« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Not One Dime for Obamacare federal exchange funding.

Not without a budget.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  December 15th, 2012 at 05:15 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

This paragraph from the Investor’s Business Daily article on the Obama administration’s remarkable inability to get states to sign off on state Obamacare exchanges caught my eye, particularly the part I bolded:

In the states with federally run exchanges, HHS will be tasked with hiring the people to run the exchanges, ensuring that insurance plans applying to be on the exchange are compliant with ObamaCare regulations, and setting up and running the websites for the exchanges. Congress has not yet appropriated the money to let HHS hire exchange employees.

…And why, exactly, should Congress appropriate more money for that? I’m sure that HHS can cut some discretionary income somewhere in order to handle the situation.  Certainly the House of Representatives shouldn’t just give HHS a blank check, or anything so fiscally irresponsible; in fact, future House budget bills should deliberately not incorporate extra projected HHS exchange expenses at all.  After all, HHS can take it out of the billion per year that they’ve already reserved out for exchange-based expenditures; the Department may have to tighten its belt a little, but this is the Great Recession, remember?  And if the Senate doesn’t like any of this… well.  They can put in any additional appropriations into their own budget, pass that and Congress can sort it all out in committee.

(pause)

Oh.  Right.  Senate Democrats don’t believe in budgets anymore.  To quote somebody or other: I assure you, they exist.  And – as far as I know – the makeshifts to them that we’ve been using up to this point don’t take this increased cost of Obamacare into consideration.

…Oops?

Moe Lane (crosspost)

Tags: , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • ardendulou

    If you also remember, the Cato Institute said the Federal government was not allowed in Obamacare to set up exchanges. So any state where the Fed shows up should direct their sheriffs to arrest them on site. States rights need to be used.

  • checkmate2012

    Starve the beast. No money, no exchanges. Plus, without a state exchange, there is no employer mandate to provide HC or pay the penalty for companies with 50 or more people. It’s a win-win: save money and save our healthcare system and keep jobs.

  • celador2

    Obamacare was the most unpopular law in the nation a year ago. States nullified it and 26 joined lawsuits to overturn it. After June 28, 2012 John Roberts rewrote it to be a tax and opposition wind slowed in DC. States have spirited governors who says O care is too expensive so DC should just run the exchanges. Obamacare wants states to do it despite the states having to pay a lot down the road and the DC government calling all the shots on state health care.

    Where does this American public stand on exchanges? Wilol there be support to oppose it? A clue is not just in the election results that grew GOP governors but in the silence since June 28 by anti Obamacare opponents. Public support is mixed, says Rasmussen and divided. Like the pro life movement made a case and won support to ban partial birth abortion then went silent after 2004 so do anti Obamacare opponents go silent on saying NO. This silence on opposition is quite a contrast to a year ago when critics were bold and daring. Obamacare is almost inevitable to hear Boehner tell it.

    My guess is its possible with no one in power opposing Ocare that its oppositon is residue visible on blogs and a few state governors holding the line. A national conversation and threats to repeal are no longer taking place. Boehner could defund anything he wants. But, he has made no claim to defunding Obamacare.

    We now look to, what is it–17 state governors who have said no to exchanges to lead in the next stage of Obamacare exchanges.

  • checkmate2012

    dpmaine, not sure where you get your numbers from such as 80%? Team O has already said they’ll try to bypass the law to fill yet another flaw in the law. The states that sign on will be the losers in the end, except big welfare states like CA. From
    http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/states-resist-obamacare

    snip…”federal subsidies for insurance available only through those exchanges that the states set up themselves. So, while the federal government does have the power to create exchanges in states that refuse to do so, it cannot offer subsidies through those federally run exchanges.

    Moreover, it is those subsidies that actually trigger the penalty under Obamacare for employers who fail to provide workers with insurance. Obamacare requires employers with 50 or more workers to provide health insurance or pay a tax, but only if at least one employee qualifies for subsidies under the exchange. Therefore, if subsidies can be provided only through a state-authorized exchange, a state could potentially block the employer mandate altogether, simply by refusing to establish an exchange.

    The Obama administration and the IRS, unsurprisingly, have claimed that they have the right to unilaterally rewrite the law, yet again, to close this loophole. But, at the very least, this would be open to legal challenge. And perhaps next time the Supreme Court will get it right.”

  • checkmate2012

    Sorry but not true. Read the quote from Cato.org above. The Feds can set up HIXs but like Moe stated, they will need way more funds than they projected. The CBO scored it at $940B and now they say it’s more like $1.7T.
    It’s a no brainer not to fund it at all.

  • Tbone

    Let’s not forget that Robert’s sold this country out to socialism.

  • shr3dr

    This is Obama’s legacy. He’ll find the funds. I think conservative governors are making a mistake here, though. They have the choice to minimize impact by establishing weak exchanges that have the fewest dictates. Or they can let the federal government run the exchanges, which allows the feds to both compel the specifics of coverage and apply maximum cost pressure on insurance companies. The strategy has zero chance of thwarting or collapsing the system. Therefore, it seems self-defeating. It’s like “We’ll show them … by giving them exactly what they want.”

  • WmCraig

    Roberts didn’t do that. It was the people who stayed home in 2006 to protest too much spending, or lack of abortion banning legislation, or Harriet Myers or Bush’s dream act or some imagined offense that sold this country out to socialism. Put simply it was my fellow Republicans who stood on principle, lacking totally in political sense that sold this country our to socialism. When Democrats don’t like something they band together and vote. When principled Republicans don’t like something they refuse to vote. Cutting off one’s power to spite their wallet.

  • romeg

    But that ‘flow of money’ from Washington will, by necessity, reduce to a trickle as the U.S. can no longer fund these programs at their current, let alone their projected levels. IOW, that shoe will begin to pinch rather painfully and just Doctors who have stopped accepting new Medicare patients, states will begin reducing funding for Medicaid in step with the Feds.

    To recall that line by the engineer of the “Titanic” when told that the ship was ‘unsinkable’: “She’s made of iron and she’s taking on water. I can assure you, sir, she CAN sink and she will.”

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the states will eventually knuckle under. If they persist then the Fed can do all sorts of nasty things to them, and their governors will be blamed. This is as certain as night is to day. They will cave.

  • celador2

    I see your point with the public.

    It depends on public support. If Charlie Crist runs for governor and defeats Rick Scott Florida will get state run exchanges. If Scott wins 2014 maybe they stay out and Obama and his HHS sets up exchanges.

    The issue is not who gets an exchange but who runs them. The federal ACA already mandates all the regulations whether a state runs them of HHS. States are mere vassals to DC not even equal partners and pay heavy costs down the road as mandated by ACA in DC.

  • celador2

    Thumbs up!

  • celador2

    It is a no win situation.

  • oldmom2

    New draft regulations issued earlier this month: Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees of 3.5% on all policies sold through the exchange.

  • celador2

    Why? For what specific costs or does teh 3.5 fee go to general fund like most taxes?
    I smell one more extortion racket.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    We cannot afford yet more Federal spending, not when we are doing sequestration games.

    We need to delay Obamacare by 2 years and delay the Obamacare tax hikes by 2 years as well.

  • celador2

    ACA is a killer and will get fatter as it sucks the life bloodout out of consumers deprived of real market demand and choice.

  • shr3dr

    “People will not sign up until they need HC services”
    Wasn’t this the point of the mandate? That everyone must either buy insurance or pay a penalty?

    You might be right. I guess we’ll see.

  • gscandlen

    Sure, but the penalty is meaningless. 1. It is small. 2. It applies only to people who pay income taxes. 3. It can be collected only by seizing tax refunds. Simple enough to avoid getting a refund — just up your deductions at the start of the year so you don’t pay in more than you will owe (not a bad idea anyway).

  • checkmate2012

    Check that WmCraig, No brainer but now that he’s negotiated with himself for a million plus tax, only Boehner knows. It’s a no Boehner!

  • checkmate2012

    Clueless, sorry.Gov’t control is the goal all along. The Feds will have a hard time implementing something they thought was a given. The only back door is setting up the state HIX.

  • commonsenseobserver

    It’s already late enough that we may have no alternative but to go over the cliff. Obama has demonstrated clearly that he has no interest in real spending restraint.

  • checkmate2012

    Agree commonsense’ yet it seems too late for the Speaker to realize that he had clout and squandered it away. I say go over the cliff and let O own it but alas, B to the rescue. A very sad day for us conservatives indeed :(

  • oldmom2

    I know one source of revenue is suppose to come from the 40% excise tax on what are called “Cadillac” policies-those that exceed $10,200 a year for individuals. That doesn’t start until 2018. That threshold seems extremely low to me. I know few people who pay that amount now, and costs are only going to rise.