-
Has the IRS Already Seized Your Medical Records?
May 20, 2013 | 6 comments
-
The Grand Old Poseurs
May 13, 2013 | 72 comments
-
Obamacare Pimps Smear Lipstick on Another Pig
May 6, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Can One Iraq Vet Stop Obamacare?
April 29, 2013 | 88 comments
-
GOP at Fault for Obamacare Train Wreck?
April 22, 2013 | 106 comments
The Right Prescription
The States Can Still Kill Obamacare
By taking aim at its insurance exchanges, the law’s Achilles’ heel, they can do it in.
Now that conservatives and libertarians are beginning to recover from the injuries they sustained by banging their heads against walls, desks, and other hard objects on June 28, perhaps it’s a good time to introduce a ray of hope that might have seemed absurdly Pollyannaish during the dark hours immediately following the Supreme Court’s surreal Obamacare ruling. Although the voters can put an end to the madness on November 6, the states don’t need to wait until Election Day to take aim at a point of vulnerability that remains in place despite the Court’s latest caprice. They can refuse to implement the law’s insurance exchanges.
The exchanges didn’t receive the attention their importance merits while the press, public, and political establishment remained intently focused on Obamacare’s individual mandate and the possibility that it might be ruled unconstitutional. The law calls for the states to set up these new bureaucracies, whose ostensible purpose will be to provide “marketplaces” in which people with no employer-based health insurance can shop for coverage at competitive rates. Now that the Court has upheld the individual mandate, these insurance exchanges constitute the key to the success or failure of the law. They are also its Achilles’ heel.
How’s that? Well, as the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon succinctly puts it, “Without these bureaucracies, Obamacare cannot work.” And, oddly enough, the law doesn’t actually require states to set up these “marketplaces.” Moreover, there is no rational incentive for them to do so. If a state sets up an exchange, it then must pay for it, which won’t be cheap. Cannon writes, “States that opt to create an exchange can expect to pay anywhere from $10 million to $100 million per year to run it.” This is a burden that the states, most of which are already in deep financial trouble, are not likely to embrace with enthusiasm.
The federal government can set up its own exchanges, in theory, but Obamacare stipulates that Washington would then be required to pick up the tab as well. And, as Cannon goes on to point out, “The Obama administration has admitted it doesn’t have the money — and good luck getting any such funding through the GOP-controlled House.” And it gets worse. If the federal government is forced to set up an exchange, it faces yet another huge problem. As Sally Pipes and Hal Scherz write, “The text of the law stipulates that only state-based exchanges — not federally run ones — may distribute credits and subsidies.”
Thus, if a state refuses to set up an exchange, the feds have no real ability to do so either. The states have an opportunity, therefore, to shoot a poison arrow directly into Obamacare’s Achilles’ heel. Among those who get this is the Governor of Florida. That is why, when Rick Scott announced that his state would not comply with Obamacare’s Medicaid mandate, he also noted that Florida would not be setting up any state-run insurance “marketplace”: “Floridians are interested in jobs and economic growth, a quality education for their children.… Neither of these major provisions in Obamacare will achieve those goals.”
Scott isn’t the only governor to balk at moving forward on state-based exchanges. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Sam Brownback of Kansas, and Mary Fallin of Oklahoma have all pushed back as well. And the momentum seems to be building. In May, Alabama’s governor Robert Bentley thwarted his legislature when it tried to create an exchange and Chris Christie vetoed a bill passed by the New Jersey legislature to set one up. In June, after the Supreme Court handed down its decision, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal also joined the movement: “Absolutely, we’re not implementing the exchanges. We’re not implementing Obamacare.”
Meanwhile, conservatives in Congress are ramping up an effort to enlist more governors in the cause. Seventy-three senators and representatives have signed a letter to the National Governors Association urging its members to stay in the fight against Obamacare: “As members of the U.S. Congress, we are dedicated to the full repeal of this government takeover of healthcare and we ask you to join us to oppose its implementation.” The letter goes on to specifically implore the governors “to oppose any creation of a state health care exchange mandated under the President’s discredited health care law.”
The letter, whose signatories include Senators DeMint, Lee, Coburn, Graham, Vitter, Paul, Cornyn, Sessions, Rubio, Toomey and Shelby, points out a number of facts that are apparently not well understood by state politicians, including the effect the exchanges will have on their business constituents. “Resisting the implementation of exchanges is good for hiring and investment. The law’s employer mandate assesses penalties — up to $3,000 per employee — only to businesses who don’t satisfy federally-approved health insurance standards and whose employees receive ‘premium assistance’ through the exchanges.”
In other words, a state that declines to set up an exchange will protect the businesses of that state from avoidable and job-killing penalties. This reality has apparently begun to sink in. There has been a noticeable decline in enthusiasm for exchanges among states that had begun work on them shortly after Obamacare passed. North Dakota, New Hampshire, Idaho and South Carolina, to name a few, have abandoned plans to create these insurance “marketplaces.” Kaiser Health News reports that, by the end of June, “only 14 states and the District of Columbia have so far passed legislation authorizing the exchanges.”
So, even after the Supreme Court’s incoherent ruling that Obamacare and its much-reviled mandate are constitutional, there is still hope that the monster can be brought low. If the states simply decline to implement the insurance exchanges, the beast will die. Will Obama and his HHS minions try to avoid this by ignoring the law and try to funnel credits and subsidies through federally created exchanges? Yep. The rule of law, as they have repeatedly demonstrated, means nothing to them. But that’s where the voters come in. This won’t be a problem if the electorate evicts Obama from the White House in November.
About the Author
David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (64) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David Catron
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/09/the-states-can-still-kill-obam
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Kevin Brent | 7.9.12 @ 6:42AM
What's absurdly Pollyannaish Mr. Catron, is the never ending naivete of you supposed 'experts' that Obama or any Democrat controlled future Congress, will simply not fund the Feds doing it themselves. Most of you all said they would never pass Obamacare. Or that a Bush appointed Supreme Court Justice would never find it constitutional. Look what happened...... You people need to get a grip. Obama must be defeated, Democrats must be sent the way of the Soviets, and Obamacare must be repealed. And, after that is done, their needs be an investigation opened into Chief Judas John G. Roberts.
ConradCA| 7.9.12 @ 12:42PM
After the betrayal by the Supreme Court and the disasterous 4 years of progressive rule we have to declare war on the progressives and everything they try to do. Stopping ObamaCare is a step in the right direction and this strategy does that. If we take the Presidency, House and Senate in the next election we can kill ObamaCare for good.
Aristocat| 7.10.12 @ 12:51AM
KILL OBAMACARE NOW
Well done, David. Add Texas to the states that are not going to expand Medicaid or set up exhanges. The appellants made a huge mistake by concentrating on the mandate/tax argument. Obamacare is manifestly unconstitutional even without the mandate/tax/penalty, whatever you want to call it.
A. C. Santore| 7.9.12 @ 8:05AM
The "liberals" have already gone the way of the Soviets.
Now we must finish the job, then hope that a neo-old-Soviet like Putin doesn't fool us again and get back in
DerKrieger| 7.9.12 @ 8:55AM
If I didn't know better I'd swear AmSpec was responding to my post on RedState last week asking "Can GOP governors kill Obamacare?" http://www.redstate.com/derkrieger/
Federalism is the answer toro DC problem.
Gary B| 7.9.12 @ 10:13AM
Exactly right. It has to be bottom up. If the states turn their backs on DC, then DC will be screwed.
Mimi | 7.9.12 @ 9:13AM
This crew , has it backwards. It can never seem to follow the WILL of the people....they just don't get it.!
2010 meant NOTHING to them....another much greater surprise is on the HORIZON, Nov. 6 2012!
I think we are so sick of this mess...we just want to get it OVER....We're sitting quietly biding our time...All HECK will break lose on election day....when we quietly go to the POLLS, do our SACRED DUTY and promptly cast them all out...With their long lying tails between their legs.
Yesterday on FOX.....LIBERTY-LOVERS will now be on the terrorist list...That's it !, don't be intimidated, the final blow.... VOTE !!!
Stephanie| 7.9.12 @ 9:52AM
Oh Mimi, they get it alright. They just don't give a damn and will do exactly what they have had planned for many years.
Did anyone here ever think in a million years that the Supreme Court Justice would vote the way he did?
Mimi | 7.9.12 @ 10:14AM
Steph...No surprise with the Libs ... and 4 Conservatives...It was Roberts...whose fear of the Left Media caused him to transform his future..to one of SHAME and most likely will never be trusted again. Making and CHANGING LAW ?
How can that be?
Purp| 7.9.12 @ 4:17PM
How insulting. Chief Justice read the Constitution, and upheld the law based on the Constitution - not your right wing smear tactic.
How can you disrespect the Chief Justice of the United States? What kind of American are you?
CJW| 7.9.12 @ 5:36PM
Obamaboy
How can you disrespect Justice Thomas and President Bush?
We know what kind of American you are.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.9.12 @ 10:24AM
What's depressing about all this is that Roberts has been allowed to get away with his decision. He has now set a precedent that judges can blatantly rewrite Congressional legislation. This violation of the separation of powers should be grounds for impeachment of Roberts, but I've yet to hear any of these sleepwalking Republicans say anything about it. We know Democrats don't care about the separation of powers, but where are Republicans?
Purp| 7.9.12 @ 4:18PM
The Republicans don't really care - they just want you to THINK they care. And you have fallen for it. You get what you vote for.
Oregon mom| 7.11.12 @ 12:08AM
The Republicans could be waiting for November's outcome. Sure don't want Obama offering up another liberal Supreme Court Justice.
Cobalt| 7.9.12 @ 10:44AM
Kagan should have recused herself.
"Investigation Into Kagan's Role In ObamaCare"
http://www.thenewamerican.com/.....-obamacare
Purp| 7.9.12 @ 4:20PM
And so should Clarence Thomas - but who's counting?
Al Adab| 7.9.12 @ 11:14AM
Thirty-three States opposed this travesty and thirty-three States filed suit against it. If there remains any semblance of Constitutional government in this nation, thirty-three States will refuse to comply. The legal actions they can take and the options available make this an untenable act.
Like the several States that are involved in the illegal migrant decision, the States involved in the Obiecare battle can exert themselves, act in their own defense and refuse, simply put, to comply.
Jack London| 7.9.12 @ 12:10PM
Why are you so against poor people gaining access to insurance, Al? The spectacle of GOP governors competing to see how many they can throw out of Medicaid is truly vomit inducing.
Al Adab| 7.9.12 @ 12:43PM
Hello Jack:
Haven't heard from you in a while. Sadly you completely misstate the issue but I understand the diversion tactic.
Health care is a commodity like any other. One can choose to pay for a Dr. visit, buy insurance if one wishes, do without as a calculated risk, establish a MSA or even, like some, have a job that makes it available. However, no one, rich or poor, has a moral claim to the earnings of others for any purpose and certainly not through the use of government force. That is called theft and that is immoral.
Jack London| 7.9.12 @ 1:17PM
Every time you drive on the highway, post a letter, use the Internet, fight a war, pop a pill, or indeed, visit a hospital even if you pay cash you are thieving from others. How do you think all this happened and happens?
Bill84728| 7.9.12 @ 2:16PM
Please explain how I'm stealing something from others when I (1) post a letter, (2) drive on the highway, (3) use the internet, (3) fight a war, (4) pop a pill, (5) visit a hospital.
Please be specific.
JD| 7.9.12 @ 4:00PM
The key to Jack's logic isn't that "butterfly effect" level of inter-dependency EXISTS. It's that it CAN'T BE MEASURED!
That's the key to justifying liberal policy - they establish UNMEASURABLE debts between all peoples, then proclaim that they will use the authority of government to rectify these debts. But because the debts cannot be measured, no one can ever analyze the appropriateness of a given rectification, nor can anyone ever say that a debt is paid. Liberals can justify anything they want, indefinitely, using these ephemeral debts.
Bill84728| 7.9.12 @ 4:29PM
Interesting: conservatives recognize interdependency too. They acknowledge that there are times in a community when collective activity can be beneficial. They just don't premise entire social systems on collectivism, thinking that people like to have a little individualism, too.
That way, you don't have to measure where society starts and the individual ends; you just get together when we need togetherness and you split up when the need for togetherness is over.
THKrupp| 7.9.12 @ 5:33PM
The problem we have is that we have a national health care system now. The people with insurance are paying for the ones who dont. It just gets passed off in higher health care premiums. If we truely want to fix health care costs...end employer provided health benefits. Why employers are even expected to offer health care is the craziest thing in the world. Yes I understand why we have it set up this way but that doesnt make it any less crazy. Why doesnt your employer pick up your car insurance? Your car is actually more important for you to get to work than your health. We need to end the practice of health care benefits for everyone. The only way people will ration their own costs is if they pay for their plans themselves.
Warrior| 7.9.12 @ 10:12PM
What?? So you would rather impose your own version of acceptable tyranny. Employers need not be told by the federal government what benefits they can provide their employees. How about repealing the law that mandates people get health care in an ER regardless of ability to pay. How about stripping the federal monster back down to its Constitutionally enumerated powers. Then you conclude with a real knee slapper, your car being more important than your health. Really?? How many people in a coma do you expect to drive to work?
THKrupp| 7.10.12 @ 8:32AM
The only way for people to rationaly use healthcare is if they are paying for it themselves. Government sets up all the rules on insurance. Government already dictates many of the ways you are renumerated at work. If you are in a coma you dont have a job. Health care costs are spiraling out of control because we have so many people that use health care without really knowing what health care costs. employer provided healthcare is the biggest reason this disconnect in the market exists. Why is everyone so afraid of getting their own healthcare? Why do you allow your employer to provide it for you?
Warrior| 7.10.12 @ 12:25PM
Wrong. Costs are out of control because you have people who are not paying for the care they get and cost is passed down. Remove the government from the equation and let care be provided to those who pay for it. It's not a matter of providing my own healthcare. It's a matter of you not having the right to tell me or any other business the manner in which I acquire it or if I want it at all. Costs are also out of control because doctors provide unecessary services and tests due to malpractice issues. You have developed a very simple minded approach to this issue. You are completely out of touch with health care and the markets. You sound like an elected politician.
THKrupp| 7.10.12 @ 3:10PM
I agree with you in that we have people getting treatment who arent paying anything and passing the costs on to everyone else. Where you are wrong is that there is a disconnect between the care that people recieve and what it costs. There is little or no feed back to the end consumer when you have healthcare provided by a third party. It doesnt matter who that third party is. Without a feed back loop ...cost to the end consumer...there is no way for the market to be efficient.
Imagine how much capital it would free up for companies if suddenly they didnt have to cover, administrate and basically deal with employee health care. It would free up tons of capital and make companies much more competitive against foreign companies who dont have to deal with that at all. This would also cause hiring in insurance companies because they would have to have more reps and more people because they are dealing with more individuals rather than large plans.
Your arguement basically supports Obama Care. Thats what its trying to do...force people who are paying nothing to pay something with the Government picking up the rest of the tab. Im not advocating that at all.
Business's could still pay their employees a cash stipend or some other amount to cover health insurance but the company should not be the ones who are administrating the plan. Individuals should be responsible for their own health care plans.
ConradCA| 7.9.12 @ 12:49PM
ObamaCare is a massive expansion of the Federal government. It is designed to kill of the private healthcare and insurance industries replacing then with a Soviet style healthcare system. This further the governments destruction of the private industry. Poverty is terrible for everyone and ObamaCare along with Obama's other disasterous policies will create a lot more poor people.
Bill84728| 7.9.12 @ 2:14PM
I'm all for the poor having access to health insurance.
I just don't want to pay the premiums.
JD| 7.9.12 @ 4:02PM
Liberalism thrives by robbing words of their meanings, and filling the resulting communications void with whatever suits their fancy. They have defined "access" as "being gifted" to such an extent that I'm surprised they haven't complained that poor people don't have access to their own TVs because they have to buy batteries for the remotes before they can operate them.
THKrupp| 7.9.12 @ 5:19PM
The problem with our system now is that we are already paying the premiums for the people that dont pay. We need to outlaw employer provided health care benefits. The only way costs will come down is if individuals get their own insurance for themselves.
Purp| 7.9.12 @ 4:23PM
Guess the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution takes precedence over the States, doesn't it?
If they don't comply, the Feds will just do it for them. Now, imagine a State Governor, Republican even, is going to WANT or LET the Feds control his State's exchange? Really?
This is just sour grapes ... and it won't wash.
Von Mises Jr| 7.9.12 @ 5:09PM
Al, my friend, this is the other problem with the implementation:
Medicaid is so broken that 50% of doctors are refusing patients. They earn about $13 per one-hundred after reimbursement and basic costs. Existing doctors do not want to accept Medicaid since for that thirteen percent income before taxes, they risk malpractice lawsuits. The average settlement is $25K, or about 1,923 free visits.
So New Jersey's Medicaid will increase from $10B to $15B and add about 15% to the state budget. The state budget is paid by property taxes for the most part. That means New Jersey average property tax of $10-12K will increase by $1,500 to $1,800 to expand Medicaid. And it will only get worse.
It will bankrupt states such as AL, AR, GA, KY, LA, MS, WV. So the problem is twofold. First, the people who THINK that they are getting free health care are not only going to get stiffed, but they may still be liable to a fine. Second, if these states expand Medicaid, they will be bankrupt. And how can you have a Federal Republic without Federalism?
Al Adab| 7.9.12 @ 6:24PM
Jr:
Very true sir:
My Doc retired earlier this year facing Obiecare, etc. He never would accept Medicare and had his patients sign waivers promising not to submit Medicare claims for payment.
Actually, I can never understand why people simply don't pay for their Doc visits and buy themselves insurance or have a MSA if they are worried about catastopic costs. When did we ever get the idea that our problems, medical and otherwise, should be paid for by the community at large? Will the collective start paying my mortgage since everyone has a right to housing? What about transportation? Will the collective buy my Lincoln hybrid? That would be good for the environment. Have a good evening. All star game tomorrow.
Von Mises Jr| 7.9.12 @ 6:55PM
There are established doctors setting up charity clinics to avoid ObamaCare and law suits. They selected medicine to help people, not to be servants to bureaucrats.
Doctors starting out refuse Medicaid since they cannot afford the $150K insurance premiums. They treat pregnant women but send them to the city or state hospital since they cannot afford to be sued.
Mike G| 7.9.12 @ 11:30AM
Maybe I'm not getting the full picture. The states don't have to set up these exchanges--I got that. Aren't these exchanges supposed to offer citizens cheaper insurance? If the state refuse to set up these exchanges, won't we still have to buy insurance? Won't this insurance be even more expensive? If so, won't that give the pols a reason to go to public insurance? Isn't that the main goal of Obamacare?
RCV| 7.9.12 @ 11:43AM
If the states don't on their own set up exchanges, the Feds can just make regional exchanges available to those state residents. Won't change the obligation to buy insurance -- only limit the choices available to red state residents. Cut off your nose to spite your face if you wish.
GW| 7.9.12 @ 1:38PM
Not if it isn't funded (and who controls Congress?). What is it with liberals and reading comprehension?
THKrupp| 7.9.12 @ 5:28PM
The exchanges are actually a good idea, just remove the funding.
ConradCA| 7.9.12 @ 12:52PM
ObamaCare will create poverty as it destroys businesses. Prosperity is a better solution.
The Feds will subsidize the poor when they by at a state exchange which is the reason insurance will be cheaper for them. Of course everyone else will have to pay for those subsidies and the full price for their own insurance.
George S| 7.9.12 @ 3:16PM
The exchanges are critical for the insurance companies because no one is going to dump money into a market just to watch it disappear (how would they get investors?). If insurers have to take all comers, limit what they can charge the elderly (the 3:1 community rating) and take on people who are diagnosed with whatever, there is no possible way they could economically survive.
Hence, the exchanges. Here is a market where the insurance companies gather and are subsidized and are able to, in theory anyway, offer competitive insurance quotes for each buyer knowing the government will make up the difference.
But there is a problem with that. The market exchanges are not transparent since they are subsidized, meaning the market cannot get a handle on true supply and demand since prices are distorted by government rules and regulations. If the regs limit the price, demand will rise and go above the supply point at that price. This causes a scarcity and the reaction is then to hoard the supply, causing a sharp price increase. Since the price is limited, insurers will find another market -- the second tier Rich Politician Elite market, for example.
So if states do not set up exchanges, it would be economically impossible to have an insurance market.
JD| 7.9.12 @ 4:03PM
The goal of Obamacare is to fail in such a way as to make people think that the logical remedy is nationalized healthcare. It was never the long-term plan.
Gary B| 7.9.12 @ 4:09PM
JD, I think you're right.
Bill84728| 7.9.12 @ 4:32PM
I think you're right about that. We've been hearing rumblings for some time, and it will probably get a lot louder and more specific, that Republicans and conservatives have not come up with an answer to the so-called "health-care problem." It's obvious that the criticism is that Republicans and conservatives aren't coming up with a collectivist solution.
The answer should be, but won't, that that's right; we're not coming up with a collectivist solution.
THKrupp| 7.9.12 @ 5:25PM
The problem is that all insurance is collectivist...it doesnt matter where you get it or who pays for it. The biggest problem is that people who are getting insured through their employer dont have any reason to ration their own health care. If every person had to get their own insurance then we would have a health care market that worked.
Gary B| 7.9.12 @ 11:26PM
Exactly. And, what happened to medical savings accounts?
THKrupp| 7.9.12 @ 11:56AM
Im no expert on this healthcare bill at all. Could someone explain what the exchanges are and their purpose?
ConradCA| 7.9.12 @ 12:54PM
The exchanges are part of ObamaCare. They are suppose to sell health insurance to individuals and businesses.
George S| 7.9.12 @ 3:38PM
An exchange (like the Stock Exchange) is where buyers and sellers meet to buy and sell goods. The purpose of a centralized location is that a true picture of supply and demand emerges which then sends the correct price signals to the rest of the market. This tells everyone whether a good is fairly priced and makes the market more efficient -- if the good is scarce it induces more producers; if the supply is high it redirects resources elsewhere.
Under ObamaCare, the purpose of the exchange is not transparency but political manipulation. The government places regulations on the price of insurance and what the market MUST supply. Since no one in their right mind would agree to meet in such an exchange, the government subsidizes the difference in selling price and cost.
So the purpose is to fool the public into thinking it is getting something for free, but the reality is it causes market upheaval driving up both subsidies and premiums. To make it more complex, the exchanges are spread out over the 50 states, further obscuring the market's pricing signals. End result is government stepping in to run everything, resulting in socialistic single-payer.
But the bottom line is the government needs the insurance industry's infrastructure to run single-payer health care. That's why we call this Fascist.
THKrupp| 7.9.12 @ 5:22PM
Ahh ok I understand. The exchange in and of itself is actually a good idea. The Government footing the bill is not.
The only way health costs will come down is if individuals are in control of their own health plans. We need to get rid of employer sponsered health care as well as government sponsered health care. Each individual should be on their own as far as providing health care. Then and only then will the market become meaningful in any way shape or form.
Bill84728| 7.9.12 @ 12:08PM
The states need to start immediately working on a Constitutional amendment that will prohibit Congress from taxing inactivity.
It is clearly not right, nor, I submit, is it consistent with natural law, that the state's taxing power should go so far as to permit the state to issue a tax for not doing this thing or that thing. There may be an argument for penalites attaching to inactivity, but not taxation.
JD| 7.9.12 @ 4:15PM
Such an amendment will not pass. Too many voters will be told by the media that it's just an anti-Obamacare effort to get their 25-year-olds off their insurance, and they won't go for it. Amendments require supermajorities.
Our only real means of making progress is to show the world how liberal policies are the cause of the bad things that happen, so that voters learn. We can't let the Left continue to blame us for their mistakes.
Bill84728| 7.9.12 @ 4:36PM
I hope you're wrong, but I fear you're right.
Bill84728| 7.9.12 @ 12:11PM
The powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor denied to the States, are reserved to the States or the People respectively.
Therefore, since the power to provide health care is not delegated to the federal government, the states do not seem to be under any Constitutional obligation to set up those bureaucracies. If the feds want them, let the feds set them up.
Bill84728| 7.9.12 @ 12:30PM
Texas governor Rick Perry has gone on record as saying that the State of Texas will not expand Medicare, nor will it establish any exchanges, on the ground that Texas will not be a party to socializing health care and that Obamacare will not lower costs. The news article is linked on Drudge.
Who Knows?| 7.9.12 @ 1:54PM
Just say no always works.
Or, at least, it’s always there as a possible response to any situation.
Do you think that just because people age, they lose their two-year-old “NO!” propensity? I doubt it---there, I just showed my NO!
You can also lead a horse to water, but…..
Obamacare will never be implemented.
It’s way past time for people to learn, or refresh their memory of, some Latin phrases.
Cui bono? Who benefits?
Mea culpa. My fault.
Non sequitur. A conclusion or inference, which does not follow from the premises.
Quid pro quo. One thing in return for another.
Obamacare?
Most voters won’t benefit, it’s THEIR fault for electing BHO, and because they were conned by Obama---the fools!---it does NOT follow that he can foist Obamacare on them. What “thing” is returned for their vote?
QED---Which was to be demonstrated or proved.
CJW| 7.9.12 @ 4:41PM
Obama wants the feds to set up the exchanges so everything will be run by the feds. As for funding, this is a tax, remember. So the cost will be part of the tax imposed.
margmary| 7.9.12 @ 4:47PM
I believe that Michigan is going to "Go Blue," with Snyder being the only Republican governor who's going to subject us to the nightmare of the exchange.
Thom| 7.9.12 @ 7:57PM
Health care cost began to shoot up after Medicare/Medicaid went into effect. Like Social Security the first generation of recipients got a free ride and bid up demand and cost like any commodity in demand. Government made it “free” to both groups on the backs of those that still worked. After the free loaders had passed into history, much of the “subsidy” factor had become part of the average premium and those that had paid into the system their entire working life then saw it as an “earned” benefit or entitlement which sustains the artificial demand since it is still “free” for on average nearly 20 years after retirement now. Risk pools are the only thing that kept premiums reasonable for most but with Government now killing risk pools, fixing both price and service levels and adding more free loaders onto the system premium cost across the board will rise and even less people will be able to afford “health care insurance”. Those that can afford Health care are another matter entirely as my $18,000 LTD 2012 dollars medical cost vs. my $175,000 LTD “Health Care Premium “cost demonstrates. As long as “Health Care” cost are “free” or mostly so to a very large majority of Americans, cost will not come down and likely will rise even more sharply. With the Welfare state taxes at 15.3% most can’t afford to pay this and save for their own retirement and medical care. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy unless this is turned around.
Aristocat| 7.10.12 @ 12:50AM
Well done, David. Add Texas to the states that are not going to expand Medicaid or set up exhanges. The appellants made a huge mistake by concentrating on the mandate/tax argument. Obamacare is manifestly unconstitutional even without the mandate/tax/penalty, whatever you want to call it.
PHILLIPBERNAL| 7.10.12 @ 8:41PM
Regards healthcare, how about everyone pay for their own healthcare? Stop telling me that I must pay for someone else’s healthcare. It is morally wrong for the government to mandate that I or even my employer pay for another person’s healthcare. Regards the so-called poor, which is a euphemism for minorities, well guess what? This is America. Get an education, get a job, and pay for your own damn healthcare. It is called personal responsibility. What about old people? Well, they had an entire lifetime to arrange their healthcare. We are free citizens with rights AND RESPONSILITIES. I am obligated to take care of me, my spouse and children, and my parents in their old age. You want a solution? Get the government out of healthcare. My healthcare is none of the government’s business, period. The only place for government in healthcare is for the armed forces. Everything else will fall into place when the government is out of healthcare. Medicare and Medicaid will go away. Trillions saved right there. Government interference, incompetence, corruption, and non-accountability cease. Government will no longer regulate the health insurance industry. Health insurers will be thrown into a real free enterprise arena. Sink or swim baby. Churches will once again take their rightful places as providers of healthcare for the “poor”, “old people”, and the truly mentally or physically infirm as they once did before the gubmit got involved.
Anyone But Obama| 7.11.12 @ 11:07PM
Let's hope that Obozo is finally outed before the election. I'm sure there is still a lot of stuff on him that people are holding until the election gets closer. He's as corrupt as they come and he can't keep hiding the skeletons forever.
saleboter| 12.11.12 @ 8:06AM
There's still room under the bus