Congratulations on posting essentially the exact same article (sans the silly facebook stuff) that was in my OP. Reading comprehension for the win!
Every businessman knows you charge what you'll have to pay in the future. That's why gas goes up at the gas station when futures go up, but before gas stations have purchased the gas. I guess we would have to conclude that all gas station owners acquired their gas stations at least in part from leftards who didn't know about replacement cost and went bankrupt. Then the leftards went into journalism where you can write nonsense and get a raise if it helps the nefarious cause.
Not just that, but if Ricter had read the original article he'd have noted (inconveniently, perhaps) that the compliance costs have already begun, even if the health insurance costs haven't. The company has had to hire folks to tell them how to get in compliance with the law.
Tao, it is true that all these Governor's said they were against expansion because after the 100% subsidy period their States could not afford the 10% match. All of the later-released studies, however, and without exception so far as I'm aware, have concluded that the tax revenues generated from 90% funding will equal or exceed the 10% required State outlay. In fact, most of them concluded there will be a net gain to the states in revenue after they chip in their 10%.. All the Republican governors are now aware of these economic studies. One can only conclude that their continued opposition to expansion is now being driven by their reluctance to admit their future net cost projections were wrong, or some combination of political posturing (i.e., what they think is politically expedient in their State), ideology, or, dare I say, stupidity. I'm guessing this will be the major issue in upcoming State political campaigns. The Republican are vulnerable on this, and therefore I think we will see a change. They will find some way to justify backtracking on this issue. (The detailed economic studies came out after the Republican Governors had already committed to blocking expansion. They did that very early on -- a political mistake it now seems.)
I wish there were a Gator's Dockside in my area. I'd go eat there today, leave a hell of a tip, and a short note of thanks to the owner(s) for doing what they're doing to SHOW obamacare is anything but "free." Yes, spike, rectum, piehead, I'd gladly pay the surcharge and drive home happy knowing this business did the right thing. And yes, I'm now a victim of the nazi after losing the health insurance I had, and liked well.
You're assuming a lot here, armchair quarterback. I have to concede that what you say is a possibility, but it is also quite possible that the governors know their state's finances better than supposed horseshit "studies" in favor of Obamacare, and the stellar record in which they have performed thus far.
Well yes, obviously I am. Let's wait and see what happens. I'm willing to go way out on a limb and predict that 100% of those governors who run for re-election at some point will backtrack BEFORE their re-election campaign gets under way and that at least half of them will backtrack before the mid-term election.
Prediction noted. And, I'm assuming if the GOP wins the senate and keeps the house, thereby doing all sorts of "evil" things to the ACA, that you'll change your prediction on the other half?