Skip to comments.The States Can Still Kill Obamacare
Posted on 07/09/2012 4:19:34 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
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.
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.
....Michael Cannon succinctly...., "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....
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
The momentum is building.
Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon piece:
“Obamacare had a bad couple of days before the Supreme Court so bad that President Obama made some ill-considered comments about the Court from which he still hasn’t totally backpedaled. Though the oral arguments over the individual mandate and severability were encouraging, we cannot count on the Supremes to kill Obamacare. Opponents must keep fighting it on all fronts.
The most important front right now is to ensure that states do not create the health-insurance exchanges Obamacare needs in order to operate. Refusing to create exchanges is the most powerful thing states can do to take Obamacare down. Think of it as an insurance policy in case the Supreme Court whiffs.
Exchanges are the new government bureaucracies through which millions of Americans will be compelled to purchase Obamacare’s overpriced and overregulated health insurance. Through these bureaucracies, insurance companies will receive hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Without these bureaucracies, Obamacare cannot work.
Obamacare does not and cannot mandate that states create exchanges.
Here are just a few reasons why states should refuse to create them.”........
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.
Better yet, Idaho's House passed the first Obamacare nullification bill. It died in the Idaho senate because they wanted the courts to deal with it. Well the courts have and now it's possible Idaho and others will nullify Obamacare regardless of the stupid federal funding and implementation issues.
In one place the article says that the 0bamacare law does not require States to set up exchanges; "And, oddly enough, the law doesn't actually require states to set up these "marketplaces."
In another place it seems to contradict itself; The letter goes on to specifically implore the governors "to oppose any creation of a state health care exchange mandated under the President's discredited health care law."
So this is obviously the crux - are States required to set up exchanges or not?
This is a pretty good sounding scenareo if accurate. The states that do set-up the exchanges must raise taxes and those individuals that 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.
Here in Maryland our Dem governor (O Malley) has already prepared with waves of tax increase after tax increase on us, 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.
If Obamacare proceeds there will be total chaos. Millions will loose health insurance as employers drop coverage and private health care insurance companies go out of business, but there will not be any viable health care exchanges or expanded Medicaid for those loosing coverage. Rather than addressing the problem of the uninsured, Obamacare will make the problem worse.
IMO, that was the intent of the design all along - put private insurers out of business to usher in single payer, government run social medicine.
Governor Scott Walker said that he is going to wait until after the Presidential elections.
Ohio passed a Constitutional Amendment but Dewine says ruling trumps Ohio law. But I haven’t seen any communication detailing how the SCOTUS ruling affects state nullification.
DeWine: Decision trumps Ohio law
But the ruling said States do not need to create the exchanges. And they also can’t be denied the Medicare/caid funds from the Fed govt.
Why not simple secede over this crap? End of story.
Even if states do not set up the exchange and the federal government is not able to set up the exchange in resisting states, the mandate to buy insurance will still apply and zero would have the immense power of the IRS to bully states and individuals in those states. Instead of withholding Medicaid money, the IRS would be the administration’s fist. That’s why I think it would be a good strategy to demonize the IRS (as the ME gov LePage recently did last week). Making the Dems defend the IRS is good politics.
The Ohio amendment was largely symbolic and Dewine’s statement is accurate. But the exchanges are a separate issue altogether. The Ohio SOS or Treasurer, I forget which one, has already announced Ohio will not be forming an exchange.
That decision needs to be adopted as a law so as to take the issue away from some future office holder.
Texas Rejects Expansion of Medicaid
Shocking no one, Perry said in a release this morning that no way, no how would he expand Medicaid.
If anyone was in doubt, we in Texas have no intention to implement so-called state exchanges or to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, says the governor. I will not be party to socializing healthcare and bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government.
He dispatched a missive to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius underscoring that point. As in:
In the ObamaCare plan, the federal government sought to force the states to expand their Medicaid programs by in the words of the Supreme Court putting a gun to their heads. Now that the gun to the head has been removed, please relay this message to the President: I oppose both the expansion of Medicaid as provided in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the creation of a so-called state insurance exchange, because both represent brazen intrusions into the sovereignty of our state.
Well, well, well...thank goodness for silver linings. :-)
...............””I will not be party to socializing health care and bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government,” Mr. Perry said.
He joins more than half-dozen GOP governors who have already said they won’t increase the size of their Medicaid programs to cover Americans up to 133 percent of the poverty level, after the Supreme Court upheld most of the law last month but said states could opt out of the Medicaid expansion.
“I stand proudly with the growing chorus of governors who reject the Obamacare power grab,” Mr. Perry said. “Neither a ‘state’ exchange nor the expansion of Medicaid under this program would result in better ‘patient protection’ or in more ‘affordable care.’ They would only make Texas a mere appendage of the federal government when it comes to health care.””..........
“Texas Medical Association survey given to The Associated Press over the weekend found that the number of Texas doctors willing to accept government-funded health insurance plans for the poor and the elderly has dropped dramatically amid complaints about low pay and red tape.
Only 31 percent of Texas doctors said they were accepting new patients who rely on Medicaid. In 2010, the last time the survey was done, 42 percent of doctors were accepting new Medicaid patients. In 2000, that number was 67 percent.”
In a Fox News interview earlier today, Perry compared expanding Medicaid to adding passengers to the Titanic .
Good Analogy !