Skip to comments.Key Points on Health Insurance Exchanges (Tell your governor to just say no!)
Posted on 11/15/2012 2:45:29 PM PST by inkling
As policymakers in Arizona decide whether or not to establish health insurance exchange, they should keep several key points in mind.
The exchange will be Arizona-funded, not Arizona-run. The federal government will be in complete control of the exchangefrom who can participate to what plans they can offer and prices they can charge. The federal legislation clearly states, An Exchange may not establish rules that conflict with or prevent the application of regulations promulgated by the Secretary [of Health and Human Services]. The only part Arizona will play is picking up the tab. While we dont know exactly how much the exchange will cost, estimates show it will likely cost Arizona $60-70 million a year.
The exchange will facilitate huge fines on Arizona companies who do not offer insurance to every employee. There are 500 businesses in Arizona who will be subject to fines of at least $2,000 per employee per year if they dont offer health insurance to every employee. Arizona should do nothing to help the federal government to make it more costly to do business in this state. If the state declines to set up an exchange, there is no authority in the law for the federal government to assess these fines on businesses.
(Excerpt) Read more at goldwaterinstitute.org ...
Another good article on why states should NOT establish their own exchanges, but make the Feds do it (btw, Feds have no funding to do it). Easy to understand, too:
See Kaiser Family Foundation to see what your state is doing:
Alabama’s governor Bentley has already announced we will not be setting up an exchange.
UPDATE: Nebraska just said NO to a state-exchange!!!
“Alabamas governor Bentley has already announced we will not be setting up an exchange”
Bentley is awesome. Rick Perry could learn a thing or two
from him. Particularly about how to get an effective anti-
illegal immigration bill passed in Texas.
I printed out that article. I am confused when I compare it to the Kaiser website map. Cannon of Natl Review states that AZ, GA, ID, IN, MT, OK, TN, UT have ‘enacted either statutes or constitutional amendments (or both) forbidding state employees to participate in an essential exchange function: implementing Obamacare’s ind. and employer mandates.
The site shows that the above states are either ‘studying options’ or have not done anything yet. So is one of these sources wrong or are there other aspects to this that I am missing?
What is great about Bentley is he is not a politician. Was a doctor who chose to run for the good of the state. He has a quiet dignity. Not full of bluster or need for attention.
I just heard this! Mark Belling, Milwaukee news radio 1130 said that Scott Walker would NOT implement the state exchange and a group of Republican governors would make a joint statement to say likewise.
I would have to go back and do some research on those specific states you mentioned. There is some confusing info - the Kaiser chart has footnotes ... although the date on the chart is Nov. 14, some of those footnotes are “old”. I think once the ‘deadline’ passes, it will be clearer which states are doing what. Let’s hope most of those undecided states opt NOT to set up their own exchanges - it will make Obamacare’s survival as it stands now less likely.
So what will happen in 2014 if a person loses coverage through an employer..for example having hours reduced to part time employment.. can’t afford a private policy, makes too much to qualify for Medicaid and no health care exchange is available in their state as their last resort? My bet is that the number of people without any health insurance will swell in 2014..a situation that is a direct result of Obamacare.