Posted on 12/04/2012 10:20:39 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Those who thought ObamaCare was set in concrete by Chief Justice John Roberts' decision last June are in for a shock. December 14 is the new deadline (extended from November 16) for states to let the feds know, yea or nay, whether or not they will be setting up a health insurance exchange, which is the key to participating in the misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Obama's belief that the public would warm up to his signature legislation once it became the law of the land has proven false. The current Kaiser Family Foundation poll reports that only 38 percent of the public approves of Obamacare.
Sixteen states, including Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio and Missouri have told the feds that they are declining to play ball. They have given notice to the federal government that they are refusing to set up a health exchange, which means it falls to the federal government to set up exchanges for those states.
Only 17 states have committed to set up a health exchange as Obamacare expected, while the other states are still wrestling with their decision. Republicans and Tea Partiers are encouraging them not to set up an exchange.
Among the good reasons for states to say No is that an exchange would cost each state between $10 million and $100 million a year, and that would require unwelcome tax increases. Ohio estimates that setting up its exchange will cost $63 million plus $43 million to run annually.
A state-created exchange provides a mechanism for HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to impose one-size-fits-all rules on insurance products sold in the state. It also makes it easier for the federal government to regulate individuals and businesses in that state, collecting fines and taxes from some in order to give subsidies to others.
Nevertheless, you can be sure that the blame will fall on state officials when Obamacare increases insurance premiums and denies care to the elderly.
State-created exchanges will bring us higher taxes, fewer jobs and fewer doctors and health care providers. To add insult to injury, Obamacare's mandates will drastically infringe on our religious freedom.
If enough states refuse to create a federally controlled exchange, it will give the federal government the go-ahead to take on the task of building the exchanges. The feds would then have to figure out who is eligible and for what, a calculation that requires ascertaining family income, the number of family members and who may be eligible for different levels of benefits.
One positive effect of states' refusal to set up exchanges is that this might be a good way to reduce federal spending and debt. If all states declined, it is estimated that the federal deficit could be reduced by about $700 billion over 10 years.
Can the federal government, big as it is, cope with this task? It can't be easy, and it could take at least two or three years to build the technology since they are starting with Medicaid's 1980s technology.
Another way states can throw a roadblock in Obamacare and also reduce their own spending is by making a second decision not to sign on to Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid. The Supreme Court's Obamacare decision assured the states of their right to say No to participation in this Medicaid expansion.
Medicaid costs are already bankrupting state governments and increasing costs of private insurance. At the same time, Medicaid payments for services rendered are so low that patients have trouble finding physicians and other health providers who will accept them.
It's been estimated that Obamacare's Medicaid provision could cost the states as much as $53 billion over the first ten years, and neither the states nor the federal government has the money to expand Medicaid. Medicaid is already layered with waste and fraud, plus the failure to convince us that it is a cost-effective way to deliver health care.
Obamacare is a massive and costly double-barreled entitlement expansion. Overnight, Obamacare will add 30 million people to the government's entitlement rolls, an overwhelming task even for the Obama administration.
Tell your state legislators to reject their state's health insurance exchange and also to reject an expansion of Medicaid. We simply cannot afford either liberal boondoggle.
The esteemed commentator Thomas Sowell said it best: "It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication AND a government bureaucracy to administer it." It doesn't make sense.
The only sure things in life are death and penalties.
Plus more expensive premiums and more medical mediocrity.........
We can resist, but the chances of beating it without repeal are really very small in spite of what Schlafly is saying here.
Missouri’s POS Gov is going to increase Medicaide to some 300,000 folks in this great state. Thanks to the idiots that voted this sumbitch into office.
At this point ObamaCare will not be defeated until the electorate are so heartily sick of its consequences that no politician can survive electorally while supporting it. We will suffer much before that stage is reached.
Equal protection under the 14th amendment is for state laws. The courts, furthermore, have upheld unequal state taxation (wrongly) as in “legitimate state interest.” Federal taxes have different requirements. If they are direct they must be apportioned among the states according to population, unless they are on income. If they are indirect, they must be uniform througouhut the nation (this has never been followed). Plus a lot of other requirements.
The Obamacare mandate penaltax is to my mind an illegal unapportioned direct tax, if it is a tax at all (it isn’t, really).
Let me see if I understand. I’m proceeding on the assumption that the coverage and penalties, and so forth, are means-tested and will number my questions.
1. There are those of us with health insurance so I would think that we don’t have to purchase it, but may (eventually) have to switch to something that will probably cost more but won’t be as good?
2. And those of us who either have health insurance, or do not—if we elect to `opt out’ of the national health insurance plan we will be allowed to pay a penalty?
And even if we pay the penalty and do not have health insurance we will continue to be uninsured?
3. Those who receive `waivers’ will not have to pay a penalty? And will they also be covered under Obamacare?
4. OK, in sum ... those of us paying a penalty—but uninsured—will be paying for the ambulances and gunshot ER services for the Obamamites, along with their drug overdose treatments and for their birth-control and abortions, although they are exempt from paying?
If that’s the case, I can see why Rep. Joe called Obama a liar, why there never were hearings on CNS, why Pelosi said we would be surprised when we got a chance to see what is in the `Affordable Care’ Act, and so forth and so on.
I don’t see this ending at all well.
Sorry if the questions seem naive, but I suspect there are some congress critters who voted for it who may have the same questions and concerns.
Highly unlikely since we have way more of those things per capita than Canada does.
the average primry care doc has a censu of 2 - 3 thousand patients...so assuming they are adding 300,000 where pray tell are they going to get 1000 additional doctors to see these patients especially at “medicaid rates” and with medicaid regulations !! this sould be interesting!
Sorry if the questions seem naive, but I suspect there are some congress critters who voted for it who may have the same questions and concerns.
No, congress critters will not have those questions nor concerns as this was such a great plan they exempted themselves and their staff out of it !!!
“Highly unlikely since we have way more of those things per capita than Canada does.”
Sure, we do NOW, since they are provided by the free market system, but once we go socialist, we’ll soon degrade to the same level of care offered in any other socialist system.
I worked in hospital administration (at a world famous hospital) for 20 years.I know a thing or two about the "interactions" that take place between government (local,state *and* Federal) and a hospital's management.Trust me when I tell you that when the Feds,particularly,put their mind to something regarding health policy,in general,and an issue with a given hospital,in particular,it gets done.
BTTT
doubtful
Where do you think the money will come from to pay upkeep and replacement costs for MRI machines, or to pay the top cancer specialists the salaries they demand, under socialized medicine? Do you really think that the government will choose to fund those expenses at the levels supported by the free market? I’d say that is what is doubtful!
So it IS inevitable, it's just that the feds will be doing it instead of the states (states will get roped in later)
I don't follow the Phyllis' logic.
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.