Contact FreedomWorks

400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870

Blog

    State Exchanges - Is This Our Last Hope Against Obamacare?

    On Thursday, Republican House Speaker John Boehner gave an interview with ABC News in which he famously declared, "Obamacare is the law of the land".  But the battle as they say, has just begun.

    FreedomWorks is leading that charge, taking action against the implementation of state-run health exchanges, and by extension, striking a critical blow against the heart of Obamacare.

    With a Friday deadline looming, states are pressed with the task of determining whether or not to implement health insurance 'exchanges', a new government-run “marketplace” for obtaining health insurance.  These exchanges are designed for the management of billions of taxpayer dollars in insurance premium subsidies that are to be distributed to private insurance companies.

    Noted health care policy critic Betsy McCaughey, explains it in layman's terms:

    "It’s like a supermarket that only sells cereal. The exchange will sell only the government-designed plan. In most states, exchanges will be an 800 number, a Web site and a government office, like the DMV."

    Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, explains what that really translates to for residents of those states who choose to implement such an exchange.

    "State-created exchanges mean higher taxes, fewer jobs, and less protection of religious freedom."

    Practically a microcosm of the entire Obama platform during his first term, and certainly representative of what the future holds should Obamacare indeed become the law of the land.

    So how can we use state exchanges to fight the new health care law?  Do nothing.

    Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh stated that "there could be some delays if the governors refuse to set up the exchanges", but simple delays could beget much larger problems for the health care overhaul. To understand this, it is necessary to understand why these exchanges need to be created in the first place.  

    The federal government has admitted that it can't pay for this health care 'marketplace', which would cost between $10 to $100 million per year in each state. Hence the necessity for each state to set up its own exchange, shouldering some of the costs.

    The problem with that notion is that nowhere in the 2,700 page behemoth known as the Affordable Care Act, is it written that the states will be required to do so; the assumption being that the states would simply go along with the federal governments wishes.  Because of this, the government cannot legally enforce the employer mandate "tax" on employers in a state that has not set up an exchange.  Without the employer mandate, and without the exchanges to manage the insurance subsidies, ObamaCare falls apart.

    That said, there is recourse for the Obama administration, which they have indicated will be sought - implementing federal exchanges in states that do not set up their own.

    This creates a two-headed issue, however.

    First, a minor matter of money.  The bill itself does not budget any money to do the work for the state.  This as we mentioned would amount to anywhere between $10 to $100 million per year, per state.  A matter more of inconvenience, as the federal government will now have to find ways to obtain that money from other sources - and they will.

    The second issue is one that FreedomWorks Vice President of Health Care Policy Dean Clancy believes is the key to nullifying Obamacare.  Essentially, when the federal government implements an exchange, attempting to distribute the subsidies and enforce the mandates in the resisting states - it would be illegal.  The states involved could then sue. 

    This alone will probably force Congress to reopen the health care law, opening up an opportunity to properly scrutinize Obamacare with Republicans in control of Congress this time around.

    The simple equation for all of this is as follows:

    No state exchanges = No mandates + No subsidies = Obamacare doesn’t work

    In a July memorandum, Clancy lays out this simple path for the states to take in their battle against Obamacare:

    1. States that have begun to set up health exchanges should stop.
    2. States that have already approved legislation/funding for an exchange should rescind it.
    3. States that have been offered money for exchange implementation should refuse it.
    4. States that have received such money should, if possible, return it.

    There's still time.  And now, here's what you can do.

    First, take a look at this table which shows where each state stands regarding health care exchanges.  Currently, 14 states have chosen not to implement an exchange, while 17 others have taken no significant action or have been simply studying their options.  If a good portion of those 17 states were to refuse action, it would put a majority at odds with Obamacare, striking a devastating blow to the plan.

    Second, the deadline for states to establish their own exchange is Friday, November 16th.  FreedomWorks is setting up state specific action pages for you.  These will be an invaluable resource for concerned citizens to contact their governor and/or leading state legislators to send them a message, to urge them to hold the line in rejecting state health care exchanges.  I have listed them below by state. Keep checking back on our Take Action page as more may be added in the near future. 

    In the end, Obamacare could possibly be nullified through all of our hard work, by making your voice heard in individual states, and through states taking action and fighting the federal government's illegal distribution of subsidies and enforcement of mandates within their borders.

    The irony however is that this all starts with inaction - the states must not implement these exchanges.  They must do nothing.

    RELATED

    Standing Up to ObamaCare: Where the States Stand on Exchanges

    ObamaCare Resisters to Establishment: "NUTS!"

    9 comments
    Matt Faust
    11/25/2012

    I agree with Richard. I am also irritated that no challenges to the "John Roberts ruling" have not been made by Congress. Since when does any judge have the right to change the wording in a law presented to him as passed by Congress, then rule on the law based on his personal changed wording of the law? Wouldn't the changed wording represent a new law which would then have to be voted on again by Congress? Or is it that I am just being too logical?
    This pathetic ruling is why I have a: "Impeach John Roberts" sticker on my car. It doesn't matter if the judge is conservative or liberal, once they become activist, it's time for impeachment.

    Michael Wiland
    11/18/2012

    i for one believe we need to return the voice of the states themselves to the senate where it properly belongs by repealing the 17th amendment to the US constitution. help me by signing my petition.
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/repeal-17th-amendment-united-s...
    please follow the link as you cant search for it by name till it gets 150 sigs, please help.

    Phyllis Poole
    11/18/2012

    I think everyone reading this should pass this on to their complete address book. I know of no one who wants this unfair burden on American citizens. Please pass this on and take action. Do not take no for an answer from your state congress!!
    PLEASE GOD HELP US!!!

    crashboat
    11/16/2012

    Aren't we all supposed to be treated "equally under the law"? Obamacare seems to violate that since the ruling elite (White House staff, legislators, unions, et al) are allowed different plans from Obamacare. Couldn't this be challenged? Why Rolls Royce plans for ruling elite who force us into a program that isn't equal to theirs?

    Ted York
    11/18/2012

    I could not see the 17 states on the chart that are refusing to implement Exchanges

    Richard Barton
    11/15/2012

    Why is there no discussion of launching a challenge due to this now declared "tax" not originating in the House of Representatives as specifically outlined in Article 1 Section 7 of our Constitution?

    John Pritchett
    11/18/2012

    I've looked into this a bit myself. One thing that's interesting is that, when the Senate passed the ACA, they did so using a "shell bill" which was originally a bill passed in the House to provide a tax credit for veteran housing before they ripped out the original content and inserted the ACA. When they passed the bill, as I'm sure you recall, they needed a 60 vote majority to avoid the filibuster. This is significant because it means that, procedurally, they were treating the bill as if it did not have a tax element. Had it had a tax element, it would have been possible for them to pass it under special rules with a simple majority. This could be used to prove to a judge that, when the law was passed, it was not treated as a tax. And given the unorthodox way that the law was passed, having originated in the Senate using a procedural trick, I think there is grounds to ask the court to, if not repeal it, at least send it back to the House for a proper vote, now that the court established that the bill did, in fact, contain a tax. I have written Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ to request that he look into this possibility and perhaps bring a case.

    Gary Lancaster
    11/15/2012

    Gary Lancaster, The President first said it is not a Tax then the Court said it is a Tax. If then it is a Tax, it must be a Tax without "due legislative process" in defiance of our Constitution, so then how can it be a Tax. Tax or no Tax, it is "Tyrany". This fight is about Liberty not "healthcare", and if we concede to the enemies here we'll have neither "Liberty nor Health". Who are we but fools to entrust our heath choices to Government Bearucrats? Is the American spirit so Dead that we now would rather be Red? Is their one statesman Doctor ,Lawyer,Legislator, Red White and Blue American that believes the cause of Liberty is a Noble cause worth Dying for, We Need You!!!!

    Gary Lancaster
    11/15/2012

    Gary Lancaster, The President first said it is not a Tax then the Court said it is a Tax. If then it is a Tax, it must be a Tax without "due legislative process" in defiance of our Constitution, so then how can it be a Tax. Tax or no Tax, it is "Tyrany". This fight is about Liberty not "healthcare", and if we concede to the enemies here we'll have neither "Liberty nor Health". Who are we but fools to entrust our heath choices to Government Bearucrats? Is the American spirit so Dead that we now would rather be Red? Is their one statesman Doctor ,Lawyer,Legislator, Red White and Blue American that believes the cause of Liberty is a Noble cause worth Dying for, We Need You!!!!

    Pages