Jackson Jambalaya

Maybe Chaney's inaction on the HCTC, prefaced this decision by HHS. HCTC has been available to most states, but Chaney has taken no action whatsoever to qualify Mississippi....thus leaving may residents without affordable coverage. HCTC is a program for people out of work due to their job being moved overseas (remember garment plants in Mississippi?) and people whose pension has been taken over by PBGIC.

Mike Leavitt had Chaney believing he was some superstar. Had Chaney speak all over the nation about the healthcare exchange he was setting up in Mississippi. Chaney believed Leavitt's hype and his own. Every damn soundbite Chaney has been repeating over all these months came from Leavitt and his consultancy. Nearly verbatim.

Forget the hatch, Leavitt had Chaney counting chickens before the eggs were even laid.

I think Chaney did his best, in spite of Feel Bryant's resistance. 9:01, surely you know Chaney, nor any other person in his position has the working knowledge to set up something like this independent of advice from consultants. What advice would you prefer he had taken, if not Leavitt's? Please be specific if you answer, not simply critical of MC.

Chaney was right. The Governor was wrong. Bryant, as always, puts politics ahead of good policy.

Well, hey there, Eichelberger! I was wondering how long it would be before you showed up to carry Chaney's water and spew your bitter, vitriolic hatred toward Bryant.

The Obama Administration seems to be saying that Chaney was wrong.

"spew your bitter, vitriolic hatred toward Bryant. "

Could you possibly quote the "bitter, vitriolic hatred toward Bryant" that is "spewed" upthread?

No, you couldn't. Because you use words without knowing what they mean, or caring either.

The 'Justice Department' seems to be saying anything Mississippi does is wrong. They've listened to Michael King's plagiarized speech once too often.

The two elected official got in a pissing match. Bryant thought he could order another elected official around and tell him what to do. Bryant realized he can't change what the Fed's are going to do, but being the politician he is he seized the opportunity promote himself and his campaign by taking the Anti-Obama stance. Chaney was trying to avoid the total Fed management of the program, but in reality the Feds do what the Feds want to do.

Shadowfax, in spite of Chaney's posturing to the contrary, his plan for an exchange was not rejected by the feds because of anything Bryant did or did not do. Like MOST of us, Bryant is not in favor of an exchange. Cheney IS...but NOT because of imagined benefit of an exchange but because he's trying to buy votes from the bottom-feeders who actually believe an exchange will help them somehow. WHERE is the benefit? That the STATE can control it??? WHAT, pray tell, are we supposed to "control"? The minimum benefits are defined by Obama. No control there. The cost? Can't control that either. Who gets in? Nope. So, WHAT would we control? NO value, HUGE cost. Now, tell us again which politician has our best interests at heart...??

Is this the same exchange for which Chaney spent $700k+ for development, all to a California company?

Nice...

PS: If so, this would be a great place to link your earlier post on the subject of cost, Kingfish.

The news today is that the Federales want to form a joint partnership with Chaney on the exchange but Mikey now doesn't want to play.

"Chaney says he doesn’t want to do a partnership because he says the state would do most of the work."

Now that is curious.

If Chaney thought it was the right thing to do before why doesn't he want to get involved now? Chaney planned on doing all the work before so why is the level of effort now a gating factor for him? Will there now be a hue and cry from all the Donkeycrats and McCoy's water boy and Bobby Moak (D-Annandale) taking Chaney to task for saying No thanks?

Not 9:01 but I'll make a few suggestions Shadow @ 11:11 AM.

1. The Obamacare exchange does not come close to resembling the free market exchanges Barbour was advocating. Mike Chaney's mistake was trying to snow job everyone who knew otherwise that they were one-in-the-same. He unnecessarily shot himself in the foot and undermined his own credibility.

2. Mike should never have spent a single dime on advertising, radio spots, websites, etc related to the exchange without the HHS blessing of the exchange itself in hand.

3. Mike should have cut a deal with Phil Bryant that he would only seek HHS approval for the exchange but reserve the decison on whether to have the state operate it or defer to the federal plan for later. He should have made it a two-step process to a decision and by doing so -- assuming he received HHS approval -- would have forced a debate on the pros/cons of either approach.

4. Mike should never have run, repeatedly, to the media -- and especially not to the Supertalkers to whom he was paying big dinero to run his radio spots. Plus, having the liberal Donkeycrats in the state media like Sam Hall, Bill Minor, et al lavish you with hero worship set off crap detectors everywhere.

5. Finally, Mike should have never put himself in a position to give the vindictive Obama administration the opportunity to hang a Mississippi Republican, even one so indirectly supportive of Obamacare, out to dry.

All in all, too many unforced errors by the Insurance Commissioner. I do think it begs the question as to the motivation which led him to so doggedly fight this fight and attach himself and his office to Obamacare. There must be something more than his stated desire to firewall the Federal Govt out of Mississippi.

Shadow$hit
One of the quotes Chaney has had says when the feds do this they will use Navigators instead of Licensed Ms brokers, is this true?

If I remember from reading the bill, that is true.

It's simple. Chaney was running for governor. Maybe now he's not. Ellis Bodron raised the boy.

Ellis Bodron:A case of the blind leading the blind.

4:04 said, "Shadowfax, in spite of Chaney's posturing to the contrary, his plan for an exchange was not rejected by the feds because of anything Bryant did or did not do."

The federal government rejected it because the governor DID NOT sign it. Had the governor signed it, it would have been approved and still can be if Feel decides to get off his high horse and sign it by Friday.

Being for or against an exchange is a moot point. All states will have an exchange whether they like it or not, one way or another. Either a state run exchange, a federally run exchange or a combination federal-state exchange. What's the use of 'you' or me or Feel being opposed to it?

I admit to being a bit confused.

If MS brokers are taken out of the mix, that certainly isn't in our best interest.

Usually, it is far better for a state to run a federal program so as to tailor it, where possible, to state needs. Is this really the exception?

This smacks of yet another political Quixotic effort to pander to those who don't like Obamacare and imagine there is something to be gained in refusing to accept " the is".

If so, I hate to see us tilt at willmills yet again when we should focus on things we can change and improve.

Worse, I hate to see it appear that Mississippians, particularly within the same party, can't work together and put State interests above political differences.

Not sure it matters who runs it. The number of people who opt to pay the penalty instead of purchase from the exchange will defy all expectations.

Let me get this straight.

Obamacare, whether you like it or not, is the law.

Like it or not, there will be an exchange.

Rather that face the reality of the " IS", our Governor decides
to let the federal government run the exchange to the detriment of state insurance agents who will lose business and most likely to the detriment of the citizens as federal management will be a less efficient use of tax dollars .

Is the purpose of not signing the exchange to assure those who don't like it, " I don't like it either"?

If Obamacare will be as bad as advertised, why wouldn't you want to let it go forward and let the people see for themselves and say, " I told you so, now will you trust the GOP and vote for us in the upcoming elections"?

If you try to sabotage it, the Dems will argue that that's why it didn't work. Just as they successfully argued the GOP was responsible the gridlock that ended with the US being downgraded.

Other than being petulant and stubborn and pandering and trying to make Cheney look " less of a Republican", what possible purpose does this serve? Do any of you really believe that a few states not cooperating is going to kill this ? Or , if it doesn't work, that anyone will care or remember that MS let the feds run the exchange?

Let me get this straight.

Obamacare, whether you like it or not, is the law.

Like it or not, there will be an exchange.

Rather that face the reality of the " IS", our Governor decides
to let the federal government run the exchange to the detriment of state insurance agents who will lose business and most likely to the detriment of the citizens as federal management will be a less efficient use of tax dollars .

Is the purpose of not signing the exchange to assure those who don't like it, " I don't like it either"?

If Obamacare will be as bad as advertised, why wouldn't you want to let it go forward and let the people see for themselves and say, " I told you so, now will you trust the GOP and vote for us in the upcoming elections"?

If you try to sabotage it, the Dems will argue that that's why it didn't work. Just as they successfully argued the GOP was responsible the gridlock that ended with the US being downgraded.

Other than being petulant and stubborn and pandering and trying to make Cheney look " less of a Republican", what possible purpose does this serve? Do any of you really believe that a few states not cooperating is going to kill this ? Or , if it doesn't work, that anyone will care or remember that MS let the feds run the exchange?

I am one of those 13,000 brokers, who will be unhappy.

There is no exchange now. How do brokers and agents lose business?

I think the focus of you people who rate Mississippi governors is about to change from pardons to ineptitude, arrogance to incompetence, unbridled ego to nonfeasance.