« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Will GOP Governors Save us From Obamacare?

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  November 16th, 2012 at 06:47 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

We all understand that elections have consequences and that there are certain issues which are ceded with an electoral loss.  Obamacare is not one of them.

If Obamacare is allowed to survive, then our Constitution has no meaning and our Republic is finished.  It will engender a takeover of 1/6 of our economy, create permanent dependency, induce unsustainable inflationary pressure on the cost of healthcare and health insurance, and saddle the next generation with crippling debt.  Every intervention, program, and mandate prescribed under the 2010 healthcare law, if left intact, will limit freedom, increase insurance premiums, create more dependency, and lead to rationed care.

Perforce, we must never stop fighting to repeal, defund, and disrupt implementation of this abhorrent law.

The one practical silver lining of the Supreme Court’s egregious ruling is that states can reject the expansion of Medicaid rolls without facing reprisal from the federal government.  Medicaid is already the largest expenditure for most state budgets and this expansion will bankrupt the states while creating irrevocable dependency across the country.  Every Republican governor must flatly refuse to implement the expansion.

The other lynch pin of Obamacare implementation is the creation of state-run health exchanges.  These exchanges will be used to help individuals comply with the mandate to buy health insurance – insurance that will become more expensive as a result of the law.  Once again, by refusing to set up these exchanges, governors can seriously disrupt the bulk of the law before it goes into effect in 2014, buying us more time until we can repeal the law next year.

So which of the 29 GOP governors have sided with liberty? (The list has been updated to reflect the latest news.)

Sam Brownback- KS

Phil Bryant – MS (won’t expand Medicaid, but the state Insurance Commissioner want to set up exchange)

Nikki Haley-SC

Rick Scott –FL (will miss deadline, at least for now)

Matt Mead-WY (No, at least as of now)

Dave Heineman-NE

Dennis Daugaard-SD

Bobby Jindal-LA

Rick Perry-TX

Scott Walker – WI

Jay Nixon, the Democrat governor of Missouri is also leaning against implementation

Sean Parnell –AK

Robert Bentley- AL

Paul LePage -ME

Mike Pence-IN

Terry Branstad-IA

Nathan Deal -GA

John Kasich-OH

Here are the governors who have committed to opening the exchanges.  They need to hear from you:

Susana Martinez-NM (will implement exchanges; unsure about Medicaid expansion)

Bill Haslam-TN

Brian Sandoval-NV (will implement exchanges; unsure about Medicaid expansion)

Rick Snyder-MI

Governors who are on the fence:

Bob McDonnell (VA) (won’t implement Medicaid expansion; deferring action on exchanges.)

Tom Corbett-PA

Gary Herbert – UT

Jan Brewer –AZ (Postponing decision)

Butch Otter – ID

Chris Christie -NJ

Mary Fallin –OK

Jack Dalrymple-ND

Pat McCroy –NC (He’s taking over from a Democrat who already agreed to set up a federal-state partnership.  He could still overturn it along with the GOP state legislature.)

Folks, without control of the White House and Senate, this is the only way to deal a fatal blow to Obamacare.  Sensing that there is a lot of momentum against implementation, Obama has announced an extension of the deadline until December 14.  During that time, he plans to coerce the wavering governors.  They must hear from We the People.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • commonsenseobserver

    We won’t be near a position to repeal the law NEXT YEAR!!!

    (Unless we have a government shutdown, which we could actually benefit from if we don’t get sidetracked into making it about tax cuts for the rich and Planned Parenthood and whatnot.)

  • http://madisonproject.com/ Daniel Horowitz

    good point. same thing with Montana

  • http://www.egtrc.com Antonio Clemente

    Notice how Chris Christie is not on this list. Not even “on the fence”. This guy is a menace in the GOP and he must be rejected. Rather media types continue to prop this moron up. Fankley it is my belief he had more to do with Romney losing the election than any other factor. He sat there and gave O an edorsement practically. He said he doest care about elections. Well Governor, we don’t care to reelect you either. I voted against you in the primary and I will vote against you in every primary because you are the weakest of the GOP Governors. Never came out against Obama Care, didn’t speak up on the Mosque at ground zero, don’t speak out against illegal immigration, and use cores abrasive language constantly. You are not a statesmen. Just a fat fool who rode the coat tails of the Tea Party backlash into election. Good on unions terrible on everything else!

  • RealQuiet

    Yup. Keep the heat on Rick Scott. He’s wavering. He hasn’t committed to implementing state exchanges, just said he was open to negotiating with the federal government.

  • RealQuiet

    Foolish, by accepting the federal funds they will bust their budgets as the legislation passes the costs onto states down the road. By refusing to take the money and set up the exchange, states wouldn’t have to annually fund the exchanges.

  • hobokenred

    I live in NJ, specifically an area hard hit by the storm and sadly dominated by Democrats. I say this in way of introduction before I make three points.

    1) Chris Christie is enormously popular in NJ. He currently has a 53% job approval rating which in this day and age is quite strong.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80726.html

    All this while gutting Democratic sacred cows like public unions and the monstrously priced ARC tunnel.

    2) The Tea Party is a non-factor in NJ. I’m sure meetings can draw a half dozen passionate diehards to an Applebees but the Tea Party is not a force in NJ and never had any coattails here.

    3) Much soul searching is being done on why we lost the last election. Some feel it was because some of the issues we focused on were not the issues people cared about, some of the blame for this is being aimed at the conservative media for reinforcing these issues on a near daily basis. To this point the issues you mentioned, Obama Care; the Mosque at ground zero; and illegal immigration, are not issues that resonate in NJ.

    Gov. Christie has gone toe to toe with the NJ Democratic machine, has defeated the most powerful Lobby, the public unions, and has been able to persuade Democratic leaders to support his initiatives.

    Does this not sound like someone who could win Ohio, Florida, and possibly New Jersey’s 14 electoral votes? If and when Gov Christie defeats Corie Booker in the next Gov election the Party would be foolish not to consider him for the nomination.

  • DerKrieger

    That is the very question I pose and address in my diary. Several times.
    I’m very happy to see federalism finally making a showing on the front page of RS.

  • dpmaine

    > First you have layoffs occurring and other side effects going on like
    > low wage workers getting their hours reduced.

    This is going to add momentum to Obamacare, because these workers will be eligible for large and somewhat generous subsidies to buy insurance.

    > You have the medicaid expansion and cuts which will mean less
    > doctors will cover medicaid at the same time more people are
    > jumping on to what is absolutely 2nd rate insurance.

    So true. The providers (docotrs) are going to get pinched because the IPAB is going to be brining commerical rates closer to Medicaid rates. This will create pressure on doctors to see more patients and be even faster in dealing with cases.

    > You have the potential for a doctor shortage in general just from
    > doctor’s retiring over the next few years.

    Definitely happening. Especially generalists / non-specialists. They are aging quickly.

    > You are going to have people figuring out in 2014 that a)

    > insurance is still expensive and b) now they HAVE to buy it.
    So true! But the worry is the subsidies, which will cover even families that are closer to the middle and upper side of middle class (some subsidy available for families making even up to $100k).

    Once those start going out, the pressure on GOP governors to get with the program will be intense I doubt they will be able to withstand it. Once insurance companies start getting that money in some states, all that will stand in their way will be… Republican governors. That’s one of the many devious side effects of the law, namely, that, Democrats have engineered it to pressure acceptance by the States.

  • DerKrieger

    I wrote this back in June:

    http://www.redstate.com/derkrieger/2012/06/30/can-gop-governors-kill-obamacare/

    Yes they can. It’s called reestablishing federalism and constitutional government and then putting the federal government back in its enumerated powers box.

  • dpmaine

    Unfortunately the Supreme Court has given every Republican or Democratic governor cover to answer your question that yes, the Federal government can tax anything, anyway it likes. Which is in fact the power to compel a person to do almost anything.

  • elegyswift

    Is obstructionism more important than democracy? Whether you agree with Obamacare or not (and judging by most of the comments here, it’s rather unpopular with readers) if the nation votes in majority for the man who created it, aren’t we obligated to carry out what the people have asked for? Isn’t that what democracy is?
    The way the right wing talks about Obamacare, you’d think we were being swindled by some dictator (and before anyone compares Obama to a dictator, please actually think about what you’re saying and stop that nonsense), when the man is trying make it so every American can have healthcare. Not to mention, this was a Republican idea to begin with – remember Bob Dole?
    Regardless of how some feel about the plan, the goal is to help each and every American, something we should look for in all our politicians. Maybe that’s just me though.
    More thoughts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4BPtyV8IFg

  • commonsenseobserver

    Worst thing is, all these people are now spreading the love in Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and Texas.

  • edintexas

    He might actually win those 2 states, NJ is doubtful. But anything west of NJ and east of CA aren’t exactly locations where NJ popular issues would resonate. Christie is a Rockefeller Republican and it will be a cold day when I would vote for, or support, him.

  • lineholder

    He did get a mandate…for hand outs. That’s what his campaign pushed for and presented, and that’s what a lot of Americans bought into.

    But he didn’t get the mandate for implementation of socialistic-style policy that some of his more avid supporters suggest he received.

  • edintexas

    Exactly – he considers the Republican Party “another group”, and not one he belongs to unless they are handing him campaign funds. Christie’s “group” is Christie.

  • commonsenseobserver

    The IRS ignored that and invented a new rule closing that loophole…

    But does anyone really think that subsidies will do anything other than drive up costs even further?

  • dpmaine

    I think you and I are the only ones who have ever actually read this thing :)

    I think we have a difference of opinion on the wording. Because the wording is:

    “(A) NO FEDERAL FUNDS FOR CONTINUED OPERATIONS.—
    In establishing an Exchange under this section, the State
    shall ensure that such Exchange is self-sustaining beginning
    on January 1, 2015, including allowing the Exchange
    to charge assessments or user fees to participating health
    insurance issuers, or to otherwise generate funding, to
    support its operations.”

    The State is under the obligation to make the Exchange self-funding, meaning, taxing or charging fees to cover it’s costs.

    I think the wording actually precludes the State paying to run the Exchange with general revenue, in that it is required to be self-sustaining within a year of it’s operation.

  • lineholder

    At the time, the individual mandate was considered viable. But shortly afterwards, when Australia attempted to implement a single payer system and utilized the individual mandate…it did not go well, to say the least. Republicans learned from observing those experiences of other nation. It appears that the Dems learned nothing.

    Many of the industrialized countries that Dems like to present in support of Universal health care models have since had the good sense to move to a hybrid model (i.e. government pays for X amount and private health insurance policies are available to supplement the difference). It was necessary, especially in times of stagnant economic growth, to reduce the burden of costs on government.

    A Universal health care model is based upon the principles that have been used to develop socialized medicine. That’s a fact. So yes, Obama’s policies are indeed socialistic-style.

    Even at that, many of those countries have sacrificed quality of care and access to care for the sake of providing health insurance. Once that damage is done, it’s hard to undo.

  • hobokenred

    Yep I confused you with the original poster, Antonio Clemente. SO ignore my first point.

  • hobokenred

    NJ was once a purple state and while it ~could~ be again I agree it would be a hard win. Though winning Ohio and Florida, as we agree Christie could contend in, would be a major step in putting the executive back in Republican hands.

    I understand not wanting to vote for certain strains of Republicans. We just had an election where much of the country rejected the strain that our primary system put forward as our best and brightest. Perhaps it’s time to examine our primary system and decide on what strain of republican we can stomach as President AND who can win national elections.

  • hobokenred

    The problem as I see it is that the government, be it Local; State; or Federal, already provides healthcare, at great expense and waste, in the form of subsidized emergency rooms and Hospitals.

    The question to me is can we make this system less expensive and more efficient for the taxpayer.

  • rbdwiggins

    Gov. Scott Walker – (R), announced just moments ago, that Wisconsin will not set up a state insurance exchange under Obamacare, but will instead defer to the federal government.

  • gmat

    I was just reading about that here:

    http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamacare-is-still-vulnerable

    It looks like not only is there no funding to operate the federal exchanges, but also no subsidies to insurers available through the federal exchanges.

    “Seventh, Congress authorized no funds for federal “fallback” exchanges.
    So Washington may not be able to impose Exchanges on states at all.”

    and

    “Finally, rejecting an exchange reduces the federal deficit. Obamacare
    offers its deficit-financed subsidies to private health insurers only
    through state-created exchanges. If all states declined, federal deficits would fall by roughly $700 billion over ten years.”

  • lineholder

    dpmaine, here is a good article from Cato on this…

    http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamacare-is-still-vulnerable

  • LannyGrant

    I live in South Carolina. Our governor, Nikki Haley, has been one of the fiercest voices against President Obama and Obamacare. She was one of the first governors to say “no” to a state exchange. I know that she is a known quantity with Republicans natiionwide, but I can speak firsthand at what she had done for our state. She has brought so many jobs to South Carolina that it’s become one of the most attractive states for business. South Carolina has one of the most entrenched “country club, good ol’ boy” networks in the country and she is infuriating establishment Republicans and Democrats by taking a hacksaw to the state budget. Unapologetically so. She also masterfully handled a cyber-attack that state newspapers and media tried their best to blowup from a certainly-serious matter into an out-and-out catastrophe. I say all of this because she is a superstar for the GOP. She is very, very articulate and smart. Absolutely, unabashedly conservative. I’m hoping that the issue of Obamacare will help shine a spotlight on Governor Haley. She definitely has national office potential.

  • lineholder

    Daniel, in an article from Cato Institute it states the following:

    “Second, operating an Obamacare exchange would be illegal in 14 states. Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia have enacted either statutes or constitutional amendments (or both) forbidding state employees to participate in an essential exchange function: implementing Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates.”

    http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamacare-is-still-vulnerable

    Some of the Governors in your list above who have either made a commitment to implementing exchanges or sitting on the fence are Governors in states where these laws exist.

  • gmat

    more on that rule here:

    http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/irs-has-gone-rogue

    I have to admit I don’t completely understand the rule, or what Cannon says it implies about adding taxes to individuals and businesses, but I’m just now belatedly learning about the new Health Care law.

    It seems like the rule is challengeable in court.

  • notpropagandized

    Not much left of “We The People”. Try giving a call-out to “We The Hordes” and see what their constitution says…

  • libertynugget

    Call me cynical but haven’t we relied on all these different instances that were going to stop Obamacare, which is all but set in stone now? For example:

    Townhall meetings with high protest – Made the law anyway…

    Scott Brown elected to kill super majority – Nuclear option baby

    “Blue dog” democrats won’t support abortion clause – We’ll just make an executive order

    Huge protest in DC – Silly racist tea-partiers, we’re signing this into law and some of us might actually read it!

    2010 elections got the conservatives in the House – well that’s nice, but the Dems still have the senate and the executive and will sequester it.

    Well the supreme court will find it unconstitutional – Oh you mean the Fed can make you purchase goods as long as it’s a tax; well crap.

    Well we’ll elect Romney and he’ll get rid of it – not even close…

    Lets face it, we’re stuck with this piece of crap law. Governors may fight it, but the almighty imperial federal government will prevail. We’ve lost our last chance to stop…
    I’m not getting my hopes up ever again.

    America has spoken! She wants mediocrity!

  • gmat

    I’m not clear on it either, still getting up to speed after being out of the country a few years. (I moved to Panama because I was uninsurable here, had health problems, and was still a few years short of Medicare)

    But there are a couple people on this thread who seem to be on top of it. I’m with you, though, I would like to be sure, so I can commmunicate intelligently with my legislators.

  • joshuatwill

    NO they won’t. They be against it now then ram through legislation that sounds good and we will all support it.

  • Pingback: Ohio Draws a Line [UPDATED] | AtWola

  • gunnyg2002

    I’ll never vote for him. Period. Enough of the Rockefeller RINOs. Governor Krispy Kreme is as corrupt as Obama.

  • kycon

    The goal is not to ‘help every American.’ If that was the goal, there would be no mandate, no egregious tax on ‘medical devices,’ and no steep tax increases (just to name a few things). For a fraction of the amount of money we’re spending on Obamacare, we could simply purchase insurance for every uninsured person in America.

    The goal of the laughably titled “Affordable Care Act” (Incidentally, that’s a crime of epic proportions against the English language) is to start the inroads of ever-increasing federal regulation. After all, every single thing I do every day affects my health. If the feds are paying for my insurance, then they have an ‘in’ to start regulating what I can do.

    What’s next? A smart ID card that I have to scan whenever I buy a beer to make sure I don’t drink too much and drive up the government’s cost? Maybe they could limit my tobacco purchases the same way. Hey, since we need jobs, maybe we could just hire ‘Wellness observers,’ pay them with federal money, and they could follow folks around and ‘spot check’ the choices they make. After all, the country can’t afford me eating another Big Mac, right?

    Hey, we’re “helping every American,” we can’t go wrong!

  • Bill S

    Bye.