Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oklahoma is latest to reject state-based health exchange (Obamacare)
The Hill ^ | 11/19/12 | Sam Baker

Posted on 11/19/2012 2:51:22 PM PST by Libloather

Oklahoma is latest to reject state-based health exchange
By Sam Baker - 11/19/12 03:23 PM ET

Add Oklahoma to the list of Republican-led states that won't implement the key feature of President Obama's healthcare law.

Gov. Mary Fallin said Monday that she won't set up a state-based insurance exchange — a new portal where people who don't get insurance through their employers can shop for coverage, often with help from a federal subsidy.

"It does not benefit Oklahoma taxpayers to actively support and fund a new government program that will ultimately be under the control of the federal government, that is opposed by a clear majority of Oklahomans, and that will further the implementation of a law that threatens to erode both the quality of American healthcare and the fiscal stability of the nation," Fallin said in a statement.

Republican governors are under pressure from conservatives not to set up their own exchanges. It's seen as the best chance to stand in the way of the Affordable Care Act now that Obama's reelection has protected the law from legislative repeal.

Fallin's decision means that the federal government will now run Oklahoma's exchange, as it will in the other GOP-led states that have rejected their own exchanges.

Fallin also said the state will not participate in the healthcare law's Medicaid expansion, which became optional as a result of the Supreme Court's landmark healthcare ruling.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: exchange; health; obamacare; oklahoma
Republican governors should stick together on this.
1 posted on 11/19/2012 2:51:29 PM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

One slight problem for the Feds setting up the Health Exchanges, they forgot a provision in their mastermind law to fund the damned things.

Guess they’ll have to go hit up the Republican controlled House for those funds.

Heheheheh!


2 posted on 11/19/2012 2:57:49 PM PST by Bshaw (A nefarious deceit is upon us all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bshaw

so thankful that I live in the reddest state in the union !


3 posted on 11/19/2012 3:09:49 PM PST by nevermorelenore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nevermorelenore

bttt


4 posted on 11/19/2012 3:10:25 PM PST by ConservativeMan55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nevermorelenore

Me too.....way to go Gov.


5 posted on 11/19/2012 3:20:29 PM PST by yellowdoghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bshaw

If they can operate for 4 years without a budget, this won’t matter a bit.


6 posted on 11/19/2012 3:22:15 PM PST by CMailBag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Hey Hostess!!! Take a ride on the RED SIDE!!! GO SOONERS!


7 posted on 11/19/2012 3:31:48 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Anyone have a list of states that have rejected Obamacare or should we presume all red states will fall in line shortly?

I have never seen a complete list as yet. I think for reasons of at the very least some uplifting morale some would like to know just who is standing against Obamacare.


8 posted on 11/19/2012 3:41:21 PM PST by Eye of Unk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I certainly hope that Tennessee will reject the state exchanges as well! Let the Feds stew in their own juice...


9 posted on 11/19/2012 4:07:57 PM PST by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Kansas Governor Brownback has also rejected a “State Exchange” and he told the Democrats to craft legislation and get it passed if they did not agree with him -—

It will be fun to see if any Dems take him up on his dare!

10 posted on 11/19/2012 4:12:08 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

here ya go

http://www.cbpp.org/files/CBPP-Analysis-on-the-Status-of-State-Exchange-Implementation.pdf


11 posted on 11/19/2012 4:12:53 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

Thank you, love to see it all over the web, so many people just don’t know what their state is doing, even my employers have no clue here in Alaska.


12 posted on 11/19/2012 4:23:23 PM PST by Eye of Unk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I’m kind of confused on this. If the states don’t set up an exchange, then the feds come in and do it for them. So isn’t refusing to set up a state exchange just expanding federal control even more? Why not keep it at the state level instead of growing the federal government?


13 posted on 11/19/2012 4:24:27 PM PST by LonelyCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nevermorelenore

Hey Okie get Mary to contact Rick in Texas to start secession talks.


14 posted on 11/19/2012 4:28:15 PM PST by grumpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: grumpa

“Hey Okie get Mary to contact Rick in Texas to start secession talks.”

Of course, secession isn’t going to happen. However, was it a reality, then Oklahoma and Texas would make a good base to form a “nation” around....lots of natural resources and Texas has the sea ports. If Kansas joined, it would be an even better start.


15 posted on 11/19/2012 4:33:48 PM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

What’s up with New Mexico?


16 posted on 11/19/2012 4:37:03 PM PST by Mygirlsmom (Franklin was right - we couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

That’s what it looks like on the surface however, when you drill down into the details of the operation of the “state” exchanges you find that the feds call all of the shots.

Where this plays to our advantage is that the ACA provides for a federal subsidy for enrollees in the state exchanges but the idiots that wrote the ACA didn’t provide for subsidies for federally operated exchanges. So, if you live in a state with a federal exchange, sorry about your luck, but no subsidy for you pal. You pay the full freight for your insurance premium through the exchange.

Kinda makes you want to weep for joy, don’t it.


17 posted on 11/19/2012 4:38:48 PM PST by technically right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon
Why not keep it at the state level instead of growing the federal government?

That would make sense if this were normal policy, but ObamaScare is like nothing we've ever seen.

The only "control" a state has in setting up an exchange is that the Feds would graciously allow them to pay for it. All mandates, coverage levels, rules and regs are set by the Feds. And since no one can predict the ultimate cost of the darned thing, it could be something that has the potential to bankrupt a state.

It's totally within a state's right to kick this back to the Feds, who, btw, did not foresee anyone turning down such a great deal, and have yet to figure out how they're going to fund this mess.

If enough states refuse, it just might bring the whole thing to a crashing halt.

18 posted on 11/19/2012 4:44:52 PM PST by Mygirlsmom (Twinkie is Dead. And the Ding Dongs? Unemployed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nevermorelenore
Singing Proud Mary here!
19 posted on 11/19/2012 5:00:28 PM PST by pepperdog ( I still get a thrill up my leg when spell check doesn't recognize the name/word Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bshaw

One slight problem for the Feds setting up the Health Exchanges, they forgot a provision in their mastermind law to fund the damned things.


Guess the Feds were counting on the states to carry this load of crap. The states would do the dirty work while the Feds called the shots in the background.

Seems like some of the govs are starting to see through the BS.


20 posted on 11/19/2012 6:57:56 PM PST by Kolath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

The states that sign on to obamascare will have to raise taxes considerably to implement the exchange making it a lot easier on the fed monster.The states that wont make it harder on the fed monster so if enough states tell the fed monster to pound sand then it may collapse due to lack of funds.Thats the way I read it anyway.


21 posted on 11/19/2012 10:03:38 PM PST by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life's tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Good! If enough states don’t set up the exchanges or expand Medicaid then the program will implode on itself with the cost. There’s no way those paying Medicare/Medicaid Taxes can support those who are not.
22 posted on 11/20/2012 3:31:53 AM PST by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson