politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Gingrich Adviser Urges States to Implement ObamaCare
Source:
Cato Institute
URL Source: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/ging ... states-to-implement-obamacare/
Published: Mar 14, 2012
Author: Michael F. Cannon
Post Date: 2012-03-14 22:27:04 by Hondo68
Ping List: *The Two Parties ARE the Same* Subscribe to *The Two Parties ARE the Same*
Keywords: ObamaCare Exchanges, doesnt have the money, State-run Exchanges
Views: 1635
Comments: 2
State after state is refusing to implement ObamaCare's health insurance Exchanges. Republican David Merritt hopes they will "grudgingly decide" to change their minds. Merritt is a health care adviser to Newt Gingrich. He is also a senior adviser at Leavitt Partners. Leavitt Partners is a consulting firm that makes money by helping states implement ObamaCare. In the Daily Caller, Merritt tries to persuade state officials to help implement a law they oppose. Merritt begins his pro-Exchange argument like so: "Imagine that you’re being required to buy a car." Would you rather choose that car yourself, he then asks, or would you rather the dealer choose the car? Hmm, good question. I choose Option C: wring the neck of whoever is requiring me to buy a car. Not Merritt, though. He counsels states to choose their own "car." There are so many problems with this analogy that it's hard to list them all. First, as Merritt essentially admits, states would be able to choose from such a narrow range of "cars" that it scarcely makes a difference whether they pick their own or let the feds do it. Second, states would only have to pay for their "car" if they pick it out themselves; otherwise, the feds pay for it. So Merritt is literally urging states to volunteer to pay for a "car" when the feds would otherwise hand them one for free. Finally, he says states should select their own "car" even though "no one knows what a federal [car] would look like." How can Merritt counsel states to choose Option A if he admits he doesn't even know what Option B is? Wouldn't the prudent course be to wait and see? Especially since the Obama administration admits it doesn't have the money to create Exchanges itself? Merritt's hypotheticals don't make his point, either: Take, for example, the treatment of high-deductible health plans with health savings accounts. A state exchange could and should include them as an option...But considering that many on the left oppose consumer-directed plans, a federal exchange may very well exclude them. Perhaps a federal exchange will lard mandate upon mandate on participating plans, driving costs through the roof. Perhaps it will be so restrictive in its plan eligibility that only a few options will be available. Perhaps HHS will offer a public option. This is nonsense. If the federal government wants to exclude HSAs, etc., it will do so in both federal and state-run Exchanges. States that establish their own Exchanges won't be able to do a darned thing about it. But here's where Merritt's argument really fails: Unless and until the law is repealed by Congress or overturned by the Supreme Court, all health care stakeholders — including state policymakers — need to prepare for it as though it will be the law of the land forever. Wishing the law away is not a strategy. Hoping that it is overturned is not a plan. Wishing? Hoping? Perhaps Merritt hasn't noticed, but countless Americans are pursuing multiple well-considered strategies (and working their fingers to the bone) to ensure that ObamaCare is not "the law of the land forever." State-run Exchanges undermine all of those repeal strategies. In fact, they completely derail one of the most promising ones. Worse, Exchanges create new constituencies that would be dependent on ObamaCare, and would therefore fight repeal -- constituencies not unlike Leavitt Partners. One of the most important reasons for states not to establish Exchanges is that the federal government does not have the money to establish Exchanges itself. Translation: fewer constituencies for ObamaCare. For all these reasons, scholars from the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and countless other groups are advising states to refuse to create ObamaCare Exchanges and to send all related grants back to Washington. Perhaps Newt Gingrich's health care advisers could lend a hand, instead of trying to cement ObamaCare in place.
Poster Comment: NewtCare?
Subscribe to *The Two Parties ARE the Same*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
Just like cuba ... you'll get two cars --- per life time !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
This would probably be a more appropriate picture for the flag...... A taxpayer that votes for Obama is like a chicken that votes for Col Sanders!!!!
There are so many problems with this analogy that it's hard to list them all. First, as Merritt essentially admits, states would be able to choose from such a narrow range of "cars" that it scarcely makes a difference whether they pick their own or let the feds do it. Second, states would only have to pay for their "car" if they pick it out themselves; otherwise, the feds pay for it. So Merritt is literally urging states to volunteer to pay for a "car" when the feds would otherwise hand them one for free. Finally, he says states should select their own "car" even though "no one knows what a federal [car] would look like." How can Merritt counsel states to choose Option A if he admits he doesn't even know what Option B is? Wouldn't the prudent course be to wait and see? Especially since the Obama administration admits it doesn't have the money to create Exchanges itself?
#2. To: BorisY (#1)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]