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

• “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 

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.

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

AHEC has recently completed an extensive fiscal and policy review of the Health Care Compact (HCC or compact), legislation that has been introduced in several states. The conclusion of our fiscal review of the HCC is that the compact's funding formula is fatally flawed and that it will shift $3 trillion of healthcare liabilities from the federal government onto the backs of the states. Our report even provides a break down of the fiscal shortfall that will be created in each state if the compact were to be widely adopted.

Ironically, the group pushing the HCC has confirmed AHEC's $3 trillion figure but has failed to inform state legislators of how this will impact their state's budget. It would be the height of fiscal irresponsibility for a state to pass the compact given the obvious flaws in the funding formula, particularly if a state does not have a plan in place to ensure that the state's most vulnerable citizens will not receive proper health care. Yet some states (Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia and Missouri) have done just that.

READ AHEC'S FULL REPORT ON THE HCC HERE.

AHEC has previously discussed the myriad of problems with the Health Care Compact.  You can read much of AHEC's previous work on the HCC in the following places:

1. AHEC's Blog: The Connection of the HCC to Efforts to Enact Socialized Medicine
2. AHEC's Blog: The HCC will lead to Taxpayer Funding of Abortions and Free HealthCare for Illegal Aliens
3. A Line of Sight: A Conservative Assessment of the HCC

If you are concerned about the implications of the Health Care Compact, please call your state legislators (especially in Tennessee, Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan and tell them to oppose the Health Care Compact).

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

According to media reports, Georgia is asking the federal government to let it become another state to push the cost of providing healthcare to the children of state employees on the backs of federal taxpayers. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has already approved this process for Montana, Alabama, Texas, Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

These states are seeking to push the kids of state employees into the CHIP program, a federal program originally designed to provide health care to kids in lower income families. But this latest move by the states seeks to expand coverage well beyond what the federal program was designed to accomplish.

The national implications of the states attempting to do this are numerous, including:

1. Taxpayers in other states will now be forced to finance the cost of state government in another state through their federal tax dollars. This is unfair to taxpayers nationwide.
2. This will also reduce the incentive for states to fund the benefits they promise and to live within their means.
3. This will lower incentives for states, like Texas and Georgia, to actually come up with appropriate budgetary savings and to live within its means.  For example, Gov. Mitch Daniels (IN) has moved his state employee health plan to HSAs which has reduced the burden on taxpayers and created market incentives for state employees to make better health care decisions.   
4. ObamaCare expands CHIP while reducing the applicable pool of participants in the private insurance market. In this regard, the states that are attempting this maneuver are further reducing that pool which could have negative affects on everyone who relies on private insurance in that state.
5. Finally, the real implications have to deal with the Health Care Compact. Texas and Georgia have both adopted the compact with the promise it would let states "keep their money" and give states control over health care to design more efficient health care systems. The move by Texas and Georgia shows these states are hypocrites when it comes to the promised goals of the compact. It also shows that the compact is filled with nothing more than empty promises and hot air. Otherwise, the HCCA (which is pushing the compact) would be doing far more to hold elected officials in these states accountable instead of giving them a pass to say one thing while doing another. If anyone should be decrying the move by these states it should be Leo Linbeck III (a resident of Texas and co-chair of the HCCA) but his silence on the issue speaks volumes about how ill-conceived the compact really is.