Obama's health care overhaul turns into a sprint

WASHINGTON (AP) - Its place assured alongside Medicare and Medicaid, President Barack Obama's health care law is now in a sprint to the finish line, with just 11 months to go before millions of uninsured people can start signing up for coverage.
But there are hurdles in the way.
Republican governors, opposed to what they deride as "Obamacare," will have to decide whether they somehow can join the team. And the administration could stumble under the sheer strain of carrying out the complex legislation, or get tripped up in budget talks with Congress.
"The clarity brought about by the election is critical," said Andrew Hyman of the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "We are still going to be struggling through the politics, and there are important policy hurdles and logistical challenges. But we are on a very positive trajectory." Hyman oversees efforts to help states carry out the law.
In the two years since passage of the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration has been consumed with planning and playing political defense. Now it has to quickly turn to execution.
States must notify Washington a week from Friday whether they will be setting up new health insurance markets, called exchanges, in which millions of households as well as small businesses will shop for private coverage. The Health and Human Services Department will run the exchanges in states that aren't ready or willing.
Open enrollment for exchange plans is scheduled to start Oct. 1, 2013, and coverage will be effective Jan. 1, 2014.
In all, more than 30 million uninsured people are expected to gain coverage under the law. About half will get private insurance through the exchanges, with most receiving government help to pay premiums.
The rest, mainly low-income adults without children at home, will be covered through an expansion of Medicaid. While the federal government will pay virtually all the additional Medicaid costs, the Supreme Court gave states the leeway to opt out of the expansion. That gives states more leverage but also adds to the uncertainty over how the law will be carried out.
A steadying force within the administration is likely to be HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. The former Kansas governor has said she wants to stay in her job until the law is fully enacted. "I can't imagine walking out the door in the middle of that," she told The Kansas City Star during the Democratic convention. Her office declined to comment Wednesday.
Republicans will be leading more than half the states, so governors are going to be her main counterparts.
Some, like Rick Perry of Texas and Rick Scott of Florida, have drawn a line against helping carry out Obama's law. In other states, voters have endorsed a hard stance. Missouri voters passed a ballot measure Tuesday that would prohibit establishment of a health insurance exchange unless the Legislature approves. State-level challenges to the federal law will continue to be filed in court.
But other GOP governors have been on the fence, awaiting the outcome of the election. All eyes will be on pragmatists like Chris Christie of New Jersey and Bob McDonnell of Virginia, whose states have done considerable planning of their own to set up exchanges.
"Republican governors are at the center of the health care universe right now," said Michael Ramlet, health policy director at the American Action Forum, a center-right think tank. "They do not have a uniform position across the board."
GOP governors are pressing Sebelius on whether the administration will approve partial, less costly Medicaid expansions. There has been no ruling yet.
On health insurance exchanges, some governors whose states aren't likely to be completely ready are considering the administration's offer of running the new markets through a partnership.
"The real question for Republican governors is, 'Are you going to let the feds come into your state?'" Ramlet said. "The question for the Obama administration is whether they are going to have more flexibility."
Major regulations due shortly and covering issues including exchange operations, benefits and protections for people with pre-existing health problems could signal the administration's willingness to compromise.
A recent check by The Associated Press found 16 states and the District of Columbia on track to setting up their own exchanges, while nine have decided they will not do so. The federal government could end up running the new markets in half or more of the states.
As far as Medicaid, 11 states and the District of Columbia have indicated they will expand their programs, while six have said they will not. That leaves more than 30 states undecided.
On Capitol Hill, Republicans say if a budget deal is going to include tax increases, it must also come with cuts to the health care law, or money-saving delays in its implementation.
While major changes can't be ruled out, they don't seem very likely to former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., who is close to the administration.
"I think Democrats are increasingly emboldened about the health care act," Daschle said. "The president won re-election partly by defending it. There is a new dynamic around the health care effort."
Republican attempts to amend the law will continue, he added, but outright repeal is no longer a possibility. "Budgetary issues will continue to be a big question mark," said Daschle.
But there are hurdles in the way.
Republican governors, opposed to what they deride as "Obamacare," will have to decide whether they somehow can join the team. And the administration could stumble under the sheer strain of carrying out the complex legislation, or get tripped up in budget talks with Congress.
"The clarity brought about by the election is critical," said Andrew Hyman of the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "We are still going to be struggling through the politics, and there are important policy hurdles and logistical challenges. But we are on a very positive trajectory." Hyman oversees efforts to help states carry out the law.
In the two years since passage of the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration has been consumed with planning and playing political defense. Now it has to quickly turn to execution.
States must notify Washington a week from Friday whether they will be setting up new health insurance markets, called exchanges, in which millions of households as well as small businesses will shop for private coverage. The Health and Human Services Department will run the exchanges in states that aren't ready or willing.
Open enrollment for exchange plans is scheduled to start Oct. 1, 2013, and coverage will be effective Jan. 1, 2014.
In all, more than 30 million uninsured people are expected to gain coverage under the law. About half will get private insurance through the exchanges, with most receiving government help to pay premiums.
The rest, mainly low-income adults without children at home, will be covered through an expansion of Medicaid. While the federal government will pay virtually all the additional Medicaid costs, the Supreme Court gave states the leeway to opt out of the expansion. That gives states more leverage but also adds to the uncertainty over how the law will be carried out.
A steadying force within the administration is likely to be HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. The former Kansas governor has said she wants to stay in her job until the law is fully enacted. "I can't imagine walking out the door in the middle of that," she told The Kansas City Star during the Democratic convention. Her office declined to comment Wednesday.
Republicans will be leading more than half the states, so governors are going to be her main counterparts.
Some, like Rick Perry of Texas and Rick Scott of Florida, have drawn a line against helping carry out Obama's law. In other states, voters have endorsed a hard stance. Missouri voters passed a ballot measure Tuesday that would prohibit establishment of a health insurance exchange unless the Legislature approves. State-level challenges to the federal law will continue to be filed in court.
But other GOP governors have been on the fence, awaiting the outcome of the election. All eyes will be on pragmatists like Chris Christie of New Jersey and Bob McDonnell of Virginia, whose states have done considerable planning of their own to set up exchanges.
"Republican governors are at the center of the health care universe right now," said Michael Ramlet, health policy director at the American Action Forum, a center-right think tank. "They do not have a uniform position across the board."
GOP governors are pressing Sebelius on whether the administration will approve partial, less costly Medicaid expansions. There has been no ruling yet.
On health insurance exchanges, some governors whose states aren't likely to be completely ready are considering the administration's offer of running the new markets through a partnership.
"The real question for Republican governors is, 'Are you going to let the feds come into your state?'" Ramlet said. "The question for the Obama administration is whether they are going to have more flexibility."
Major regulations due shortly and covering issues including exchange operations, benefits and protections for people with pre-existing health problems could signal the administration's willingness to compromise.
A recent check by The Associated Press found 16 states and the District of Columbia on track to setting up their own exchanges, while nine have decided they will not do so. The federal government could end up running the new markets in half or more of the states.
As far as Medicaid, 11 states and the District of Columbia have indicated they will expand their programs, while six have said they will not. That leaves more than 30 states undecided.
On Capitol Hill, Republicans say if a budget deal is going to include tax increases, it must also come with cuts to the health care law, or money-saving delays in its implementation.
While major changes can't be ruled out, they don't seem very likely to former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., who is close to the administration.
"I think Democrats are increasingly emboldened about the health care act," Daschle said. "The president won re-election partly by defending it. There is a new dynamic around the health care effort."
Republican attempts to amend the law will continue, he added, but outright repeal is no longer a possibility. "Budgetary issues will continue to be a big question mark," said Daschle.
Where were you guys when Robme introduced this exact health act in his state? They've been doing robme care for about 3 years now. Heard any complaints? What's the difference? Oh ya forgot. Obama is black- sorry i don't know how I missed that you being pubes and all. By the way do you know Robme lost? The people of these united states spoke loud and clear. Obama for another four years. This time he doesn't have to worry about re-election so hold on to your pants.
@usa2swimpattycrabby The difference is the state voted. A lot of us are tired of mandates coming down from the federal government. If my fellow statesmen and stateswomen want this mandated and controlled from a state level that is a different discussion. It is not the federal government's job- they have overstepped their bounds over and over again. That's the difference. Get it??
To everyone who believes Obama's so-called "health care reform" is a good thing - also to those who may not yet be in the know on it - I will explain to you the result of the Affordable Care Act. This act means insurers can no longer refuse to cover what are known as pre-existing conditions. Insurers will raise their rates to cover the increased risk. Employers will lay off workers to avoid additional damage to their bottom line. People will no longer be able to afford private insurance, forcing them to either go on the government's insurance or pay a fine every year at tax time. More people on the government plan will mean fewer resources will be available for patients. Government will then evaluate the patient's ability to contribute to society and provide care based on that. The elderly, infirm (and I don't mean things like cold/flu. I am referring to serious illnesses like cancer) and disabled will be considered a drain on society and will not receive the care they need. You get death panels by default.
 @theprodigal All true. But you'd have more success banging your head against a brick wall than reaching the logic circuit of some of KATU's posters.
The deadbeats are celebrating while we people ambitious enough to have a job are wondering where the hammer will fall next. Â Here is a link to an ad that was on just before the election. Â It shows where we are heading at a sprint. Â Hopefully, the Republicans can either delay or stop it. Â
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYKAbRK_wKA
I find it interesting the Obama Administration is against using a voucher system so people on Medicare can go shop in the private insurance market because it would be too expensive; At the same time they pass a law that forces all Americans to go out and pay those same high priced private insurance companies!?!
What this fluff piece leaves out is the cost & exemptions. The cost of Obamacare has (currently) doubled from the previous CBO number fudging and people exempt from the mandate is (currently) 1/6th of the population.
Â
Job loss due to Obamacare ranges from 250,000-800,000.
 @TimBurr http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/nov/8/picket-companies-plan-massive-layoffs-obamacare-be/
This comment has been deleted
 @RalphCramden Yep. Completely choreographed.
@RalphCramden Ralph, I should send in the picture of the employee I had to tell was getting laid off after the first of the year because of the %14 tax increase to my business as well as the cost of insurance doubling in the last 2 years! I didn't wany to wait until Christmas, as this probably hurts me more than him (very talented), and could be the financial end of my business.
O i'm sure it hurt you. It hurt you so much that you had to share it on katu. If you lose one employee and it could be the "financial end" of your business then you are a lousy business person.  But really aren't these fabricated stories more for the pre election when you can get a vote for your side?
 @usa2swimpattycrabbyÂ
Only time will tell.
Â
My prediction.
- unemployment will go up during the next 4 years and exceed 10%
- the national debt will reach 22 trillion
- foreclosures will go up
- governments will be forced to lay off lots of employees and cut back in services
- cities and counties will go bankrupt leaving the state to pick up the bills.
- it will rain in Portland in the month of December 2012.
 @flyroy Â
Times will get very hard in the coming years. Sorry that you have to deal with it and hope that you can somehow come out on top.
Â
The US is not business friendly. With 0bama it will get worse over the next 4 years. Thankfully the house is controlled buy the Republicans and they can stop a lot of his crap. He will use executive orders to further his agenda and there will be no one to stop him.
Absolute, utter relief in this household. January 1, 2014 cannot come too soon.
Â
Today, the only way I can receive the medical care that keeps (or possibly just delays) a rare disease from destroying my vision and keeping me functioning without constant, excruciating pain is by keeping my hours at work very low, so my personal income is low, so I retain Medicaid. And I absolutely cannot marry the man I've been engaged to for five years, and would dearly love to... because then his income would count. And I would lose healthcare until I'd lost my vision and was accepted for Social Security Disability - or things got bad enough that we made the decision to divorce, just so I could get healthcare once again.
Â
Hope for change? Yeah, this time, I actually have that.
@starshadow  This "tax" is not going to be the "cure-all" for people like they think it is. For those of us that are married and are a 2 income family, we will have to take the insurance from whichever spouse has the most employees, not which insurance coverage is better!  I would love for it to really cover those that need it, but wait and see, the change is not going to be what you're hoping for.
This comment has been deleted
 @TheUglyTruth The Obamanoids don't care how bankrupt this country is, or how much further down the rat hole we go. As long as they can get their abortions, food stamps and other handouts for free they're happy.
My employer has already received notice from our insurance provider that premiums will be going, way, way up at the first of the year. Normally our open enrollment is in May. We will be changing insurance at the first of the year.
My cost is equal to the penalty, if it goes up too much, I will just opt for catastrophic and drop the rest.
@Owt_Raged perhaps your employer should find a better insurance company that doesn't need a 100% profit margin to succeed. Insurance as it was is a scam, pay your whole life as they constantly raise rates->get sick->insurance drops you->cant get insurance due to "pre-existing condition"->die. I guess that's good enough for a country that claims to have the best healthcare in the world while actually being ranked in the mid to low 30s.
 @Ramsesthegreat Here's a news flash that might help you out. Health care and Health insurance are not the same thing. We have the best health care, which will begin to get worse because government mandated insurance will pay less and less. For years Drs have been backing away from Medicare, because it reimburses the Dr way less than the service costs to provide.
Insurance companies have always covered any condition present at birth. If you maintain your coverage, even with a pre-existing condition, you couldn't be denied.
Our company is probably one of the most fiscally responsible companies I have worked for. They provide good insurance because if the owner doesn't like it, personally for himself and his family, the employees don't get it.
Companies have to make a profit, even if you don't agree with it.
When will people get off their soap box about companies being successful? If they weren't none of us would have any services and we could all just learn how to do everything ourselves.
 @Owt_RagedÂ
My cousin sent out a notice to all his employees that all of them are subject to layoffs in the next 12 months (as required buy law). He is slowly moving his operations to China because he can no longer compete internationally with other companies outside the US due to the high taxes, cost of regulations and high wages.
Â
The layoffs will be about 151 people.
Â
Eight years ago he was paying about $20 per hour but now pays minimum wage and he still can't compete. His customers are telling him they can get the same parts from XYZ company for 70% of his prices. So he drops his prices to compete which means he is not making as much of a profit.
Â
He did cut his costs by installing government subsidized solar panels (both electric and water all made in China) but now that those tax credits have run out he is back to looking for ways to trim his costs once again.
Â
Currently he is backed into a corner and will either go bankrupt or have to move overseas. He is learning Chinese at the local college so I guess he will be moving to China.
@RalphCramden so you believe that China is a great economic model where the employees have zero safety regulations, wages per day that won't even buy a gallon gas here, 12 hour/7 day per week shifts, and no way to fight for better conditions? Sounds an awful lot like the U.S. during the 1850-1890s where nearly 50% of workers were either killed or maimed on the job, but don't worry, you won't be able to sue or collect workers comp either. All in the name of maximum profits for the owners at the expense of the workers. That may sound like an ideal situation to you, but to me it is sickening and FULL of greed.
Festivus, you should know ralphy by now. He chose China because it sounded good. The rest is made up b.s.
 @Festivus    @RamsesthegreatÂ
Â
It's all about economic survival for many businesses. Since the US doesn't seem to care about international competition then businesses have to do what they can do to survive.
Â
Most developing nations are more interested in food on the table than they are about the environment or working conditions. It's all perspective and to those who are extremely poor any job in any condition is a good job.
 @RalphCramden  @Ramsesthegreat Were it merely a matter of taxes, there are plenty of places besides China to move a token corporate headquarters. Â
Â
You  move a business to China when you need to circumvent environmental regulations or you need a cheap work force.  I have personal friends who have been in the FoxxConn plant.  It's pretty clear that this is not a model we want to promote for this country.
 @Ramsesthegreat Â
Where did I say that China is a great economic model???? I reread my post several times and never saw anything that eluded to China being a great economic model.
Â
Please point out where I said that.
Â
I only made the point that it is difficult to do business in the US because of the high taxes (highest in the world), the excessive regulations and the high cost of labor.
Â
Are you one of those people that reads things into a post that aren't there?
Â
The bottom line is that companies are moving out of the US so they can stay competitive. Don't like it? Well too bad cause it is reality.
Guess the cuts I experienced in my Medicare over the last two years or so, is only the beginning. By the time the Prez is finished, I will be lucky to have any health care at all. He's already diverted over $700 BILLION from Medicare for more important people. But that's okay, us old folks are supposed to go away to make room for the younger folks.
 @Nobody This isn't going to be one of those "death panel" rants, is it?
Â
As a 43-year-old small-business-owning taxpayer I do not expect that I shall ever see a pension, retirement, Medicare, "open enrollment" or all the other things to which the Republican and Democrat socialists seem to think they're entitled to more than the independent working class taxpayer. That would include all the conservatives with ATVs, toy haulers, boats, full-sized trucks and mortgages they couldn't afford and lost to their own financial messes. 'Cause tree-huggers don't buy that crap. THOSE people should have invested in their retirement instead of in toys that depreciate in value by half as soon as you take them off the lot.Â
Â
People who shop at Wal-Mart where things are cheaper instead of farmers markets and co-ops where things are local have cost jobs, wages and American wealth, for their own gain, so if you're blaming Obama but you shop at places like Wal-Mart, you're as much to blame as they are.
Â
It's not the President. Since the time you entered the labor force, the government has failed to protect the money you gave them and the promises they returned. We elected those people, including the Republicans who failed to win what should have been an easy election.
 @Playanekes  @NobodyÂ
People shop at Walmart because things are a lot cheaper there. If someone has a budget of $100 they want the most food for their money. Farmers markets are expensive compared to Walmart and are only for the folks with disposable income.
Â
Plus they don't have to drive all over and expend gas which is also expensive. They can go to Walmart and get almost everything with one stop.
Â
You are correct in that you will never see retirement unless you are already getting it. Even then it may disappear as the economy tanks. The SCOTUS has said that the government has no obligation to continue SS or Medicare or any other program for that matter.
Â
My wife and I are seriously thinking of moving overseas and getting dual citizenship. We will get our government retirement checks that are automatically deposited and not have to deal with this insurance thing. It would be the best of all worlds. We would still be US citizens, won't have to pay any US taxes, can still vote, and still get out government retirement. Several of my fellow retirees have done that and tell me the advantages are substantial.
 @Nobody That's a horrible thing to say...but unfortunately that's exactly the intention of the Bill, as it stands now.Â