I know it's the title of another article, but I don't see the decision to reject a state exchange as a "move against ObamaCare".
Under ObamaCare, if I understand correctly, a state can set up a state exchange, step aside and let the fed set up a fed exchange, or have some kind of combination.
States are choosing door number 2, a fed exchange. They are doing it because everyone knows that the cost will be exorbitant and the states will go broke trying to fund it. The only reason to go the state exchange route would be to run it with different rules, but the fed has taken that option away. Every state exchange must follow the most minute of federal rules. So, the states are reasoning "why get stuck with the bill when we'll have exactly zero say in how it's run."
So, if you can't play unless it's the Fed's way, then let the Fed pay.
That is an absolutely reasonable position, and I expect democratic governor/legislature led states to also follow suit. California would be insane, given their current bankrupt condition, to accept the expenses of a state run exchange.
When Cali opts for a fed exchange, then ObamaCare is going to be in serious hurt for cash.
That is when Obama will propose a new tax structure: a 2-tiered flat tax + a VAT. (He'll have 2 tiers because he sees his credibility riding on "the rich" paying a higher rate.)
It’s my understanding that there is no funding provided for a fed exchange in the Obamacare bill.
I don’t think the House is going to help them much. ;o)
The African communist Ubama can "propose" anything he wants.
But without Republicans joining him in the hot tub, he'll just have to keep playing with himself.
From what I’ve read, if all (or most) of the states reject the exchanges, Obamacare will collapse on itself like a black hole. HAHAHA They didn’t expect it and didn’t make contingency plans.