Prescription for Disaster

States Can Improve Their Business Climate by Rejecting Establishment of ObamaCare Exchange

Monday, April 23, 2012

Are there many ways that a state could shield businesses in their state from an onerous, job killing tax penalty? In most cases - no. But in the case of ObamaCare the answer is a definitive "yes!!!"

ObamaCare seeks to have states set up insurance exchanges or government controlled "markets" whereby federal subsidies are dolled out so that people can buy heavily regulated, government approved health insurance. According to this article from The Wall Street Journal, if a state establishes an exchange, ObamaCare allows the subsidies to be given out (see Section 1311). If a state refuses to set up an exchange, the federal government will do so but ObamaCare does not permit any subsidies for people who access the federal exchanges (see Section 1321). 

So, a state that takes a pass on establishing an exchange (as many states have chosen to do) is effectively telling the feds, "we aren't going to spend state tax dollars to do your dirty work - have at it." But here is where a state that decides to take a pass can really benefit that state's economy. Under ObamaCare, if someone receives an exchange subsidy, their employer is subject to a penalty under ObamaCare but if no employees receive a subsidy employers are not subject to the penalty. Get it? The bottom line is that states can protect job creators from onerous federal taxes if they refuse to create and set up an ObamaCare insurance exchange. That is a significant incentive for states to protect their economy and jobs. The alternative is to create an exchange, letting the penalty kick in, resulting in fewer businesses and fewer jobs which will create a double-whammy for state taxpayers. Taxpayer will have to foot the bill to deal with the further strain on a state's social safety net resulting from higher unemployment and would end up footing the bill to finance a system to hand out federal bennies.  A bad deal all around for states, employers, employees and taxpayers.

Read more about this here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

HHS Issues Exchange Regulations

Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Yesterday, the Obama Administration issued the long-awaited and overdue regulations related to the creation of ObamaCare insurance exchanges (a copy of the regulations can be found here). The regulations were met with criticism from Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell on behalf of the Republican Governor's Association which echoed concerns AHEC has been raising about the idea of exchanges for more than a year. 

The RGA press release on the subject had this to say:

“Once again, the Obama administration has overpromised, oversold and under-delivered, this time with regards to granting states the flexibility needed to establish and maintain health insurance exchanges. The regulations issued today by the Department of Health and Human Services extend the federal government’s reach into the states and will cost the states millions of dollars annually to operate. This Administration’s inability to provide critical guidance to their broken healthcare reform mandate gives more and more credence to the necessity of the Supreme Court ruling this law unconstitutional.”

The pre see release also pointed out the following shortcomings of the regulations:

  • No clarity on what benefit mandates will be imposed on states
  • No clarity on cost-sharing
  • No clarity on risk adjustment and reinsurance
  • No clarity on the federal health insurance exchange that would be forced upon states if they refuse to implement the law
  • No clarity regarding who will pay for a federal health insurance exchange
  • No clarity on “partnership exchanges”
AHEC again renews its call for states to forego the creation of a state exchange (like Florida and Louisiana have decided to do). This is the only way that states can avoid being saddled with future mandates and burdens of ObamaCare.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

HHS Issues Exchange Regulations

Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Yesterday, the Obama Administration issued the long-awaited and overdue regulations related to the creation of ObamaCare insurance exchanges (a copy of the regulations can be found here). The regulations were met with criticism from Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell on behalf of the Republican Governor's Association which echoed concerns AHEC has been raising about the idea of exchanges for more than a year. 

The RGA press release on the subject had this to say:

“Once again, the Obama administration has overpromised, oversold and under-delivered, this time with regards to granting states the flexibility needed to establish and maintain health insurance exchanges. The regulations issued today by the Department of Health and Human Services extend the federal government’s reach into the states and will cost the states millions of dollars annually to operate. This Administration’s inability to provide critical guidance to their broken healthcare reform mandate gives more and more credence to the necessity of the Supreme Court ruling this law unconstitutional.”

The pre see release also pointed out the following shortcomings of the regulations:

  • No clarity on what benefit mandates will be imposed on states
  • No clarity on cost-sharing
  • No clarity on risk adjustment and reinsurance
  • No clarity on the federal health insurance exchange that would be forced upon states if they refuse to implement the law
  • No clarity regarding who will pay for a federal health insurance exchange
  • No clarity on “partnership exchanges”
AHEC again renews its call for states to forego the creation of a state exchange (like Florida and Louisiana have decided to do). This is the only way that states can avoid being saddled with future mandates and burdens of ObamaCare.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

HHS Issues Exchange Regulations

Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Yesterday, the Obama Administration issued the long-awaited and overdue regulations related to the creation of ObamaCare insurance exchanges (a copy of the regulations can be found here). The regulations were met with criticism from Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell on behalf of the Republican Governor's Association which echoed concerns AHEC has been raising about the idea of exchanges for more than a year. 

The RGA press release on the subject had this to say:

“Once again, the Obama administration has overpromised, oversold and under-delivered, this time with regards to granting states the flexibility needed to establish and maintain health insurance exchanges. The regulations issued today by the Department of Health and Human Services extend the federal government’s reach into the states and will cost the states millions of dollars annually to operate. This Administration’s inability to provide critical guidance to their broken healthcare reform mandate gives more and more credence to the necessity of the Supreme Court ruling this law unconstitutional.”

The pre see release also pointed out the following shortcomings of the regulations:

  • No clarity on what benefit mandates will be imposed on states
  • No clarity on cost-sharing
  • No clarity on risk adjustment and reinsurance
  • No clarity on the federal health insurance exchange that would be forced upon states if they refuse to implement the law
  • No clarity regarding who will pay for a federal health insurance exchange
  • No clarity on “partnership exchanges”
AHEC again renews its call for states to forego the creation of a state exchange (like Florida and Louisiana have decided to do). This is the only way that states can avoid being saddled with future mandates and burdens of ObamaCare.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Senate Republicans Weigh in and File Amicus Brief in ObamaCare Lawsuit

Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Forty-three Senate Republicans signed onto an Amicus Brief filed with the Supreme Court in response to the multi-state lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare.  Excerpts from the brief include:

  • “Put simply, Congress acted without constitutional authority in enacting the Individual Mandate of the PPACA. In so doing, it has damaged Congress’ institutional legitimacy and has triggered severe conflicts between state and federal governments that the Constitution was carefully designed to avert.”
  • “Because the Individual Mandate regulates a simple decision or choice not to purchase a particular product, it exceeds the proper scope of the Commerce Clause.”

The amicus brief was signed by:Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Sen. John Boozman (R-AR), Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Sen. Daniel Coats (R-IN), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV), Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND), Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE), Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), Sen. James Risch (R-ID), Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Sen. John Thune (R-SD), Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS).

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 


Bookmark and Share

The Individual Mandate & The Fate of ObamaCare

Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Karen Harned, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) Small Business Legal Center, has written an oped for The Daily Caller on the importance of the individual mandate to the survival of ObamaCare. In the article she states:

"The government’s intentions were clear: the law is entirely reliant on the requirement that Americans spend their discretionary dollars on an insurance product, whether they want one or not. Without the mandate, the law would be gutted. One problem: Never in its history has the government made it a requirement of your citizenship to purchase something or else be financially penalized — and there’s a reason for that. Making such a demand violates the Constitution."
 
You can also read a recent NFIB Press Release on the subject of the individual mandate here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Rejects ObamaCare Funding

Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Great News!!!

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has joined the parade of governors who are refusing federal money to set up ObamaCare exchanges. The exchanges are critical for the feds to implement their government takeover of healthcare. By rejecting the money (as states like Louisiana, Florida and others have already done), states are taking a stand against ObamaCare.

Read more here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Thirty-Six Senate Republicans File Amicus Brief on ObamaCare

Monday, January 09, 2012
Thirty-Six Senate Republicans filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in favor of the states' lawsuit against ObamaCare.  The brief argues that: 

“This Court must defer to this clear expression of Congress’ intent regarding the role of the individual mandate… To maintain the Constitution’s balance, this Court cannot ignore Congress’ determination as to what is essential to the PPACA’s scheme and leave in place a statute Congress would not—and did not—enact.”

“If Congress intended for the PPACA to survive without the individual mandate, it could have protected its major legislative reform simply by including a clause which would have guided this Court and resulted in a strong presumption of severability – a clause which was already before it in a prior version of the PPACA. Congress did not do so.

“Under these circumstances, this Court cannot leave a patchwork alternative to the PPACA in place without the heart of the legislation. Rather, such a determination must be left to the elected representatives of the people.”

The brief was signed by: Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Sen. John Boozman (R-AR), Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Sen. Daniel Coats (R-IN), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV), Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND), Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE), Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. James Risch (R-ID), Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Sen. John Thune (R-SD), Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA).

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.

Bookmark and Share

States that Want to Oppose ObamaCare Must First Oppose the Exchanges

Tuesday, December 20, 2011
A new article explains that the strategy of states to oppose ObamaCare by opposing establishing a health insurance exchange is a winning strategy. ObamaCare seeks to have states establish "exchanges" whereby the ObamaCare's entitlement subsidies would be doled out. States are being asked to set up the exchanges (and fund them with only minimal federal assistance dollars) even before the feds tell the states all the rules that will come with the federal money. The feds strategy is one that is designed to get the states to jump before they even know how the proverbial cliff is.

Many states - Alaska, Florida and Louisiana have flat out refused to create an exchange. The Michigan House recently killed funding for the creation of an exchange. What is the fallback? Under ObamaCare, if a state fails to set up an exchange, the feds can set one up in the state.  But that is proving to be no small feat. Many states that are working to set up exchanges don't have the right technology infrastructure, the feds have yet to define the essential benefits package that states must offer and it is completely unclear about whether states or the feds will have the ultimate control over the exchanges (given how the feds have engaged in power grab after power grab with respect to health care over the past 50 years, my guess is the feds will use the ObamaCare funding to grab away state power).

Opponents of ObamaCare see a winning strategy in opposing the establishment of the exchanges in the states - a strategy they believe can ultimately prove to be ObamaCare's undoing. Other less thoughtful people on the issue of healthcare see no problem with setting up the exchanges. For example, Leo Linbeck III who is pushing the health care compact (he says to rid states of the federal monopoly over healthcare) has said: "And there are some good ideas embedded in the bill. The idea of health insurance exchanges... is not all bad. It’s essentially an attempt at a market solution." Linbeck's naiveté and ignorance over how ObamaCare works and how it is being implemented would be cute if it wasn't so dangerous. To accept the exchanges is to fully embrace ObamaCare, its co-opting of state budgets and state autonomy, and the looming fiscal crisis ObamaCare represents to the states. 

No one who understands how the federal government has operated in the field of healthcare in grabbing control over the states could rightly support the exchanges. This raises the question about why people like Linbeck are pushing the compact. If they know so little about ObamaCare how are they remotely positioned to design an effective strategy to undermine the law (as Linbeck says the HCC is designed to do). This suggests Linbeck has motives other than undermining ObamaCare (which could be why he is involved in a primary accountability effort to unelect the very Republicans who will be necessary to repeal ObamaCare in 2013).

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

States May Oppose ObamaCare, But they are Lining Up for ObamaCare's Cash

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

CQ Healthbeat is reporting that nearly every state is taking ObamaCare cash - including those that are fighting the law in court. This reeks of hypocrisy on the part of Republican Governors and state legislators who have authorized the states to fight ObamaCare in the courts. Taking money appropriated by a law that one believe's is unconstitutional is not just hypocrisy, it is a betrayal of the very people who elected you to fight for their freedoms. Reports are that the following states accepted money:

• Alabama, $8.5 million
• Arizona, $29.8 million
• Delaware, $3.4 million
• Hawaii, $14.4 million
• Idaho, $20.3 million
• Iowa, $7.7 million
• Maine, $5.8 million
• Michigan, $9.8 million
• Nebraska, $5.4 million
• New Mexico, $34.2 million
• Tennessee, $1.5 million
• Vermont, $18 million
• Rhode Island, $58.5 million

Today, CMS announced that it had doled out nearly $200 million to 13 states to establish ObamaCare exchanges and released a series of Questions and Answers about the Exchange money.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.


Bookmark and Share

1 2 3 4 5 .. 9 Next

 
AHEC on Facebook AHEC on Twitter AHEC on Twitter

Recent Posts

Tags

Archive