E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSStates got a last-minute extension late Thursday of a deadline to decide whether they’ll build their own health insurance marketplaces, or let the federal government do it for them.
Republican governors had been complaining about the Nov. 16 deadline to file their formal decision with the Health and Human Services Department, mostly because HHS has not yet told them what a federal exchange would look like.
HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius gave in at almost the last moment, extending the deadline to Dec. 14.
“While receiving a letter of intent now will help us assist states in finalizing their application, a state may submit both a letter of intent and an application to operate its own exchange by December 14,” Sebelius wrote in a letter to the Republican Governors Association.
It’s the second time in a week that Sebelius let the governors slide. Last Friday, HHS said the states could have nearly a month extra to submit plans of what their exchanges would look like, if they decided to set up their own. She gave them until Feb. 15 to detail plans if they wanted to partner with the federal government to build an exchange.
The 2010 Affordable Care Act aims to get more people covered by health insurance, so they can get medical care when they need it, and so they get care earlier, before easy-to-treat conditions like high blood pressure can cause expensive strokes or heart attacks. One way to do this is by setting up online marketplaces called exchanges to help people to buy insurance.
They’re supposed to provide a side-by-side comparison on price, what’s covered and how much you might have to pay out of pocket for a doctor’s visit. They’ll also be a route for people to get a little extra cash from the federal government to buy insurance; the health care law provides for a generous federal subsidy for many, if not most, buyers.
However, many governors have balked at doing this and most states were procrastinating. Some were gambling that the Supreme Court would strike down the health reform law in June and when it didn’t, they waited to see if Republicans took the White House and Senate in the Nov. 6 election.
Now they will have to decide, but HHS has also taken some time in publishing rules many governors say they need to see before they decide whether to take on the job of running an exchange.
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal wrote to President Barack Obama, asking him to extend the Nov. 16 deadline.
Jindal and McDonnell are among the governors who have said they won’t set up exchanges. Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman joined the group on Thursday.
"The reality is that the federal health care law is being totally dictated and totally controlled by the federal government," Heineman told a news conference.
South Carolina’s Nikki Haley repeated her decision to opt out of running an exchange Thursday. Other Republicans who have said no include Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell and Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback.
But Mississippi has said it will set up an exchange and Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who led one of the major lawsuits trying to overturn the Affordable Care Act, now says he’ll try to do so in his state, also. New Mexico’s Republican Gov. Susana Martinez had been working already to set one up. Heavily Democratic states such as California and Connecticut have already begun work on their exchanges and Colorado says it will, too.
Sebelius said in her letter she would provide more information soon.
“Additional guidance will be released in the coming days and weeks,” she wrote. “We are confident governors will have enough time to decide whether they want to establish an exchange, work in partnership with the federal government or have a federally facilitated exchange in their state.”
The exchanges must, under law, be up and running by January 2014. Open enrollment -- when people get to have a peek at what is on offer and start signing up -- is supposed to start by October of next year.
Related stories:
Leave a Comment:
Why give them an extension? Our stupid Wacko Walker will not have his mind made up and could careless if a program to help the people of his state went into effect. He's too darn lazy to do it himself so I would bet he'll let the gov. do it, but it will make him sound strange when he talks about less Fed. Gov. programs and involvement! He's an idiot! Oh, I see he said he would decide tomorrow after a year of doing nothing!
Gee, how forgiving of you.
These exchanges are following the same path the law did. Just like the when the Democrats said that they would find out what was in the ACA after they passed it they want the governors to make a decision about the exchanges before they have even been told what they will look like. This is bull@!$%#. The federal government should not be allowed to force the states to make a decision about whether they want something or not until the feds have told the states what it will be. Sebelius and the rest of the Obama administration wants the states to just trust them and make a blind decision. It should be no surprise that some of the governors are pushing back against this ridiculous tactic, I would be surprised if they didn't. This would be like asking a person to make a decision about buying a car without allowing them to see it first, no one in their right mind would do this.
couple of things that most state govenors should have vs wing nuts... brains that work for them. They have the Fed plans and goals. If you can't build a system with given parameters, then why the F' are you in charge?
For example, JS in SD pointed out how it is bull@!$%# that the the states to make a decision about whether they want it or not. Hmmm, I thought most states are well on their planning stages, even budget strapped CA is well into our planning. It is BULL that you allow your local government procrastinating with your TAX DOLLAR!!!
If we are paying you, DO THE JOB OR GET THE F'OUT.
Typical Republican response to anything - do nothing and then complain.
@js;
Not true they have had plenty of time to examine the ACA, now they have been given even more time until 1/14/13. They should not have to be told anything. They should form their own oipinons on what is best for their state. This is why the people elected them.
The ACA is there for all to see JS, so quit the BS.
I live in AL, so there is less than a snowball's chance in hell that Gov. Bentley will cooperate at all with anything Mr. Obama wants to do and he's already said so. So the citizens of AL, who need health care help like this, will rot because Bentley and the rest of the "leadership" want to be ....well, themselves. Thanks so much, you selfish losers.
To JS""""
"We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it,"
Nancy Pelosi .....March 9, 2010
Well then how come the repubs came up with so many amendments to it back in the summer of 09 if they never read it
What do the GOP amendments to this Senate health care bill actually say?
By Christopher Beam
Posted Thursday, July 16, 2009
(snip)
That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim—as they are now, in fact, claiming—that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical.
Yet many of the GOP amendments on this incomplete list do seem pretty substantive. For example,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/prescriptions/2009/07/this_is_what_bipartisanship_looks_like.html
Coral - The ACA does not have details about what a federal exchange would look like, how it would operate and what the interaction would be between the federal and state government.
thturd - as of October 36 states had done nothing regarding the establishment of an exchange. They are all behind the 8-ball.
Ram - whether Gov. Bentley does something or nothing there will be no change to the timetable by which you would have access to an insurance exchange. If the state doesn't do anything then the feds will step in and set up an exchange. At any rate you will have access to enroll in an insurance plan through either a federal or state exchange as of October 1 of next year.
@joemike;
How it works is there. These are all firsts sir, you can not detail something that has not happened yet, but you can see the plan and how it works. JS is trying to make it sound worse than it is, using a nonvalid point, we can see the plan.
Once again the Republican Party breaks the law and gets away with it. Kathleen Sebelius should stop playing with the GOP terrorists. They have no intentions of setting up health exchanges anywhere.
The governors had plenty of time they just wasted it with by filing frivolous lawsuits using the taxpayer's money who wanted the ACA health insurance. Go figure. Now they want their own control since they know their constituents are going to have health insurance either from the States or the Fed.
Idiots like Rick Scott who can't see past his own self interest should step down and let a leader govern.
JS,
I am an independent that usually leans left on social issues...
Having said that I have to agree with you on the way this has been handled since the beginning. We definitely needed a national healthcare plan to help people in this day and age of high doctor and pharmacy costs. The crazy thing to me is why everything is being dragged out over 4-5 years.
OH! And don't think to forget that the unhonorable, phony, political theatrics from the republicans doesn't have anything to do with this.
What a mess the leadership has made. Pathetic.
The beginning of the end to Americas indigent care problem. The ACA probably needs tweaking here and there, but for the most part it works for all and keeps things fair for the "little guy".
This problem has been kicked down the road for decades. Anything new takes adjusting or a getting used to. The end result here will be more insured Americans.
The last time I checked good health was priceless.
Actually from looking at other systems, the problems multiply instead of decreasing.
Coral I know someone personally that has to move jobs because the company dropped care they used to provide... It is cheaper for the company to drop it than to pay the 30+ employee "tax" to support the ACA... EVERY single provider including Tricare (for soldiers/ retirees) have increase out of pocket expenditures... Also reports; that people are being refused care because hospitals under the ACA are fined for "re-admitting" patients for the same problem.... This is a disaster that is not fully realized...
One thing I agree with you on.. We voted for this... now we own it.
@flame;
If they have under 50 employees they should not have to do anything. There are incentives and subsidies that if used together for the 25+ will be good for the small businesses. Businesses this size have had a hard time getting themselves and the employees insured now they can acquire affordable health care.
What makes you think under 50 employees have to pay this tax?
With or without ACA I do not believe a hospital can turn emergencies away. I did not see this part about fining hospitals in the ACA can you show me?
Flame 77_7
I'm surprised that hospitals are admitting to "re-admitting for the same problem" at all now. For twenty years I have watched hospitals lie about re-admits. They list the diagnosis as different from the original admittance so that they can say that their outcomes are all good despite kiccking patients out too early. That way they keep costs down by saving on expenditures for good care. For example, a young man, 22 years old, who holds a good full-time job, sustained multiple leg fractures in a car accident and was uninsured (prior to Obamacare). He was sent home too early because the hospital did not want to foot the bill for his extended stay for PT and the blood thinning med he would need to prevent a blood clot forming in his leg at the wounded area, dislodging,and travelling through his bloodstream to his lungs where it could have potentially killed him. He did not get the med, shot the clot, and was readmitted for "chest pain, possible anxiety". Fortunately, we knew what it really probably was and treated him accordingly. He was lucky to have survived. Medicine has been in on this for years. Don't trust hospital administrators. Trust your nurses.
Flame and brainwashed, The issue with readmission rates has nothing to do with the ACA and hospitals are not fined for readmitting a patient with he same diagnosis - at least not directly.
What the federal government monitors is the 30-day readmission rate - the percentage of patients with a given diagnosis that are readmitted with the same diagnosis within 30 days. Not all diagnoses are monitored, including trauma victims as in the example given by brainwashed. Currently CMS (the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) monitors readmission rates on patients with chronic diseases. The rationale for this is that if hospitals discharge patients too early and do not provide adequate access to follow up care, the patient will return. The downside of this is that it is actually holding hospitals accountable for some things over which they have no control. For example, if a diabetic patient comes to the hospital because her blood sugar is out of control, she will be treated for that condition. If the patient decides to go home and return to the same poor dietary habits and willfully does not follow the instructions of her healthcare providers, she will be readmitted to the hospital with the same problem within 30 days. The hospital cannot force people to take good care of themselves after they leave the hospital. On the other hand, hospital can do a better job of educating patients before they leave and ensuring that they have access to prescriptions and making follow up appointments for outpatient care.
Hence, the government monitors the readmission rate. If the RATE (not the readmission of a single patient) exceeds the national average then the hospital MAY receive a small reduction in its medicare reimbursement rates. The MAY is because the rules do allow for the fact that not all bad actions on the part of patients are the fault of the hospital and the organization should not be penalized for the patients' refusal to care for themselves.
Sorry... but this is DIRECTLY due to ACA.. I'll post my sources.
http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefing/2012/10/03/CMS-underestimated-1400-hospitals-readmissions-penalties
And here is clarification on the 50+ employe healthcare coverage.. This is why employers are dropping care they used to provide:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/jul/24/nearly-one-10-employers-drop-health-coverage/
Ill say one thing... We... The United States wanted this.. Voted for this... and I'm telling you this is the tip of the Ice Berg:
http://long-term-care.advanceweb.com/Features/Articles/Possible-Negative-Impact-ACA-Elderly.aspx
On the 50+ employees.. this includes contractors and franchises... The cost could be passed down to those entities with less than 50 employs and causing them to "rethink" coverage.
And on the Admissions Joe... The intent was to separate "certain" conditions but it rapidly becomes a funding source for ACA.. All the sites that I visited are taking aggregate numbers that (on the surface) is not "condition" based.
For example it is true that ER visits are NOT admissions.. but if you are admitted (post ER) THAT is counted as a admission. If you are treated and released.. no worries but and admission is a admission. You are correct on the Diabetic example but the "small" deduction is a "major" source of funding for some healthcare institutions.. also they are "backtracking" the data. Those "deductions" are immediate. I hope that clarifies.
joemike 404
Chronically ill patients who do not have insurance and who need to be readmitted due to inadequate care during their first admission, are routinely readmitted under diagnoses unrelated to their first admission, when the readmission is NOT for reasons related to their own poor adherence to their given protocols to follow at home. This happens often within ONE OR TWO days, well within the 30 day boundary. They are sent home without proper prescriptions, without the equipment or services they need to continue their rehab/healing at home and certainly without thorough discharge explanations and orders. And you know it.
Hospitals hide their poor care practices to save money. This is a typical hospital administration response.
Hospitals change the diagnoses at subsequent readmissions so the RATE of readmission will not increase. This has been going on since the 1980's, at least.
The diabetic patient example is a typical one given by hospital administrators and bean counters.
I cared for surgical post-op, post-partum, burn/trama step-down, cardiology, and post-CABG. It happens everywhere. Especially on routine, elective post-op floors.
Don't trust hospital administrators. Trust your nurses.
Brainwashed - You certainly have been. I am both a nurse and a hospital administrator. I don't deny or doubt that your assertions are true in some cases but they do not happen nearly as often as you are trying to lead others to believe. In your own trauma example the patient was admitted most likely with a diagnosis of multiple trauma or one related to his fractures. If he was discharged and subsequently readmitted with chest pain related to a possible PE, he would have been readmitted with another diagnosis - not the original trauma diagnosis. That would be appropriate because he didn't come to the hospital because of his fractures, he came because of his chest pain.
You are correct that they are using an aggregate readmission rate. My point was - perhaps I wasn't clear - is that not all diagnoses are included (nor all patients within a diagnosis) in the readmission rate.
Really, we hospital administrators are not nearly as devious and evil-minded as you seem to believe.
Once a nurse transitions from patient care to management, he/she falls in line with the rhetoric used to defend the tactics developed to reduce costs/increase revenue for the hospital. You do not have to be evil to want to make more money or be willing to present the numbers and data in such a way as to personally profit. Devious, yes. Evil, no.
I have worked in 5 hospitals. They all do it. I have personally seen it on a daily basis over many years. I have many friends in nursing who see it as well. It is a common topic of frustration among nursing staff everywhere.
The hospitals in which I worked are among the best in the country and all but one are not-for-profit. The for-profit Catholic hospital was the worst. Imagine what is going on in the 6000+ other hospitals nationwide.
The ones asking for extensions are the ones who were counting on Mr. Mittens winning and doing away with the whole thing. They also didn't have a Plan B in case he lost. Smart people plan for all contingencies. Others don't.
Kozar
Many of the states really have the finances to do this. Others actually have a conscience that won't let them raise taxes for programs their constituents don't want.
And DB, some could do it and would if they took their heads out of the sand. Their constituents do want health care and they are not working in their best interests by rejecting this. This is about ideology and politics and not conscience.
Sounds like a typical liberal way of doing things.. "we'll give you until 11/16 to decide if you want to join these exchanges.. oh by the way we don't yet know what they'll look like".. same BS they did w/ Obamacare.... "we have to pass it in order to know what's in it"... sorry libs.. you got a real skewed way of looking at things..
The question was so tough.
Do you (name of state) want to set up your own Exchange or use one set up by the Federal Government?
Wow that is one tough question.
According to Romney, the states should to do things themselves. According to Romney, the states want to do things themselves, so why don't they step up? Massachusetts has been doing it for years and it has been successful. If you are too shortsighted to see the benefits of everyone paying for themselves, you will see the benefits after a couple of years of putting it into practice. Those of us who have been paying for our health insurance for years have also been paying for everyone who does not have health insurance, Emergency room care and "free" hospital care ISN'T FREE. It's time for all of those using emergency room care and hospital care when they become ill or are in accidents to pay for it themselves and stop expecting those of us who pay into the insurance system to pay for their health care.
The same people who are so critical of having to pay for insurance are the first in line for free care when they are in an accident or an emergent illness.
Joe the lib - Do you want to buy a car or have the federal government buy one (which you will pay for) for you? BTW, the federal government cannot tell you what your new car will look like or how much it will cost you. Would you not think it reasonable for the government to be able to answer that question for you before you decide whether you want to buy the car or have them do it?
First and foremost, stop lying about the law. Juan and joemike, you are either lying or ignorant when you post your comment. If you're ignorant, then stop commenting until you are actually informed.
Truth is: all these governors, oppositionistas ALL, bet WRONG! 1st on the SCOTUS overturning the law, then on Romney winning!
Just as bad, though, HHS DID TOO!!! Sebelius should have made the deadlines clear a year ago, subject only to possible SCOTUS review.
But the main takeaway here is that, just like Romney is doing now, the GOP guvs are whining and scapegoating, when they should be DOING THEIR JOBS UNDER THE LAW! Anything else is oppositional behavior, just like a bunch of 5 year olds!
joemike404
Do you realize how stupid your comment is. An Exchange will be a place were you can go to PICK WHICH HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN WORKS FOR YOU. ACA is so everyone can take Personal Responsibility for your Own Health Care. Exchanges will list Health Insurance companies in your state and show you your options. Don't know why I bother to explain it to a FOX Lemming.
http://marketdailynews.com/2012/11/12/election-fraud-barack-obama-won-more-than-99-percent-of-the-vote-in-more-than-100-ohio-precincts/
Im getting seriously fed up with the democrats constantly caving to the bullying tactics of the republicans. The republicans can block a lot of legislation that both the president and the people want passed almost without any challenge, yet even now after being reelected the democrats still seem to be unwilling to actually fight back. When will the democrats finally grow some balls and actually fight back against these bs bullying tactics? Obamacare has been the law of the land for a year or more, yet the republicans still have the audacity to think that they are somehow above the law.
Morlack, I have a $20,000 car I want you to buy by next week. No you can't see it. No you can't know what features it has. No you can't have the specifications. And if you don't buy it, you're just an obstructionist using bullying tactics to not buy it.... Is that correct?
this is not about buying a $20k car. This is about taking personal responsibility for yourselves and having healthcare. The people that are responsible and pay for thier healthcare should not have to shoulder the cost of the people that do not. Some can't afford it, others are just freeloaders.
Using Texas as an example, there are many MILLIONS in Texas uninsured. Texas has the highest number of uninsured in the country. How long do you think hospitals, doctors, labs, etc. can treat people for free before they have to close, or they have to raise thier prices and the people that do have insurance will have to pay higher premiums since the insurance companies will be billed more.
I pay for my own healthcare. I'm not understanding why people simply refuse to take responsibility for themselves. Why should my premiums be higher because of freeloaders that ASSUME they will never get sick and are to cheap to pay for themselves?
I would think all the people that whine about personal responsibility would jump on this and get it in place.
You have to take into account how many of those millions in Texas are illegals, who still wont and should not EVER be covered...
When is the government going to take responsibility for a wide open border with millions of illegals flowing across cost us BILLIONS of our tax dollars each and every year? Stop paying for them would be a great first step in showing the American people the government actually gives a crap about them and save us a ton of wasted money...
Morlack, Ted and Angela, your comments have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
The fact that you, and two other people, don't 'get it' is exactly why someone like Obama won this election...
Once again the GOP leads from the rear. Please just set up the Federal exchanges so we can shop for the best value and leave the retards in the GOP to marinate in their own inability to do anything but urinate and defecate. Two things they do several times a day whether they want to or not.
Whoa, and i thought i was being harsh.
Why is it that the Republican party, the party of Personal Responsibility, the party that until 2006 championed Romney Care as the Model for the rest of the United States now HATES the plan they endorsed?
It's time republicans stop with the Fox talking points and actully do take Personal Responsibility.
Man I'm glad I don't live in one of those @!$%#hole states.
Of course they knew what they looked like... they were just hoping that Mitt and the boys would win and keep it from happening...
No they don't know what they will look like. Not even the federal government knows what they will look like.
rick perry already declared he's not going to do it... can obama fire his azz so we can get someone with a brain some day?
"The reality is that the federal health care law is being totally dictated and totally controlled by the federal government," Heineman told a news conference. +++++ Yes, Governor. And the Right-Wing-Majority Supreme Court said it's Constitutional. Isn't that what you say you're for?
WI Governor Walker has been dragging his feet hoping the SCOTUS decision and then the election would bail him out. In the process of pursuing his ideology of opposing anything proposed by the Democratic administration, he has rejected the 38 million dollars dedicated to exchange development by the federal government. These are tax dollars of the citizens of WI which are being squandered. Add to that the 800 million he rejected to extend a rail line from Milwaukee to Madison and the some 40 million dedicated to improve broad band coverage for northern rural WI and he is an expensive man to have in a position of authority. Now the taxpayer gets to make up the exchange expense AND certain additional expenses related to mandatory improvements related to the rail line between Milwaukee and Chicago which is a very successful project.
Yea, it's a fustercluck, but they'll get it figured out.
Why are repubs so against the Affordable Health Care act...
why do they want people to get free healthcare..
anyway who pays for the uninsured now ...maybe we should just let them keep paying for it then ...
no
Do you actually believe those working minimum wage jobs are going to even be able to afford $10.00 a month for insurance, especially if they have children? That is wishful thinking. So yes, they will still be receiving free health care! They can receive Medicaid now and they won't be giving that up anytime soon! Soooooo, yes, somebody will continue to pay for the "uninsured" (Medicaid)................
The ACA was an idea dreamed up by a conservative think tank. The dream of mandating insurance coverage is a major coup for insurance companies.
The only reason for GOP opposition is that Obama is president and they don't want to see anything he does succeed.
An insurance exchange is another phrase for "government-run insurance company". This should be fun. (dripping sarcasm).
It appears that Chief Justice Roberts has allowed America to carefully balance the needs of health care for almost all of Americans while at the same time allowing the Federalist concept of individual state rights and freedom of diversity and experimentation among the States to hopefully come up with the best health care program in America. This is the way health care in America is supposed to be in the 21st Century.
Justice Roberts was in his younger days a republican activist, marching on polls during the 2000 election and intimidating black democratic voters.
Nice boilerplate garbage post, hope the republican PAC you work for is paying you per post.
It is, unfortunately, a national law, so it should be run nationally. It makes no sense for 50 states to each spend millions to duplicate these exchange programs when one national exchange can do it. It is just a computer program. The feds have lots of computers sitting on desks being used to play solitaire. Surely they can assign one of them to run this exchange program. What's the big deal?
John,
Sarcasm, denial, or lack of knowledge? Just trying to figure out how to respond.
Typical Fed BS. You states have to define yours and turn in the data. We at HHS have had a couple years to define ours and it's not done, which that states need to make up their mind.
ALL states should let the feds handle their insurance for them. The government forced this on us so let them have the headaches and cost of running it. Why take on such a huge challenge and waste. After a couple years of that it will be broken like everything else the government manages and we can get rid of this nonsense.
This idea was pushed by conservatives. The medicaid program was changed from a centralized government plan to one where states could opt for a block grant, and manage the system according to the state's unique needs.
All this would be a mute point if the stupid liberals and Democrats in America had voted for the other guy. Obumer would be out on his a$$ and the country could start to recover. But no, the people want a "free" hand out and are just too stupid, ignorant or fiscally blind to realize nothing is "free". OK, you voted for it, you got it, live with it and stop complaining.
Where I live our governor could care less about health care for his 'subjects'. He's much too busy working with his radical base to entrench a Republican 'thousand-year Reich' on our states government. Big money rules the day, if there's nothing in it for them, there's nothing in it.
Repubs just don't get it! 1/4 of all Texans have no health insurance and their governor is not going to expand Medicaid to help his own people, a shameful disgrace on that state. The republican party should rename itself "The Selfish Party". Its all about greed, no new taxes, turn the populace against the government in order to get existing taxes and services reduced even further. DISCRIMINATION in the workplace toward DEMOCRATS by their repbulcian hiring managers and republican human resource staffs, also in charge of hiring and screening workers for things like their feelngs about UNIONS, the right to organize, their political leanings.
Sadly this workplace DISCRIMINATION toward SKILLED, QUALIFIED, AND EXPERIENCED DEMOCRATS is not limited to the workplace. It also exist in community colleges and state universities. Carried out by republican administrators, along with the help of republican staff and teachers. They conspire against DEMOCRAT students trying to improve their skills and move up the ladder. However if your not a conservative, as mentioned by HUCKABY on the DAILY SHOW the other day, your not allowed to climb that ladder. In fact, if your a family man, an outspoken DEMOCRAT, an established UNION LEADER, a National Deans List student graduating with honors with an Associate Degree and receiving a transfer scholarship, you become the target of a repbulican smear campaign. Being forced into counciling, just for speaking opinions on campus, so the powers that be can further nosy into your business and make cannon fodder for their future plans. Which ultimately is to get this man out of the class rooms and off the campus. Suspending this family man with a wife and two children to support and depending on him to get that better paying airline maintenance job. You enlist the help of a new teacher from conservative KANSAS, then the republican administrator along with false charges from this new teacher concoct a scheme to suspend this student, who has attended classes full time for two years, and has only one semester left to graduate. You supsend this family man for two years, knowing he has only one semseter left to graduate. See the REPUBLICAN DISCRIMINATION isn't only in the workplace, they also exercise it on college and university campuses, to make sure only those conservatives HUCKABY mentioned, get to climb that ladder.
I'm sure that employers and colleges inquire as to the political affiliations of their employees/students. wink wink!
Talk about being paranoid! Sheesh!
The Feds want to give control to the cult of "states rights" and they won't take it. Ironic.
The idiot Republicans are finally waking up to the fact that if they do nothing the feds will do it for them, which is an anathema to them!
Healthcare Exchanges are an idea cooked up by conservatives. The only reason for their present opposition to it is that Obama is black.