Skip to comments.Blueprint for States to Reject and Replace Obamacare
Posted on 07/27/2012 4:53:12 AM PDT by Kaslin
Editor's Note: This column was coauthor by Ken Klukowski, a columnist at Breitbart.com
Heres the blueprint for how the states can reject three central pillars of Obamacare and set the stage for replacing it, if Mitt Romney takes the White House and the GOP takes the Senate this November.
Two reasons compel dismantling Obamacare. First is restoring individual liberty by empowering states against the national government and citizens against both. Second is recognizing that free markets outperform centrally-planned markets, so private-sector healthcare will better serve Americans than government-controlled Obamacare ever could.
However disappointing the Supreme Courts decision to uphold Obamacares individual mandate in a 54 decision, by a separate 72 vote the justices opened the door for the states to assert their sovereignty in an equally-unprecedented opportunity. The Court has declared for decades that its theoretically possible for federal spending to exceed Congress power under the Spending Clause of the Constitution, thereby violating the Tenth Amendment. That possibility became reality on June 28.
Medicaid is nominally a federal-state partnership consuming 20% of state budgets. Obamacare grows Medicaid by an additional $434 billion per decade to cover all Americans up to 138% of the poverty line. The feds promise to pay for 90% of this expansion (though they cannot be held to that), leaving states to pay at least another $50 billion.
If any state declines to participate in the expansion, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) could strip that state of 100% of its Medicaid dollars. Every voter in that state would continue funding Medicaid through payroll taxes twice a month, but now would be subsidizing the other 49 states. Rejecting the expansion would thus be a political death wish for any governor or legislature.
This coercion is an unconstitutional violation of state sovereignty, so the Court struck down part of Obamacares massive Medicaid expansion. The four justices against the individual mandate would have invalidated this entire expansion. While Chief Justice Roberts wouldnt go that far, he was willing to strike down the provision authorizing stripping all Medicaid funds. So now states can refuse to expand Medicaid by foregoing the additional funding.
So first, states must reject the Medicaid expansion. This will leave millions of people subject to the individual mandate unable to get coverage from this government entitlement. Many of those people are exempt from the penalty (tax?) anyway, but others are not. Those people vote heavily Democratic, and theyll surely demand the mandate be amended to exempt them.
Second, states must refuse to create state-based exchanges, which provide heavily-subsidized insurance policies to middle-income Americans not provided healthcare by employers. Because it would violate the Tenth Amendments anti-commandeering principle to require states to create or run the exchanges, if a state doesnt do it, HHS will directly create and run it.
But there are no tax subsidies if HHS runs an exchange, so no incentive for people to flock to the exchanges; theyd pay full price. While many high-risk individuals would do so, it would still be vastly more expensive. Many will instead choose to pay the penalty (tax?) for violating the individual mandate.
Third, if employers with 50+ employees do not provide federally-approved healthcare, Obamacare imposes a $2,000 penalty per employee, per year. (Minimum penalty $100,000.) However, that penalty is triggered when those employees receive tax subsidies from a state-based exchange.
Since HHS-run exchanges have no subsidies, for states refuseing to create exchanges, no employer in that state will be subject to that penalty. This means business owners will band together to lobby their state not to set up exchanges.
More than half the states sued to have Obamacare struck down. Presumably most will now pursue their options to decline the Medicaid expansion, not create exchanges, and thereby also save their companies from federal penalties. Medicaid, the exchanges, and the employer mandate are three of the central pillars of the Obamacare system.
This will create an unworkable patchwork nationwide, between states with semi-socialized medicine and healthcare costs spiraling out of control, versus those with private-sector medicine. Expect doctors, insurers, and providers to flock to these friendlier states, creating an increasingly unbalanced system. Then Obamacare will start coming apart at the seams, and momentum will build to repeal and replace.
There was no way Obamacare could succeed at anything other than crippling the entire healthcare system. This is what you get when you leave Democrats in charge.
And those states that do setup the exchanges at largely their own cost will be imposing the $2,000 Obama-care fine/penalty/tax on their businesses for those employees that use them.
Although this is a pretty small $$$ to pay and most employers won't care about it if their employees get some sort of health care for it..
good theory, but then Kalifornia should be empty.
The easiest way to replace Obamacare and other federal largess.
A new law that all federal funds for Medicaid and Medicare and other such programs will be given to the states as per capita “block grants” for eligible recipients, with only recommendations, not requirements, on how that money should be spent by the states.
Limit all future federal involvement to receiving and analyzing standardized statistical information from the states that can be used to provide recommendations for efficiency.
To all those that thought roberts ruling was a disaster...
The amount of power returned to the states in this ruling was so vast that most people cannot (or will not) comprehend it....
The libs have been using for over 80 years 3 main hammers to pass their agenda:
1) The commerce clause
2) The necessary and general clause
3) Unfunded mandates to the states with penalties for not complying.
Roberts ruled that the libs can no longer use the commerce clause to create commerce in order to regulate it.
Now, here is the beauty of this ruling.... the minority opinion..... concurs... the back door of using the minority opinion for the purpose of judicial activism is closed.
This hammer has been taken away. Federalism wins.
Roberts ruled the libs can no longer use the necessary and general clause to create any damn welfare program they see fit.
and the minority opinion.... concurs... this back door is closed same as above.
the same for the unfunded mandates to the states.
My opinion is that the libs were so hell bent on getting this thing passed they were willing to do ANYTHING... roberts saw the opening and took it. By siding with the libs, he was able to write an opinion that restores more to the constitution than any other opinion in the last 80 years..
and the minority opinion concurs.....
How do I know this is what happened? If you listened to that old bag ginsburg after the ruling was read, her voice was just dripping with both sarcasm and disgust...
she may be an old communist, but she ain’t stupid. She knows the jig is up and was powerless to do anything about it. The brand new lib justices were so blinded by their desire to get this thing through at all costs, they were backdoored by roberts and the conservatives.
This ruling was pure, sheer brilliance and a complete victory in the battle against socialism.
I particulary like this bit which we need to lobby our state goverments on agressively:
“Third, if employers with 50+ employees do not provide federally-approved healthcare, Obamacare imposes a $2,000 penalty per employee, per year. (Minimum penalty $100,000.) However, that penalty is triggered when those employees receive tax subsidies from a state-based exchange.
Since HHS-run exchanges have no subsidies, for states refuseing to create exchanges, no employer in that state will be subject to that penalty. This means business owners will band together to lobby their state not to set up exchanges.”
If employers can’t afford to pay the fine they will simply fire their employees until they get under 50.
I honestly think such block grands should be phased out over a period of 10-20 years as states can either pick up the difference or privatize the associated program.
Block grands are a good short term solution but in the long run we can’t allow our States to be depended upon Washington for money taken from us the citizen by Washington in the first place.
Washington has to be cut out of the loop or it will invariably take advantage of its control of the pipe line to comendeer control of our states from us the people again.
She’s only powerless until there is a liberal majority in the SCOTUS.
My dental insurance DENIED my front tooth cap when my dentist office submitted their portion of the $1000 bill for my work. They said a “committee” had deemed it an unnecessary cosmetic work and denied it. I had the filling fall out 2 times before the dentist finally told me more than 50% of the tooth is gone and not enought of the core is able to retain more filing at this point! So, I called the insurance after hearing from my dental office and asked about an appeal to which they replied that my dentist himself will have to write out a report stating specifically why the tooth was capped and not merely filled again.
Seriously, it just keeps getting worse and we know that OBAMACARE if fully implemented will mean EXACTLY what SARAH PALIN stated in 2009 “death panels” and committees that DECIDE WHAT GETS TAKEN CARE OF AND WHAT IS DENIED!
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.