Posted on 11/19/2012 2:51:22 PM PST by Libloather
Oklahoma is latest to reject state-based health exchange
By Sam Baker - 11/19/12 03:23 PM ET
Add Oklahoma to the list of Republican-led states that won't implement the key feature of President Obama's healthcare law.
Gov. Mary Fallin said Monday that she won't set up a state-based insurance exchange — a new portal where people who don't get insurance through their employers can shop for coverage, often with help from a federal subsidy.
"It does not benefit Oklahoma taxpayers to actively support and fund a new government program that will ultimately be under the control of the federal government, that is opposed by a clear majority of Oklahomans, and that will further the implementation of a law that threatens to erode both the quality of American healthcare and the fiscal stability of the nation," Fallin said in a statement.
Republican governors are under pressure from conservatives not to set up their own exchanges. It's seen as the best chance to stand in the way of the Affordable Care Act now that Obama's reelection has protected the law from legislative repeal.
Fallin's decision means that the federal government will now run Oklahoma's exchange, as it will in the other GOP-led states that have rejected their own exchanges.
Fallin also said the state will not participate in the healthcare law's Medicaid expansion, which became optional as a result of the Supreme Court's landmark healthcare ruling.
One slight problem for the Feds setting up the Health Exchanges, they forgot a provision in their mastermind law to fund the damned things.
Guess they’ll have to go hit up the Republican controlled House for those funds.
Heheheheh!
so thankful that I live in the reddest state in the union !
bttt
Me too.....way to go Gov.
If they can operate for 4 years without a budget, this won’t matter a bit.
Hey Hostess!!! Take a ride on the RED SIDE!!! GO SOONERS!
Anyone have a list of states that have rejected Obamacare or should we presume all red states will fall in line shortly?
I have never seen a complete list as yet. I think for reasons of at the very least some uplifting morale some would like to know just who is standing against Obamacare.
I certainly hope that Tennessee will reject the state exchanges as well! Let the Feds stew in their own juice...
It will be fun to see if any Dems take him up on his dare!
here ya go
http://www.cbpp.org/files/CBPP-Analysis-on-the-Status-of-State-Exchange-Implementation.pdf
Thank you, love to see it all over the web, so many people just don’t know what their state is doing, even my employers have no clue here in Alaska.
I’m kind of confused on this. If the states don’t set up an exchange, then the feds come in and do it for them. So isn’t refusing to set up a state exchange just expanding federal control even more? Why not keep it at the state level instead of growing the federal government?
Hey Okie get Mary to contact Rick in Texas to start secession talks.
“Hey Okie get Mary to contact Rick in Texas to start secession talks.”
Of course, secession isn’t going to happen. However, was it a reality, then Oklahoma and Texas would make a good base to form a “nation” around....lots of natural resources and Texas has the sea ports. If Kansas joined, it would be an even better start.
What’s up with New Mexico?
That’s what it looks like on the surface however, when you drill down into the details of the operation of the “state” exchanges you find that the feds call all of the shots.
Where this plays to our advantage is that the ACA provides for a federal subsidy for enrollees in the state exchanges but the idiots that wrote the ACA didn’t provide for subsidies for federally operated exchanges. So, if you live in a state with a federal exchange, sorry about your luck, but no subsidy for you pal. You pay the full freight for your insurance premium through the exchange.
Kinda makes you want to weep for joy, don’t it.
That would make sense if this were normal policy, but ObamaScare is like nothing we've ever seen.
The only "control" a state has in setting up an exchange is that the Feds would graciously allow them to pay for it. All mandates, coverage levels, rules and regs are set by the Feds. And since no one can predict the ultimate cost of the darned thing, it could be something that has the potential to bankrupt a state.
It's totally within a state's right to kick this back to the Feds, who, btw, did not foresee anyone turning down such a great deal, and have yet to figure out how they're going to fund this mess.
If enough states refuse, it just might bring the whole thing to a crashing halt.
One slight problem for the Feds setting up the Health Exchanges, they forgot a provision in their mastermind law to fund the damned things.
Guess the Feds were counting on the states to carry this load of crap. The states would do the dirty work while the Feds called the shots in the background.
Seems like some of the govs are starting to see through the BS.
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.