By Rick Manning — The national health care law jumped back into the headlines
last week as a deadline for states to decide whether to establish individual
state health care exchanges approached and then was extended by the Obama
Administration to December 14.
The delay was requested by the Republican Governor’s Association whose
members had posed questions of the Obama Administration about the law over the
past few months that remained unanswered.
Over the past week, the list of states not participating in the system has
grown to nineteen as the states of Wisconsin, Ohio and Nebraska chose to join
sixteen others in rejecting the state health insurance exchange that is called
for under the Obamacare law.
Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin announced his choice in a letter to U.S.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Friday writing, “No
matter which option is chosen, Wisconsin taxpayers will not have meaningful
control over the health care policies and services sold to Wisconsin
residents.”
Walker’s letter continued by stating, “If the state option is chosen,
however, Wisconsinites face risk from a federal mandate lacking long-term
guaranteed funding.”
Other governor’s from around the nation weighed in against the state
exchanges with Ohio Governor John Kasich announcing,
“Turning down a state-based health exchange and saying no to federal regulation
of Ohio’s health insurance industry and Medicaid eligibility determination is
the best approach for Ohio.”
Maine Governor Paul LePage wrote to Sebelius explaining why his state won’t
implement the state exchange saying, “In the end, a state exchange puts the
burden onto the states and the expense onto our taxpayers, without giving the
state the authority and flexibility we must have to best meet the needs of the
people of Maine.”
The state health care exchanges are a creation of the Obamacare law where the
state would create a massive database of health insurance options that those
without insurance could access. The state is given the option under the law to
either create the exchange or to leave it up to the federal government to
provide it.
Another under-reported aspect of the law is that the statute itself only
allows the state exchange to levy penalties against employers who are accused of
not following the requirements of the law. After the law passed it was
discovered that federal exchanges do not have the authority to impose penalties.
Upon this discovery, the IRS hurriedly wrote regulations claiming that power
contrary to what the law allows.
Employers in states without a state exchange will have the option of
contesting any penalties in court with a reasonable likelihood of success due to
the IRS’ extra-legal regulations.
The probable net effect is that states whose governors refuse to enact state
exchanges will put their states at a significant economic advantage over those
businesses in states with one. The promise of lower health insurance costs will
help employers in these states who want to expand without worrying if hiring an
additional employee will throw themselves into new Obamacare taxes.
Currently, nineteen states are rejecting the state exchanges, sixteen states
are enacting them, three are attempting a state/federal exchange hybrid, and
twelve will decide before the new December 14 deadline.
The undecided states are: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, Michigan,
New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.
Rick Manning is the Director of Communications for Americans for Limited
Government.
Read more at NetRightDaily.com: http://netrightdaily.com/2012/11/obamacare-implementation-craters-under-state-objections/#ixzz2CgwYn9Kp
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment