Posted on 11/19/2012 7:21:13 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Champions of ObamaCare want Americans to believe that the president's re-election ended the battle over the law. It did no such thing. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act won't be fully repealed while Barack Obama is in office, but the administration is heavily dependent on the states for its implementation.
Republicans will hold 30 governorships starting in January, and at last week's meeting of the Republican Governors Association they made it clear that they remain highly critical of the health law. Some Republican governors—including incoming RGA Chairman Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Ohio's John Kasich, Wisconsin's Scott Walker and Maine's Paul LePage—have already said they won't do the federal government's bidding. Several Democratic governors, including Missouri's Jay Nixon and West Virginia's Earl Ray Tomblin, have also expressed serious concerns.
Talk of the law's inevitability is intended to pressure these governors into implementing it on the administration's behalf. But states still have two key choices to make that together will put them in the driver's seat: whether to create state health-insurance exchanges, and whether to expand Medicaid. They should say "no" to both.
At its core, ObamaCare is a massive entitlement expansion. Between vastly increased Medicaid eligibility and new premium subsidies, it is expected to bring 30 million more people onto the federal government's entitlement rolls. The law anticipates that the states will take on the burden of implementing the expansions, but states can opt out of both.
Running the exchanges would be an administrative nightmare for states, requiring a complicated set of rules, mandates, databases and interfaces to establish eligibility, funnel subsidies, and facilitate purchases. All of this would have to take place under broad and often incoherent statutory requirements and federal regulations that have yet to be written.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Spineless RINO File.
I just emailed my Governor, Jan Brewer, and appealed to her to say NO to state exchanges! We still have a voice - write and/or call your Governors TODAY!
My feeling—it’s probably not rational and it wouldn’t would work—my feeling is this: Just ignore it. Don’t comply. I am at the point of open defiance and resistance toward the federal behemoth, whether that’s Obamacare, the HHS mandate, whatever. Let them come after us. Call their bluff. If there were a realistic way to do a secession or a civil war or a mass emigration, I’m about ready for it. I know, that’s just how I feel. It probably wouldn’t work.
And what happens when these states eventually vote in a Democrat governor?
Nathan Deal our gov here in GA opted out the other day. GA is just saying no.
He might not be able to handle the bureaucratic nightmare and enforcement, either, and might elect not to make enemies. An interesting scenario. A governor of a state actually can't function without support within the state.
Saying ‘no’ now doesn’t preclude a state from setting up an exchange later, but the cost to the state is no small matter. If you get a Dem governor and he thinks he can bleed his state for the money .... well, that should be interesting. BTW, if you have a Dem candidate for governor, he/she should be asked directly about this & if they want to set up an exchange, the opposition should definitely use this as a reason NOT to vote for this person. Here are some cost #s:
Exchanges:
“each exchange would cost its state an estimated $10 million to $100 million per year, necessitating tax increases.”
Medicaid Expansion:
“expanding Medicaid will cost individual states up to $53 billion over the first ten years. That’s before an emboldened President Obama follows through on his threats to shift more Medicaid costs to states.”
Links with good info:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333040/obamacare-still-vulnerable-michael-f-cannon#
The soviets jailed or killed tens of millions of people for less than that. After seeing what the administration can get away with(re: the person who made the film about imprisoned) I am less inclined to speak up, but rather use my purchasing power to show my dissatifaction.
I believe one is West Virginia's Gov. Can't remember the other one...it might be one of the Dakotas.
I will defy. I have an affordable catastrophic policy that will be outlawed. We are all required to buy one-size-fits-all insurance, and I will not be able to afford it (yet, I make too much for gvernment assistance). Thus, I will be forced to pay the penalty. But, I will not. I have already started withholding LESS from my paycheck so that I will not be due a refund at tax time . . . a refund from which the IRS could just withhold the penalty amount. Instead, I will owe taxes and will subtract from my check the penalty amount. Yes, let them come after me. If we meet in the Gulag, fear not; I will bring my chess board. Do you play chess?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.