The Achilles heel of Obamacare is lack of States’
participation. The progressives thought
they could force their agenda down our throats without providing any
specificity or guidelines. Obama and his
fascist acolytes believed they could yell jump, and we plebeians would ask “how
high.” As of now, 20 States have boldly
proclaimed they will not set up exchanges.
Some national policy
experts say crucial details covering myriad and complicated organizational and
operational matters are missing. They’re advocating that states forcefully
reject creating their own exchanges.Wes Goodman, director of conservative coalitions and state outreach of the Republican Study Committee, a caucus of conservative U.S. House members, said Obamacare is “bad policy, it’s bad politics, and it’s not going to work.”
With more than 20 states declaring they will not set up state exchanges, and GOP governors controlling 30 states, the Obama administration is desperate for collaboration, Goodman said.
“They’re trying to get conservatives, they’re trying to get Republicans to put their fingerprints on the murder weapon here,” Goodman said. He said the time to get conservatives to buy in to the law was in 2009 and 2010, before it passed. Instead, Congress enacted the law without a single Republican vote.
Not only will we not have
our fingerprints on the murder weapon, we’ll be able to chalk the corpse, lay
out the crime scene tape and testify the forensic details in the post mortem. Carolina Journal provided the outline for this
CSI episode:
“The subsidies that
flow through the health insurance exchanges are not authorized unless the state
creates its own exchange,” said Michael Cannon, director of health policy
studies at the Cato Institute. “This is why it’s so important to stop states from creating their own exchanges and expanding Medicaid,” Cannon said. “States are under no obligation to create an exchange. It is not a mandate.”
He said the exchanges, which would cost between $10 million and $100 million per year to operate, and states would have to pay for them.
“Congress authorized no
funds for the federal fallback exchanges that the feds are supposed to create
if states don’t create their own,” Cannon said. “That’s because Congress didn’t
think that states were going to reject [them]. They thought that once Obamacare
reached the states, they’d be greeted as liberators.”
Cannon notes that health insurance premiums are increasing as insurers anticipate higher costs as the law takes effect. Moreover, he said, “The federal government will be able to drive [health insurance] carriers out of business by picking winners and granting these guys special breaks.”
States that refuse to establish exchanges could exempt many people from the individual mandate that requires them to purchase health insurance, he said.
Employers from those states could be exempted from providing coverage as well.
A federal exchange is barred under the law from offering tax credits to subsidize premiums, Cannon said. Under a state exchange, the IRS pays the refundable credits directly to insurers to cover eligible individuals and families who buy their health plans on the exchange. The size of the subsidy is based on income, and insured participants pay the difference between the subsidy and premium costs.
Under the Obamacare employer mandate, most U.S. companies with at least 50 employees would be required to provide federally approved health insurance or pay a $2,000 tax per uninsured worker, with exclusions for the first 30 employees.
Because the federal exchanges aren’t authorized to issue the credits, employers could not be assessed the $2,000 tax to fund them, Cannon said.
States that opt out of state and federal exchanges could lure companies to relocate from states with the exchanges, and the lower tax environment would be more conducive to job growth at existing firms, Cannon said.
Despite clear language in the law preventing federal exchanges from distributing tax credits, the IRS wrote a rule allowing it. Oklahoma, which has refused to set up a state exchange, has filed a legal challenge to the rule.
“The Oklahoma lawsuit is, I think, the most important thing happening right now in the Obamacare repeal/rebellion movement,” Cannon said.
Even if Oklahoma loses its suit, states that did not create their own exchanges would have a “nuclear option” of delicensing health plans that sell through the federal exchange and collect the federal subsidies or tax revenue, he said. That would, effectively, block a federal exchange from operating.
“The fact that the Obama administration is breaking the law to spend money and impose taxes that Congress never authorized gives you the hook,” Cannon said.
Cannon notes that health insurance premiums are increasing as insurers anticipate higher costs as the law takes effect. Moreover, he said, “The federal government will be able to drive [health insurance] carriers out of business by picking winners and granting these guys special breaks.”
States that refuse to establish exchanges could exempt many people from the individual mandate that requires them to purchase health insurance, he said.
Employers from those states could be exempted from providing coverage as well.
A federal exchange is barred under the law from offering tax credits to subsidize premiums, Cannon said. Under a state exchange, the IRS pays the refundable credits directly to insurers to cover eligible individuals and families who buy their health plans on the exchange. The size of the subsidy is based on income, and insured participants pay the difference between the subsidy and premium costs.
Under the Obamacare employer mandate, most U.S. companies with at least 50 employees would be required to provide federally approved health insurance or pay a $2,000 tax per uninsured worker, with exclusions for the first 30 employees.
Because the federal exchanges aren’t authorized to issue the credits, employers could not be assessed the $2,000 tax to fund them, Cannon said.
States that opt out of state and federal exchanges could lure companies to relocate from states with the exchanges, and the lower tax environment would be more conducive to job growth at existing firms, Cannon said.
Despite clear language in the law preventing federal exchanges from distributing tax credits, the IRS wrote a rule allowing it. Oklahoma, which has refused to set up a state exchange, has filed a legal challenge to the rule.
“The Oklahoma lawsuit is, I think, the most important thing happening right now in the Obamacare repeal/rebellion movement,” Cannon said.
Even if Oklahoma loses its suit, states that did not create their own exchanges would have a “nuclear option” of delicensing health plans that sell through the federal exchange and collect the federal subsidies or tax revenue, he said. That would, effectively, block a federal exchange from operating.
“The fact that the Obama administration is breaking the law to spend money and impose taxes that Congress never authorized gives you the hook,” Cannon said.
This isn’t over by a long shot.
Source: http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=9729
No comments:
Post a Comment