Why WI Gov. Walker refuses to implement a state-based health-care exchange

Governor's newsletter | 11/21/12 | Gov. Scott Walker

[Wisconsinlady]

Please read Gov. Scott Walker's reasons for refusing to set up a state-run health exchange for Obamacare. If your own governor has not yet answered the same to HHS, please encourage him/her to do so immediately. Feel free to use Gov. Walker's own words.

[3Fingas]

This guy has giant brass ones. More govs should follow his example.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Wisconsin No Healthcare Exchange Ping

FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.

[Mrs. Don-o]

`Tagline

[DonaldC]

So in these states where governors are giving the feds the bird, does that mean citizens are gonna get hosed by the feds for not having gov approved insurance since they won’t be able to buy any on the exchanges?

[HenryArmitage]

This guy has giant brass ones. More govs should follow his example.

I must be missing something. How does letting the federal gov implement their own plan equate to 'giant brass ones'. Giant brass ones IMHO would be figuring out every damn loop hole in the law and creating a state plan that starves the beast. Im not sure what is so ballsy about 'This is restrictive, so we are going to lay down and let the Federal plan kick in'?

[trapped_in_LA]

I would bet that the federal government itself doesn’t know what it wants for these exchanges and that in the end they will push off the exchanges while they get their act together. Should be interesting as I’m sure HHS was relying on the States to set these up and does not have the manpower to do it themselves.

[what's up]

Giant brass ones IMHO would be figuring out every damn loop hole in the law and creating a state plan that starves the beast.

Why should they spend billions of tax dollars to figure all that out, go to court when the DOJ sues them, etc.?

Let the Fed Gov't take the blame for the confusion which will ensue going forward, not the States.

[traditional1]

"I would bet that the federal government itself doesn’t know what it wants for these exchanges"

Au Contraire, Mon Ami.

The Gubmint knows EXACTLY what they want, and they bought the Election with the idea that all those on Welfare and Government-Dependency VOTED for The Messiah BECAUSE it was "Free Medical Care" for them, since they would be given coverage without paying a dime, at the expense of PAYERS. Now, inner-city-tribal parasites and the soon-to-be-granted-Amnesty Illegals will be riding free on your earnings for Medical Coverage.

They ALL voted for The Messiah to get more freebies, and it's all about POWER, WEALTH-REDISTRIBUTION, and buying votes with taxpayer money.

[HenryArmitage]

maybe you are right. Just seems to be punting away the last bit of power states have in the game.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'd be the first to admit that I don't grasp all the complexities here, so if somebody else wants to jump in and do the explaining, go right ahead.

But as I (roughly) understand it, ther are at least two reasons why the states should opt out:

• They want to keep the lines of (ir)responsibility clear. Why should the states put their names, their personnel, their resources into this when it's clearly headed for chaos, cost overruns, and deadline-failure? A state-created exchange is not a state-conrolled exchange: states will not have the power to change anything substantive. So there's no need to become "co-responsible" for the system's inevitable failures: let the whole onus rest on Washington (not on Madison, Nashville and Austin.)
• Plus, there’s still a pending lawsuit that could drastically affect implementation. The way Obamacare was drafted, the subsidies for individuals to purchase insurance apply to state-based insurance exchanges, BUT NOT federal-based ones. In September, the Oklahoma A.G. argued that businesses should not be subject to the $2,000-a-year penalty if it’s a federal exchange with no subsidy. If this case is successful, it would force Congress to reopen Obamacare. For instance, if IL sets up an exchange and MO does not, a favorable ruling in this law suit would mean that MO businesses would be exempted from taxes that would be imposed on businesses in IL. Thus, even Democratic governors would want to see changes in the law.

[ModelBreaker]

“So in these states where governors are giving the feds the bird, does that mean citizens are gonna get hosed by the feds for not having gov approved insurance since they won’t be able to buy any on the exchanges?”

No. The effect of not having a state exchange is that the feds create an exchange in that state. The feds have to pay for the federal exchange. The states have to pay for the state exchange (after a brief period in which the feds take up the cost).

There is also a good argument that the employer penalties under Obamacare cannot be enforced in a state unless there is a state exchange.

[3Fingas]

I forgot the /sarc tag.

[Admin Moderator]

Please supply a link so we can leave this in news.

Also a link to his op-ed.

Thanks

[1010RD]

Good job, Walker. Do you have the link to his OpEd?

[freekitty]

I agree. They are allowing the Fed to go ahead.

[xzins]

I agree. They are allowing the Fed to go ahead.

I agree they allowing the Fed to go ahead with its plan, but Walker gave the reason. He said that the Fed will reject anything that isn't exactly what they want, anyway, as they have done with Utah, for example.

IOW, you are getting the Fed plan no matter what you do. However, if the state is running the fed plan, then the state will get stuck with ALL unfunded liabilities, additions, etc.

Since it's going to be the Fed plan anyway, might as well let them be solely responsible for paying for it.

I can see his point.

[Principle Over Politics]

no linky, no newsy. Not even a blog link!

[MV=PY]

Walker is right. It is ridiculous for the state to accept the responsibility for the exchange without having control of it.

Let all the states fund it instead of only WI. He is looking after the state’s citizens. That’s his job.

[Lancey Howard]

"The most important consideration for me in deciding which option is best for our state is protecting Wisconsin's current and future taxpayers."

"In the end, the only real difference between the three options is the potential cost to taxpayers, which made our choice clear."

I love this guy. Walker is a real Republican, and a governor who puts the people who work and pay taxes ahead of the Democrat moochers. I don't know why there hasn't been more talk about Walker as a rising GOP star who deserves a shot on the national stage. I guess the GOP establishment elite doesn't like him? Is he too conservative for that pack of useless scum?