Obamacare Wars: Federalism, State Politics, and the Affordable Care Act (Studies in Government and Public Policy)

Synopsis

Obamacare Wars Shows How The Law’s Intergovernmental Structure, Which Entails The Participation Of Both The Federal Government And The States, Has Deeply Shaped The Politics Of Implementation. Focusing On The Creation Of Insurance Exchanges, The Expansion Of Medicaid, And Execution Of Regulatory Reforms, Daniel Béland, Philip Rocco, And Alex Waddan Examine How Opponents Of The Aca Fought Back Against Its Implementation. They Also Explain Why Opponents Of The Law Were Successful In Some Efforts And Not In Others—and Not Necessarily In A Seemingly Predictable Red Vs. Blue Pattern. Their Work Identifies The Role Of Policy Legacies, Institutional Fragmentation, And Public Sentiments In Each Instance As States Grappled With New Institutions, As In The Case Of The Exchanges, Or Existing Structures, In Medicaid And Regulatory Reform. Looking Broadly At National Trends And Specifically At The Experience Of Individual States, Obamacare Wars Brings Much-needed Clarity To Highly Controversial But Little-understood Aspects Of The Affordable Care Act’s Odyssey, With Implications For How We Understand The Future Trajectory Of Health Reform, As Well As The Multiple Forms Of Federalism In American Politics--publisher's Website. Postreform Politics In The Us Federal System: Patterns Of Consent And Dissent -- Uncertain Victory: The Political Context Of Health Care Reform Implementation -- Health Insurance Exhanges: When Dissent Means Not Lifting A Finger -- Medicaid Expansion: Take It Or Leave It -- Regulatory Reform: The Quiet Politics Of Bargaining And Consent. Daniel Beland, Philip Rocco, And Alex Waddan. Includes Bibliographical References (pages 163-203) And Index.