Posted on 12/06/2012 6:13:00 PM PST by smoothsailing
by Phyllis Schlafly
December 5, 2012
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 Parties 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, that 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 ten 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.
I took my son to see his doctor today and asked her about Obamacare. She told me that she doubts anything is going to happen with it, and in four years it will be someone new, and get changed again!!
She said she isn’t even going to worry about it. She is in a private practice by herself. I found that sort of weird.
“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.”
Yeah right! I live in California. You can’t tell “your” legislator anything here. They are all the “smartest people to have ever lived!” Just ask any one of them. Personally, I wouldn’t pee on any of them if they were on fire, just saying!
Maybe there is a bit of hope?
Y’all should listen to ISPYRADIO this Saturday, Dec 8th. First half is about O’care....some interesting news...and yes, States need to REJECT the exchanges...too bad we in Oregon cannot...we are the “petrie dish” for the rest of the country.
My BIL is an OB-GYN in private practice. He’s hoping Pennsylvania will opt out of the exchange scheme because that will delay implementation. Beyond that he says the whole thing is unworkable and will collapse before it gets started.
Hopefully some of the lives that have been upended with layoffs and downsizings can also be set right if this comes to naught. Unfortunately insurance rates will probably continue to rise.
>> I found that sort of weird.
Weird but good. Is she taking new patients?
Imagine how our forefathers would have dealt with this.
Like this: “Go pound sand.” Gov-elect Pence
There is always hope. My hope is that while rejecting the state led exchanges that the states, at least some, will realize that this tactic is not new. This is the go-to method to pawn federal beauracracy off on the states and make them take the heat (and the costs).
Environmental rules (CAA, CWA, etc.) are perfect examples of where this has been done before. States must implement the federal rules promulgated by EPA under the CAA fr example. If states don't do it, the feds step in and do it. Thing is, except for some very rare examples, the states always do it. When the states do it, the EPA has to approve it so it must be done the way EPA wants it. So, the EPA gets it's way, while the states pick up the tab.
The state doesn't have to do it, the EPA does, the states just choose to. States could hand it back to the feds and let them do it, but the EPA isn't built to actually do the work, just to tell other people how they should do the work. I say give it to them and let them do it themselves.
Downside is having the EPA in charge of any permitting activities is likely to be a cluster. That said - if enough states told the feds to do it themselves, the mess might be enugh to wake a few people up...
” if enough states told the feds to do it themselves, the mess might be enugh to wake a few people up...”
Yep!——and if an elephant had wings, he’d be a darned big bird.
” if enough states told the feds to do it themselves, the mess might be enugh to wake a few people up...”
Yep!——and if an elephant had wings, he’d be a darned big bird.
She hasn’t been taking new patients for years. So, I don’t think she is at this time.
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.