Obamacare Is Still Vulnerable - Now is not the time to go wobbly.

November 13, 2012

President Obama has won reelection, and his administration has asked state officials to decide by Friday, November 16, whether their state will create one of Obamacare's health-insurance "exchanges." States also have to decide whether to implement the law's massive expansion of Medicaid. The correct answer to both questions remains a resounding no.

State-created exchanges mean higher taxes, fewer jobs, and less protection of religious freedom. States are better off defaulting to a federal exchange. The Medicaid expansion is likewise too costly and risky a proposition. Republican Governors Association chairman Bob McDonnell (R.,Va.) agrees, and has announced that Virginia will implement neither provision.

There are many arguments against creating exchanges. 

First, states are under no obligation to create one.

Second, operating an Obamacare exchange would be illegal in 14 states. Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia have enacted either statutes or constitutional amendments (or both) forbidding state employees to participate in an essential exchange function: implementing Obamacare's individual and employer mandates. 

Third, each exchange would cost its state an estimated $10 million to $100 million per year, necessitating tax increases. 

Fourth, the November 16 deadline is no more real than the "deadlines" for implementing REAL ID, which have been pushed back repeatedly since 2008.

Fifth, states can always create an exchange later if they choose. 

Sixth, a state-created exchange is not a state-controlled exchange. All exchanges will be controlled by Washington.

Seventh, Congress authorized no funds for federal "fallback" exchanges. So Washington may not be able to impose Exchanges on states at all.

CONTINUE AND FINISH READING


blog comments powered by Disqus

FSM Archives

More in MUST READS ( 1 OF 25 ARTICLES )