it really is; the largest single government power-grab since the Russian revolution. As a former government employee (6 yr Navy veteran), I've seen 1st hand how well D.C. operates. It will be years to come before we feel the full brunt of that perpetrated monstrosity. "Let's just pass the bill, and then we'll find out what is in it"- Pelosi, 2010

4) Comment by twinkie1cat - 18/12/2012

The insurance exchanges were intended to save jobs so that smaller employers would not have to put their workers on part time status so they would not have to pay health insurance. With them, employers could band into larger groups and get better rates. But Jindal does not want Americans to have health insurance. That should be a treat for wealthy Republicans. He was so convinced that Romney would win the election that he would not even consider the consequences of Obamacare. So just like the school grants (both Pre-K /4 and Race To the Top), the internet grants for rural areas, the extra Medicaid money that would come from the exchanges and all the other benefits that a federal government that is run by a Christian instead of a conservative would bring, Louisiana is losing out. We will suffer for it because here people vote for whoever is anti-abortion and no one who is pro-life.

5) Comment by DMJ - 18/12/2012

"what's the long term benefit of the state setting up a program?" I'm confused...I thought states did things better than the federal government.... At least that's what Republicans like to say. Now, that they have a chance to put their money where they're mouth is, they abdicate responsibility (a.k.a. chicken out). Say what you will about the Care Act; at least it's an attempt to help, which is more than I can say for the Jindal administration.

6) Comment by Attila - 18/12/2012

This is just the old carrot and stick exercise. The feds agree to pay 100% of the costs for the first few years, and then the state has to start picking up its "share", pegged at 10% to start. The longer the program goes, the more the state has to be responsible for. While Jindal has been a big disappointment to me I do agree that he is doing the right thing for refusing to be baited into agreeing to something that has a big financial downside to the taxpayers of this state.

7) Comment by tradewinns - 18/12/2012

that's the part i don't "get". if the state sets up the program, sooner or later ther state has to support it. if they do not, the federal government ends up supporting it. what's the long term benefit of the state setting up a program? (anyway it goes, i am sure the taxpayer gets it in the end)

8) Comment by DMJ - 18/12/2012

"Is it really ideology or fiscal responsibility?" Ideology.

9) Comment by agagent - 18/12/2012

States must fund the insurance exchanges and that cost is still an unknown because all the federal rules are not in place (Maryland estimates a cost of $201 per enrollee). States do not gain any meaningful flexibility by operating exchanges. A federal exchange will service any states not having an exchange. It is better the federal government covers the cost if Obamacare collapses.

10) Comment by Chucky - 18/12/2012

"Louisiana already spends about 25 percent of its budget on indigent care" Those are my and yours tax $ so do not say i don't give might be able to care less if others cared more.

11) Comment by slye753 - 18/12/2012

beabea: if you know all the facts about the ACA, you are alone on that subject. the gutless wonders that passed the bill still know very little about it.one thing for sure, it will cost the working people in their wallets.

12) Comment by beabea - 18/12/2012

The nurse practitioner decries Washington being "the watchdog" over a spending program, while apparently defending Gov. Jindal's decision to turn Louisiana's health insurance exchange over to the control of...Washington. But at least she has enough self- awareness to admit that she's sure of only one thing: some simpleminded anti-tax slogan. Her letter certainly demonstrates she doesn't have the foggiest idea of the facts about the ACA, which is pretty pathetic for someone with an advanced degree in the health care field.

13) Comment by gvm - 17/12/2012

Nonsense.