Posted on 11/09/2012 7:10:43 AM PST by SeekAndFind
President Obama has won reelection, and his administration has asked state officials to decide by Friday, November 16, whether their state will create one of Obamacare’s health-insurance “exchanges.” States also have to decide whether to implement the law’s massive expansion of Medicaid. The correct answer to both questions remains a resounding no.
State-created exchanges mean higher taxes, fewer jobs, and less protection of religious freedom. States are better off defaulting to a federal exchange. The Medicaid expansion is likewise too costly and risky a proposition. Republican Governors Association chairman Bob McDonnell (R.,Va.) agrees, and has announced that Virginia will implement neither provision.
There are many arguments against creating exchanges.
First, states are under no obligation to create one.
Second, operating an Obamacare exchange would be illegal in 14 states. Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia have enacted either statutes or constitutional amendments (or both) forbidding state employees to participate in an essential exchange function: implementing Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates.
Third, each exchange would cost its state an estimated $10 million to $100 million per year, necessitating tax increases.
Fourth, the November 16 deadline is no more real than the “deadlines” for implementing REAL ID, which have been pushed back repeatedly since 2008.
Fifth, states can always create an exchange later if they choose.
Sixth, a state-created exchange is not a state-controlled exchange. All exchanges will be controlled by Washington.
Seventh, Congress authorized no funds for federal “fallback” exchanges. So Washington may not be able to impose Exchanges on states at all.
Eighth, the Obama administration has yet to provide crucial information that states need before they can make an informed decision.
Ninth, creating an exchange sets state officials up to take the blame when Obamacare increases insurance premiums and denies care to the sick. State officials won’t want their names on this disastrous mess.
Tenth, creating an exchange would be assisting in the creation of a “public option” that would drive domestic health-insurance carriers out of business through unfair competition.
Eleventh, Obamacare remains unpopular. The latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that only 38 percent of the public supports it.
Twelfth, defaulting to a federal exchange exempts a state’s employers from the employer mandate — a tax of $2,000 per worker per year (the tax applies to companies with more than 59 employees, but for such companies that tax applies after the 30th employee, not the 59th). If all states did so, that would exempt 18 million Americans from the individual mandate’s tax of $2,085 per family of four. Avoiding those taxes improves a state’s prospects for job creation, and protects the conscience rights of employers and individuals whom the Obama administration is forcing to purchase contraceptives coverage.
Finally, rejecting an exchange reduces the federal deficit. Obamacare offers its deficit-financed subsidies to private health insurers only through state-created exchanges. If all states declined, federal deficits would fall by roughly $700 billion over ten years.
For similar reasons, states should decline to implement Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. The Supreme Court gave states that option. All states should exercise it.
Medicaid is rife with waste and fraud. It increases the cost of private health care and insurance, crowds out private health insurance and long-term-care insurance, and discourages enrollees from climbing the economic ladder. There is scant reliable evidence that Medicaid improves health outcomes, and no evidence that it is a cost-effective way of doing so.
My colleague Jagadeesh Gokhale estimates that 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.
Neither the states nor the federal government have the money to expand Medicaid. If all states politely decline, federal deficits will shrink by another $900 billion.
Now is not the time to go wobbly. Obamacare is still harmful and still unpopular. The presidential election was hardly a referendum, as it pitted the first person to enact Obamacare against the second person to enact it. Since the election, many state officials are reaffirming their opposition to both implementing exchanges and expanding Medicaid.
If enough states do so, Congress will have no choice but to reopen Obamacare. With a GOP-controlled House, opponents will be in a much stronger position than they were when this harmful law was enacted.
— Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute and co-editor of Replacing ObamaCare (Cato, 2012).
Thank you, Bob!!
State’s Rights Ping.
It’s a law and can be changed, repealed. The states need to opt out. Those blue states that try to implement will find themselves in a small pool with higher rates than even the realistic estimates which are unduly high.
But GOP elites and tea party are busy fighting with each other.
There are still ways to fight this thing ..... not happy with Boehner’s stance. I have two brothers with ‘small’ companies so they are in the thick of things - both said last Dec. if Obama was re-elected, they would have to shut the doors .... we’ll see how it goes.
This should be sent to all governors today!
anybody know where Florida stands with this?
The GOP is getting a notice (email, phone, whatever) from me that they are 'dead' to me. Tuesday was the last vote for a Republican candidate where I have to hold my nose. I WILL vote 3rd party & if that's a choice I can't live with, I'll not vote. I doubt the Dems will have a candidate in 2016 that will be as destructive/treasonous as Obama - even the Clintons don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs ... Obama doesn't seem to care. SO - the GOP "shot their wad" with me on this last election. Will they change? Probably not ... rumors of Jeb Bush circulating ... could just be the Malicious Media at work already. But, to reiterate, warnings of "you HAVE to vote for our moderate, squishy candidate that we're cramming down your throat or things will be SO bad, the country will be ruined ...." will NOT work on me any more because we're THERE already. I'm hunkering down and taking care of 'me and mine' for right now ... gonna be a horrendous 4 years.
This is one of its biggest weaknesses.
Are the President, members of Congress, cabinet members, forced to opt-in to ObamaCare? Why not? How much do they pay for their plans? Are their medical planning decisions subject to review by outside panels?
This is an important part of the push-back process.
whats going on with the group that is fighting obamacare on the grounds that since the SCOTUS declared the penalty a Tax, and the bill was from the senate, and not the house WHERE ALL TAXES must originate from, how does that effect implementation?
Jacksonville Business Journal by John Burr, Editor
Date: Friday, November 9, 2012, 7:13am EST
Gov. Rick Scott said Wednesday that he stands by his decision that Florida will not carry out certain parts of the new health care reform, despite President Barack Obama’s re-election, the Orlando Sentinel reports.
Scott says Obamacare will be too expensive and will raise costs for Florida businesses.
This summer, shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Scott said he wouldn’t implement two provisions of the law, including the expansion of Medicaid and the creation of a private insurance exchange.
The new health care law will take full effect in January 2014.
thank you very much. a tiny glimmer of hope in an otherwise very hopeless place.
Stay strong my FRiend. We have come too far to give up. We all still have some hope with the heroes who are willing to take a stand.
I saw this guy (Michael Cannon) on Wilkow's show, last night. It was encouraging, to say the least. He mentioned that Congress, under the Constitution, does NOT have the power to implement 0Care...for several reasons including the IPAB piece and the fact that revenue measures originated in the senate. I believe he's with the Cato Institute.
Are the President, members of Congress, cabinet members, forced to opt-in to ObamaCare? Why not? How much do they pay for their plans? Are their medical planning decisions subject to review by outside panels?
. . .
Of course not, but they should be. Each and every one of them.
And those making their health care decisions should never know know that it’s someone “important” waiting on that hip replacement.
NO JUMPING IN LINE.
I have a sick feeling in my gut Boehner is holding on to Obamacare because he thinks he can use it as a bargaining chip.
I live in Maryland.
If anyone thinks our suck butt Governor, Tax and Spend O’Malley is going to buck Obama care I have a bridge to sell you.
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.