Why ObamaCare is still no sure thing
By declining to build exchanges, the states would pass the burden and costs of the exchanges to the administration that sought this law. And it is far from clear that the administration could operate the exchanges on its own.
Congress didn’t allocate money for administering federal exchanges, and the law as written seems to prohibit federally run exchanges from providing subsidies to individuals. The administration insists that it can provide those subsidies anyway. But if the courts read the plain words of the statute, then federal exchanges couldn’t really function.
Thus states that refuse to create their own exchanges would effectively be repealing a large part of the law—sparing their citizens from the job-killing employer mandate and from assaults on their religious liberty. In some cases people would even be spared from the individual mandate to buy coverage, since in the absence of exchange subsidies more families would qualify for exemptions from the mandate.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Not with Roberts on the bench.
Blake on November 19, 2012 at 9:21 AM
He actually wrote that with a straight face, huh?
Shump on November 19, 2012 at 9:22 AM
pffft!
forest on November 19, 2012 at 9:23 AM
And if the courts read the plain words of the Constitution….well, you get the picture.
Doughboy on November 19, 2012 at 9:29 AM
More daydreaming. The Obama Administration would rather sell individual states off to the Chinese than see their precious healthcare handouts fail.
JeremiahJohnson on November 19, 2012 at 9:29 AM
My, we are wishful today! Elections have consequenses and in the last election we doomed ourselves to permanant Obamacare. It really doesn’t even matter what the law says or what Congress intended. They’ll find a way around. Just like they made the individual mandate a “tax” after they spent the entire leadup to passage denying that it was a tax.
Four more years of BHO in the Oval means this thing is here to stay. Just wait until he gets to pick a couple more SC justices and see how fun things get!
dczombie on November 19, 2012 at 9:34 AM
The states will buckle when their federal funds are withheld to coerce cooperation. This is how 55 became law across the land… back in the 70′s.
beatcanvas on November 19, 2012 at 9:38 AM
I will not be surprised at some point during this term.. and I say this seriously, that a Chinese or Russian warship will sail up to one of our beaches and their troops will just get off for a surprise “peace visit.” With or without Obama’s approval.
If they don’t actually walk on our beaches shaking hands with sunbathers, they will sail by close enough to see their soldiers waving hands from the decks.
As Obama dismantles our nukes and guts our military, China and Russia are going to cross new lines. And I bet the media will hail it as a new beautiful day.
JellyToast on November 19, 2012 at 9:40 AM
Obamacare won’t be permanent for one reason: we can’t afford it. The Ponzi scheme that is our government, and all the idiotic Democratic-vote-buying programs that it has spawned, including Obamacare, are unsustainable.
We are already $16 Trillion in debt — far more than that if you count all our unfunded “entitlement” liabilities (over $100 Trillion, by some estimates, when all those are factored in).
At some point, and we are getting nearer to that point every day, the entire thing implodes.
As the Boy Scouts say: be prepared.
AZCoyote on November 19, 2012 at 9:51 AM
Where have you been the last 4 years? Welcome back to planet earth, where the supremes set precedent on disregarding plain language in favor of finding nonexistent intent.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on November 19, 2012 at 10:31 AM
John Fund was just on Fox and he said Obamacare will be back in the SCOTUS by 2014. It has to do with the states setting up the insurance exchange.
He also said that the feds may start postponing implementation of this meteor sized legislation because it’s so heavy and cumbersome that it could implode our health industry in six months.
Mr. Mike on November 19, 2012 at 10:58 AM
Wasn’t this effectively barred by SCOTUS/Roberts ruling?
While this may only apply to Medicaid at this time, count it not be expanded??
HilliardPatriot on November 19, 2012 at 11:03 AM
Bingo.
The debate whether it can be implemented is just academic at this point. In reality, ObamaCare will never see the light of day.
Liberals who like to point out socialized medicine’s “success” in being cemented in Europe forget one crucial fact. When it was institutionalized there; all of those countries had virtually no debt, young demographics and no unemployment.
Very, very different situation here today.
Norwegian on November 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Fixed.
Odysseus on November 19, 2012 at 12:19 PM
All we need is a strong governor to state:
“I as governor of xxxx do not recognize the federal government authority in regulating medical insurance sold and applied within our borders. While the supreme court twisted and contorted its reasoning in ruling the individual mandate a tax, they are not the only arbitrator of constitutionality. With that being said the state of xxxx rules the affordable health care act unconstitutional.”
Will it happen, probably not but the power and ability is there.
Meat Fighter on November 19, 2012 at 12:36 PM
I’d hope that every governor tells the feds to go jump but, unfortunately, in my state wussy Dembecile Gov Quinnocchio has been rubbing his hands together for a few months now in anticipation of expanding IL’s already grossly mismanaged Medicaid system, amongst all the other grossly mismanaged welfare systems in this state, and let’s not even discuss the state’s bankrupting public pension liabilities. And listening to Rush this morning I’ve heard that there are activists who want to revive federal extended unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed. How ’bout this as an idea: maybe the $30 billion they want, for starters, would be better spent alongside business-friendly policies–and no ObamaScareTAX–to foster a better business climate that would create good full-time jobs–or any full-time jobs.
stukinIL4now on November 19, 2012 at 12:56 PM
Here’s a link to the letter WI Gov Scott Walker sent to HHS Secretary Sebelius saying thanks, but no thanks, the feds are welcome to take care of the exchanges for WI.
WI Gov Scott Walker’s letter to Sebelius
stukinIL4now on November 19, 2012 at 1:03 PM