« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Dear Conservative Organizations

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  November 11th, 2012 at 09:09 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Rumors are swirling that many Republican Governors are thinking of going wobbly on setting up state level healthcare exchanges to comply with Obamacare, instead of forcing the federal government to set up a federal exchange.

The deadline to notify Washington is November 16, 2012 (though possibly moved to December).

Michael Cannon has an excellent must read on why no state should do so.

Further, the Republican Party controls 30 Governors’ Mansions.

Most importantly, as Michael Cannon notes, “defaulting to a federal exchange exempts a state’s employers from the employer mandate.”

I think it is incumbent on each and every conservative and conservative organization, with this deadline upon us, to make a very simple pledge:

We will not support the re-election of any Republican Governor who creates a healthcare exchange in his or her state. Further, we will oppose for the nomination to the Presidency, any Republican who creates a healthcare exchange in his or her state.

In fact, I will go first.

Should any Republican Governor set up a health care exchange in his or her state, I’ll support their primary challenger and I sure will not support him or her for President in 2016.

Now it is your turn.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Cheetah772

    Did you mistakenly link another article on the link of Michael Cannon’s article?

    This is what came up when I clicked on your link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/karl-rove-and-his-super-pac-vow-to-press-on/2012/11/10/19ed28ea-2a96-11e2-b4e0-346287b7e56c_story.html

    I assume this isn’t the article your’e referring to?

    Please check it out. Thank you. As for the rest of your post, I agree wholeheartedly with you.

  • checkmate2012

    It would indeed. Hey, did RS ever publish a “how to” guide for the new site? I can’t find a Morning Brief anymore and have been away for a few months. So frustrating that the “new, best, oldest” button doesn’t work and the active comments box is way behind…I post a comment and lucky to see it 10 minutes later. Very hard for it to be interactive. Thx!

  • runner12

    Glad my state made this illegal. Otherwise I think our GOP governor would be one if the first to go wobbly. Of course, that would result in her being tossed out on her rear en masse by the public. But I sleep better knowing that law is passed.

  • jcooperetc

    Less than 30 since a state exchange is already in the works in NV because the Gov. thinks it will give us more control. http://www.nevadanewsbureau.com/2012/08/14/board-of-examiners-including-gov-brian-sandoval-approve-contract-to-establish-nevada-health-insurance-exchange/

  • westcoastpatriette

    If you click on the main RedState banner at the top of the page it takes you to the front page where the Morning Briefing is. I know. I hate the delayed appearance of our comments. Makes it really hard to have the exciting exchanges we used to have.

  • smagar

    How many GOP governors will go down to defeat if they block healthcare exchanges? I’m especially concerned about GOP governors in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin (Scott Walker is up for reelection) and other places where the Republican Party isn’t currently strong, but support for Obamacare is apparently high.

    I don’t think all GOP governors will be in a position to convince their electorates that it’s a good idea to take a pass on the exchanges, before the December deadline. Especially with national and state media firmly behind Obamacare.

    Recommend that a few of our governors get a pass. Walker, for example. Should we primary Scott Walker if he doesn’t block an Obamacare exchange in his state?

  • westcoastpatriette

    I think those were just the states that actually enacted laws through the legislature or through ballot propositions but I am pretty positive Perry has no intention of moving on it.

  • Jack_Savage

    Good idea. Will do.

  • gnomechumpsky

    What rumors? Who is saying that? Which Governors or republican governors overall? Would help to have some specific information to contact specific governors

  • checkmate2012

    It wasn’t on our ballot…should have been and surprised it wasn’t. Except maybe Perry didn’t want to leave it up to the people if he thought it’d lose.

  • spandrel

    He may be a wonk, but he is wrong. There is no loophole in this case.

    More generally, I have never got the opposition to exchanges. An exchange is a market place where insurance policies must compete on price. Currently, insurers compete on selecting healthy customers. Why is price competition bad? It tends to lower costs for consumers.

  • dpmaine

    The exchange is happening, one way or another, in every state. The only question is who runs it. If the Federal Government (HHS) runs it, there are a few other regulations that do not carry over.

    All other aspects of the ACA continue forward, regardless of who runs the exchange.

    The real problem that governors face is that as soon as subsidies starting hitting people the popularity of the law will increase, potentially drastically. And not just with voters, but also with insurance companies, who will then have tremendous sway with both the national parties and the state parties as well.

    This is why the 2012 election means the ACA is here to stay, most likely. In another 2 years there will be millions of people with coverage subsidized by the ACA. At that point, it will be darn near impossible for these people to get insurance on the market any other way. Cutting the subsidy by repealing the ACA will simply mean these people lose their insurance, which will be politically untenable.

    For all the heat he took, the reason we are having this conservation is because Chief Justice Roberts. Without him, all state governors would have implemented the exchange because otherwise, Medicaid all funding would be lost. And that’s a pill that no one is able to swallow.

  • checkmate2012

    Do you have a link as to what the rule actually is that states otherwise?
    The opposition to the exchanges is that they cost a state a lot of money to set up and insurers are told what plans they can and can’t provide by HHS.
    Competition is good but this is faux competition, i.e. gov’t mandated competition of the few providers it approves of and their plans.
    If the states refuse to set them up, the feds will do so at their cost. If enough refuse and the House won’t fund it…O’care goes by the wayside or is slowed down alot.

  • jackm

    “defaulting to a federal exchange exempts a state’s employers from the employer mandate.”

    I would like evidence of this statement. Frankly, I think it is not true.

  • dpmaine

    > The opposition to the exchanges is that they cost a state a lot of

    > money
    to set up and insurers are told what plans they can and can’t > provide
    by HHS.

    So few rules have been finalized so far I can’t find much in the way of final rules available and published.

    As far as competition goes, exchanges have the *potential* to lower costs, but the main “benefit” is the subsidy and having standardized plans.

  • jackm

    Irony?

  • jaykali

    You really get out of the employer mandate if the state doesn’t set up the exchange?? That seems like a big deal.

  • dpmaine

    The problem becomes the subsidy. The voters in “our states” lose out.

    Here is how it will really play out.

    Voter in Blue State with Exchange has a small business. The small business has 20 employees. They are exempt from the penalty/tax because they have too few employees. However, since the employees don’t make a lot of money, they get a subsidy to buy insurance that reduces the cost quite a bit – 50% or more. That subsidy comes from Washington, not the state, so it doesn’t affect local taxes.

    Voter in Red State without Exchange has the same scenario, except that his employees don’t have get the subsidy, because that only comes from Stated-based exchanges, not the Federal exchange. The individual still must have insurance because of the individual, but he doesn’t get the subsidy. If he doesn’t buy the insurance, he must pay the IRS tax at tax-time.

    Small business owners in Red State’s are going to be feel the heat. Because their employees aren’t going to get the same benefits as their Blue State counter parts, and that pressure is going to bubble up to the State government and legislatures, big time. This also creates an incentive for small businesses in Blue States because the employer can simply opt-out of providing insurance, exempt from the tax penalty, and let their low-wage employees get subsidized insurance from the exchange.

    This plan will work for the short-term, but long term, no State governor will be able to withstand the withering power of “free money” from Washington – in the same way that 100% of governors take Federal highway funds (all voluntary) or Medicaid (also all voluntary), despite whatever costs and problems both programs have. Once voters learn that their counterparts in liberal states are getting big subsidies from the Federal government, the $10-$100 million exchange cost will pale in comparison.

  • mindyr

    It isn’t free ins, there is a sector of America that will be expectd to pay for it. Problem is, we are already overburdened with the cost of trying to support many who won’t support themselves. The money has run out. Simple as that. Many of us who have been abused and victimized by this system and those “voters” now struggle to pay our bills, forget saving for retirement – it’s been wiped out. Now, start thinking about this, when the contributing tax payer starts losing everything they have because once again some “voters” decided other voters should pay more, What do you think is going to happen?

  • oldmom2

    Not true. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3803