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?
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.
The states that sign on to obamascare will have to raise taxes considerably to implement the exchange making it a lot easier on the fed monster.The states that wont make it harder on the fed monster so if enough states tell the fed monster to pound sand then it may collapse due to lack of funds.Thats the way I read it anyway.