Skip to comments.States Can Shut Down ObamaCare's Big Spending Plans (CATO)
Posted on 11/10/2012 8:24:54 PM PST by Kolath
Contrary to popular myth, states are under no obligation to expand Medicaid or create a health insurance exchange, and they should refuse to do either. That from Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute. He argues that the costs to the private sector will be significant if states agree to create exchanges.
(Excerpt) Read more at cato.org ...
States must stand together to REJECT Obamacare. What is Alaska doing about this?
Until the SCOTUS says they cannot and then these states will cave
I think Texas is one of the states that have said “NO” to the exchanges. I’m not 100% certain, as it’s been a while since that would’ve happened.
I will be on the phone Monday morning to my TX state rep and senator to ask them to not set up any exchange. And to let them know I will remember it in the next election if they even discuss raising taxes in order to implement Obamacare.
I thought that was what Robert’s ruling was about...that it’s a tax, and he reaffirmed the states right to not be forced to participate.
You really expect the Obama admin will respect that, do you?
Do you know which ones?
Do you know which ones?
Alabama had legislation on our ballots to vote on it - Alabama won 59-41.
don’t know about other states.
Most commentators disagree with this speaker’s conclusions. They confidently assert that if a state chooses to not have an exchange, that there will instead be a federally operated exchange in that state. This view from Cato is clearly a minority interpretation of the law and regulation.
CATO is wrong. They are just looking for donations from the base. Reminds me of those two GOPe hacks Kemp & Bennett who created a “think-tank” & then went trolling for cash. I must have got 50 mailers in one year. I never sent them a dime, and if I did it most likey would have gone to William Bennett’s gambling addiction in Vegas.
The federal government doesn’t have the money to set up the exchanges without an appropriation from Congress. And regardless, it is far better to have a federally operated exchange for the reasons given. The worst thing would be to have state operated exchanges.
It’s settled law. Just ask the R Speaker of the House. They will get the money.
MOst of my family live in Maine, Texas and Florida - all 3 governors have said ‘not going to participate’ in ‘bummerCare.
Let it stay so...
Ohio voters enacted a Constitutional Amendment:
“No federal, state, or local law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.”
It passed overwhelmingly. They do not enjoy the consent of the governed here. That damned 10th Amendment can be a sucker punch.
I live in Texas, Rick Perry has made it clear he will implement no part of Obama Care. Thank God!
He might be playing politics.
Nothing is as it seems the political world.
How is that we Ohians voted to opt out of Obama’s health care mandate in all 88 counties and then turn around and re-elect him just a year later?
You should do your homework BEFORE you post.
SCOTUS has already ruled on this point.
The STATES won!
“How is that we Ohians voted to opt out of Obamas health care mandate in all 88 counties and then turn around and re-elect him just a year later?”
Massive voter fraud. I’m in Cleveland, you know, where more than a dozen precincts elected Obama by 100% of the vote.
Bwaaahhahahahhah. No way!
He was not elected, he community organized his rear end back into another 4 years.
There is no “there” there.
There is no funding vehicle for the “Federal Exchange” and the House will not provide funds for such.
Even if the state refuses to set up an exchange are’nt we as individuals still required to provide proof of coverage to, or else be hounded by the Amerikan Gestapo(IRS) under the guise that it is a tax not a penalty?
OH has also said No.
Maybe they thought since we voted not to participate in obamacare, that would exempt us. There was major fraud in OH as well as some very powerful unions. I’m thinking of moving to a red state, which Ohio used to be. We vote R in state elections, but the past 2 presidential elections have gone blue. It makes me sick!
Would you please list the states for us ?
Since we have no budget, what would stop Obama from setting them up anyway? It appears to me all the federal spending right now is from one giant slush fund.
You can move to Oklahoma, we are as Red as it gets.
Will the net effect of that then be to force the deficit spending that's going to result to the federal government, driving up the federal deficit and protecting the state from bankruptcy?
It’s really going to come to a head if a number of states refuse to set up exchanges and the federal govt. has to set up the exchanges. The states who ARE setting up exchanges will scream bloody murder when that happens.
Kind of a good thing, because it will illustrate and raise awareness that we actually do have a 10th amendment to the constitution.
Maybe somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, or partially wrong here.
Of course, if states refuse to set up an exchange, Obamacare gives the federal government the authority to step in and operate an exchange itself in those states. But there is reason to doubt that the federal government has either the ability or the money to do so. Congress has not appropriated any funding for this purpose and seems unlikely to do so.
More important, as my colleague Michael Cannon has discovered, a little-discussed provision of Obamacare makes federal subsidies for insurance available only through those exchanges that the states set up themselves. So, while the federal government does have the power to create exchanges in states that refuse to do so, it cannot offer subsidies through those federally run exchanges.
Moreover, it is those subsidies that actually trigger the penalty under Obamacare for employers who fail to provide workers with insurance. Obamacare requires employers with 50 or more workers to provide health insurance or pay a tax, but only if at least one employee qualifies for subsidies under the exchange. Therefore, if subsidies can be provided only through a state-authorized exchange, a state could potentially block the employer mandate altogether, simply by refusing to establish an exchange.