The States Can Still Kill Obamacare

American Spectator ^ | 7-9-12 | David Catron

[radioone]

By taking aim at its insurance exchanges, the law's Achilles' heel, they can do it in.

Now that conservatives and libertarians are beginning to recover from the injuries they sustained by banging their heads against walls, desks, and other hard objects on June 28, perhaps it's a good time to introduce a ray of hope that might have seemed absurdly Pollyannaish during the dark hours immediately following the Supreme Court's surreal Obamacare ruling. Although the voters can put an end to the madness on November 6, the states don't need to wait until Election Day to take aim at a point of vulnerability that remains in place despite the Court's latest caprice. They can refuse to implement the law's insurance exchanges.

[Eye of Unk]

The MSM is suppressing this speculation to negate any activism.

If red states are having job growth then they can also weather out opting out from Obamataxcare.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”The exchanges didn't receive the attention their importance merits while the press, public, and political establishment remained intently focused on Obamacare’s individual mandate and the possibility that it might be ruled unconstitutional. The law calls for the states to set up these new bureaucracies, whose ostensible purpose will be to provide “marketplaces” in which people with no employer-based health insurance can shop for coverage at competitive rates. Now that the Court has upheld the individual mandate, these insurance exchanges constitute the key to the success or failure of the law. They are also its Achilles’ heel.
How's that? Well, as the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon succinctly puts it, “Without these bureaucracies, Obamacare cannot work.” And, oddly enough, the law doesn't actually require states to set up these “marketplaces.” Moreover, there is no rational incentive for them to do so. If a state sets up an exchange, it then must pay for it, which won't be cheap. Cannon writes, “States that opt to create an exchange can expect to pay anywhere from $10 million to $100 million per year to run it.” This is a burden that the states, most of which are already in deep financial trouble, are not likely to embrace with enthusiasm.
The federal government can set up its own exchanges, in theory, but Obamacare stipulates that Washington would then be required to pick up the tab as well. And, as Cannon goes on to point out, “The Obama administration has admitted it doesn't have the money — and good luck getting any such funding through the GOP-controlled House.” And it gets worse. If the federal government is forced to set up an exchange, it faces yet another huge problem. As Sally Pipes and Hal Scherz write, “The text of the law stipulates that only state-based exchanges — not federally run ones — may distribute credits and subsidies.”
Thus, if a state refuses to set up an exchange, the feds have no real ability to do so either. The states have an opportunity, therefore, to shoot a poison arrow directly into Obamacare’s Achilles’ heel. “
The letter, whose signatories include Senators DeMint, Lee, Coburn, Graham, Vitter, Paul, Cornyn, Sessions, Rubio, Toomey and Shelby, points out a number of facts that are apparently not well understood by state politicians, including the effect the exchanges will have on their business constituents. “Resisting the implementation of exchanges is good for hiring and investment. The law's employer mandate assesses penalties — up to $3,000 per employee — only to businesses who don't satisfy federally-approved health insurance standards and whose employees receive ‘premium assistance’ through the exchanges.”
In other words, a state that declines to set up an exchange will protect the businesses of that state from avoidable and job-killing penalties. This reality has apparently begun to sink in. There has been a noticeable decline in enthusiasm for exchanges among states that had begun work on them shortly after Obamacare passed. “

This is a pretty good sounding scenareo for Obama-care dying if accurate. The states that do set-up the exchanges must raise taxes to pay for them and those individuals who use them will have their employer fined for not providing the insurance to them themselves. If the state doesnt setup the exchanges there is no fine to employers and no penalty. Of course this doesn't help Romney beat Obama this year.

Here in Maryland our Dem governor (O Malley) has already prepared for it with waves of tax increase after tax increase on us to 'insure' the uninsured, the latest an income tax increase for those making over 100K/150K for singles/couples. That is about 80% of working adults living in my county. The remaining are on government assistance.

Duplicate thread ping in case the other one is locked.

[Gilbo_3]

this will take a few years to shake out, and by then, mountains of new regulations will be *law* and trotted out piecemeal to discourage and damage states that dont fall in line...

for every pol/talking head that has read and is using a section of the original 2700 pages to their advantage, theres an army of lawyers writing multiple counter regs to block em...

all this was in reality, prolly already written years ago, with an intent to trickle in the policies/funding mechanisms piecemeal, to make it impossible to find all the seedlings and repeal the monstrosity permanently...

im also in a retarded state that will happily bankrupt itself on the alter of 'democrat' policies...*IF* theres a long term strategy to halt bambamcare, and it actually is working at the state level, itll be the catalyst for herding people into respective states of their choosing, and drawing nice dividing lines for the coming conflict...

[sickoflibs]

What is needed is a scenario where states can opt out and end up more competitive for jobs and businesses than those that stay in. The more Dem states that avoid Obama-care the bigger failure of Obama’s key initiative.

Obviously if Dems in DC can fund much of it through Federal deficit spending, or even direct taxes (such as the tax cut expiration) then the states that take the handouts could end up with the advantage, as long as they get them.

If Romney loses but Republicans control both houses then not funding Obama-care becomes another big shutdown standoff, and so far the congressional Republicans have caved in on those, In fact I don't think they even understand why they lost those standoffs, anymore than in 1995; because of that they are unlikely to win future ones.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

If Romney loses but Republicans control both houses then not funding Obama-care becomes another big shutdown standoff, and so far the congressional Republicans have caved in on those, In fact I don't think they even understand why they lost those standoffs, anymore than in 1995; because of that they are unlikely to win future ones.

Indeed! But a GOP POTUS+congress is no guarantee of competence, let alone conservative policies (GWB).

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Here in Maryland our Dem governor (O Malley) has already prepared for it with waves of tax increase after tax increase on us to ‘insure’ the uninsured, the latest an income tax increase for those making over 100K/150K for singles/couples. That is about 80% of working adults living in my county.”

That is, of course, PRE-tax income, so you are talking about the middle class(not upper middle class) in say, Montgomery County.

[DoughtyOne]

Medicare Part D

End of story...

[DoughtyOne]

Medicare Part D

End of story...

I should add, 44 Democrat Senators actually voted with us on that one. It was passed over their objections.

That’s what happens to Conservatism when you get a Leftist Republican in, with a Republican Senate majority.

Conservatism is utterly destroyed in the halls of our government.