Demanded: Answers on failed state healthcare exchanges
Perhaps in the grand scheme of federal schemes, $1.3 billion squandered on seven problematic, even inoperative, state health insurance exchanges is chicken feed. But some members of Congress are demanding accountability — if not a thorough cleaning of the chicken coop.
In a letter from House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., House Republicans are pushing the Obama administration for the names of federal officials involved in awarding of grants for what turned out to be trouble-prone, state-run ObamaCare “marketplaces,” The Hill newspaper reports. Among the worse state health insurance exchanges, Oregon and Nevada have opted to scrap their expensive, broken systems and join the federal government's HealthCare.gov site.
“A billion dollars is a steep price to pay for incompetence,” Mr. Upton says.
Meanwhile, some Senate Republicans want states that have abandoned their websites, and have opted to use HealthCare.gov, to reimburse the federal government for what they spent on their exchanges.
But whether the federal government pumps more cash into states' failed exchanges — or states ante up for their botched systems — it's still money out of the public's pocket in the abysmal run-up to government health care.
What the public is owed is an explanation of how these exorbitant state exchanges went horribly wrong and accountability from those responsible.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Taxing consequences: The Shell effect
- Sunday pops
- Saturday essay: Deer of fools
- The Box
- A green-tip assault: ATF’s end run
- The silent treatment in Ford City: Forgotten words
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Union ‘ambush’: Not so fast
- SCI Greensburg: A dubious deal
- U.N. Watch: ISIS lip service
- The BNY Mellon deal: Cheating & shaming