I applaud them. No, really. I do.

For those of you who might have followed the entire Obamacare battle from July, 2009 to March, 2010 -- start to finish -- you may recall that the House bill originally called for a national insurance exchange based on national risk pools rather than smaller, state-based ones. This was always a good thing, because the broader the risk, the less cost each individual has to bear.

Then Max Baucus wasted all sorts of time and energy concern trolling over the possibility that states would sue the federal government for pre-emption of states' rights, and so the Senate version was born with state-based exchanges.

I always hated that idea, because it limited risk to a much smaller pool and had the potential to drive up the costs, but the counterargument was that it was good-faith evidence that the legislative intent was not to override states' decisions.

Also, as you may recall, the alternative to the public option was a federally-run exchange with products negotiated by the OPM in the same fashion as the Federal Employees' Health Plan (FEHP), which had far more competitive rates than any state plan I could find to compare.

When these Republican governors opt out of the state-based exchanges, they are not opting their states out of Obamacare. I'm sure they're trying to set up future litigation as yet another roadblock, but fortunately there were safeguards written into the law in order to thwart effective "secession" from the coverage rules.

Each of those Republican governors has just abrogated their authority over the insurance exchanges to the federal government, who is now free to step in and offer people in their state health insurance based on a national risk pool, rather than state based. The bigger the pool, the cheaper it is.

Insurers are already whining about how they'll be out of the health insurance business altogether in a matter of a few years. Good. This should hasten the process and bring about single payer that much faster.

So why are they doing this? What benefit is there in opting out? Well, there's political benefit. They get to stand on the principle of not bending to the will of the people and implementing a law which is a law. I suppose they could point to Medicaid and their reluctance to avail themselves of federal funds there, too. It's also possible that they will try and use the one piece of the June Supreme Court ruling about Medicaid to justify their opt-out of the entire program.

But Obamacare is the law of the land, and people in those states are entitled to health coverage, and the federal government will ensure they have those options. If these governors want to surrender their state sovereignty to regulate and create the exchanges, the federal government has the authority to do it, will do it, and will leave the GOP governors out flapping in the wind as the selfish, cynical, cruel lot that they are.

So you just keep right on being obstinate, GOP governors. It means we'll move to the next square that much faster and be opening Medicare up that much sooner. After all, if we don't have states whining about their rights, it's that much easier to pre-empt it all in favor of a federal program.

DOWNLOADS: (133)

PLAYS: (1540)

Embed

Remember when John Kasich went on Fox News and said "Anybody who would root against the economy has something wrong with them?" That was just one month ago. Someone should have told Mitt Romney that before he scuttled over to Florida and told Rick Scott to ixnay on the improvements in Florida.

Via Bloomberg News:

Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign asked Florida Governor Rick Scott to tone down his statements heralding improvements in the state’s economy because they clash with the presumptive Republican nominee’s message that the nation is suffering under President Barack Obama, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Scott, a Republican, was asked to say that the state’s jobless rate could improve faster under a Romney presidency, according to the people, who asked not to be named.

What’s unfolding in Florida highlights a dilemma for the Romney campaign: how to allow Republican governors to take credit for economic improvements in their states while faulting Obama’s stewardship of the national economy. Republican governors in Ohio, Virginia, Michigan and Wisconsin also have highlighted improving economies.

Scott should follow the advice of the Romney campaign and it won’t undermine his own message, said Mac Stipanovich, a political strategist and lobbyist in Florida.

“This is one of those situations where you could have it both ways and there’s enough truth in it that it would resonate,” Stipanovich said. “It would be better if everybody was singing from the same hymnal.”

Only, it's bull. There is that. But then, truth isn't all that important to Mitt, as we know. We also now know that he is just fine with rooting against economic recovery for political gain, just like his compatriots in Congress. So yes, I think Governor Kasich may have stated it best: Mitt Romney's got something wrong with him.

Ohio Governor John Kasich lets his Koch love fly free.

From the AFL-CIO blog

The addiction of governors across the country to the Koch brothers’ agenda seems to be growing stronger every day. Here are some warning signs your governor might have a Koch problem:

1. Are they planning on attending the upcoming Koch brothers invitation-only strategy session in ritzy Vail, Colorado?

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has already confirmed his attendance. Just because your governor hasn’t announced his or her attendance doesn’t mean he or she is not planning on going. The Koch brothers hold biannual seminars but like to keep their strategy sessions secret so they don’t out their followers. If you have the opportunity, ask them!

2. Did your governor support attacks on collective bargaining rights for public service workers?

The Koch brothers’ front group, Americans for Prosperity, pushed attacks on the collective bargaining rights of firefighters, teachers, nurses, police officers and other public service workers in Wisconsin and Ohio and other states. During the Wisconsin struggle, Gov. Scott Walker was recorded taking a call from a prank caller he thought was David Koch and openly discussed the assault on working families.

3. Is your governor pushing massive tax breaks that would benefit the Koch brothers and other corporate cronies?

The Koch brothers fought hard for the Bush tax cuts to continue in December but they also took their fight for tax breaks for the rich to their Koch-addicted governors. In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich taped a personal thank you video for Americans for Prosperity for the group’s work pushing a repeal of the estate tax, which would only benefit the rich in Ohio.

Oh and there's more. Go check them out at ACLU-blog.

Kind of funny when the GOP is so extreme, they're pushing NJ Gov. Chris Christie (a real wingnut) to be more of a right-winger!

Gov. Christie says he has not decided whether to sign on to a 20-state lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health-care law signed in March by President Obama. That makes New Jersey one of seven Republican-led states that have not joined the largely partisan fight.

Interest groups on both sides of the debate are lobbying the governor, but some of his advisers say he should not join the suit. Capping property taxes and managing a difficult budget have rightly been his top priorities, they say, and New Jersey residents are more open than people in other parts of the country to health-care regulation.

With 16 of 23 states led by GOP governors fighting the new law, at least one national expert said Christie faced the risk of becoming an "outlier through inaction."

"He's going to have to explain why he has stood out among his colleagues in his own party by not doing something they've all done," said Michael Franc, vice president for government relations at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy group in Washington.

Can you imagine? When Christie goes to the men's room, does he have to say "Mother, may I?"

I guess the Republican governors are counting on their residents becoming so poor, they won't have TVs and so they won't find out what they're missing in other states? I really don't see the point of playing such heartless games with peoples' lives:

For people like Henry Kight, 59, of Austin, Tex., the possibility that the money might be turned down is a deeply personal issue.

Mr. Kight, who worked for more than three decades as an engineering technician, discovered in September that because of complex state rules, he was not eligible for unemployment insurance after losing a job at a major electronics manufacturer he had landed at the beginning of the year.

Unable to draw jobless benefits, he and his wife have taken on thousands of dollars in credit-card debt to help make ends meet.

It is precisely these kind of regulations, involving such matters as the length of a person’s work history or reason for leaving a job, that the federal government is trying to get the states to change. Such a move could extend benefits to an estimated half-million more people, according to the National Employment Law Project, a liberal group in New York that supports the changes.

Mr. Kight and other unemployed workers said they were incensed to learn they were living in one of a handful of states — many of them among the poorest in the nation — that might not provide the expanded benefits.

“It just seems unreasonable,” Mr. Kight said, “that when people probably need the help the most, that because of partisan activity, or partisan feelings, against the current new administration, that Perry is willing to sacrifice the lives of so many Texans that have been out of work in the last year.”

He was referring to Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who has said he may decline the extra money rather than change state policy.

[...] The anger at the governors’ positions goes beyond just the unemployed workers who could directly benefit from the changes. Because eligibility rules for unemployment insurance are complicated and vary by state, many unemployed people do not even know whether they would be affected.

[...] As a result, many laid-off workers across the South have been fretting over precisely what they might lose out on, even as they express astonishment that they might not receive the help that jobless people in other states will get.

“I don’t understand the whole thing,” said Kelley Joyce, 43, of Myrtle Beach, S.C., about indications from Gov. Mark Sanford that he may reject some of the stimulus financing in that state. “Apparently because he has money and he doesn’t have to worry about everybody else who doesn’t have money.”

Well, Kelley, it's not about logic! It's about political ambition and power, and you should be grateful that your life will serve as a stepping stone for your GOP betters!

All better now?