Why States Are Shying Away From ObamaCare's Health Insurance Exchanges


Should states refuse to implement the health care overhaul? As I pointed out last week, some of them already are, and now opposition to the law appears to be scoring wins in even more states. A story in Politico this afternoon notes that Tea Party activists opposing the law seem to be "finding surprising success…blocking the law's implementation." Those victories are occurring at the state level, where a number of governors are both politically sympathetic and justifiably worried about the burdens the law places on their states.

At first glance, the law seems like a trap for those who both oppose the law and favor federalism: ObamaCare calls on states to set up exchanges; in any state that does not sufficiently comply by 2013, the federal government will simply swoop in and set up an exchange on its own. That leaves governors who oppose the law in something of a bind: Either take control and set up a state-run exchange, or let the federal government step in and run things itself.

State legislators who oppose the law might nonetheless be tempted to try building and running the exchanges themselves. But there are a number of reasons why governors in that position might want to sit out the implementation process.

For one thing, states won't have much flexibility to design the exchanges as they see fit, despite the administration's protestations to the contrary. For example, we already know that Utah's exchange, which does not subject insurers to the mandates required under ObamaCare, will likely not survive. Overall, states running the exchanges will subject to federal whims: As Galen Institute president Grace-Marie Turner told me last year, "States will not be able to do it their way. They'll have to do it Washington's way."

For governors who oppose the law, refusing to set up the exchanges is also a smart move politically. Doing so forces the administration to take responsibility for whatever inevitably goes wrong during early implementation—and frees governors to criticize the law without also taking part in it. It also ensures that states budgets—which are already in deep trouble—won't be on the hook if and when the exchanges face cost overruns. Essentially, refusing to play along allows governors who oppose the law to make implementation Washington's problem.

It's clear enough that many of those working within state governments oppose the law—if for no other reason than the fact that 27 28 states are currently challenging the law's constitutionality. That alone provides plenty of justification for refusing to implement the law's exchanges. There's serious question about the law's legality, and two judges have already ruled against it. If these state governments are skeptical enough of the law's constitutionality to sign onto a lawsuit challenging it, they probably shouldn't be devoting time and resources to implementing it either.

NEXT: Nudgers vs. Nannies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. wait, wasn’t this law declared unconstitutional?

    1. Yes, but that is irrelevant

  2. Two words: Kochroots teabaggers.

    1. Two words: Blow me

    2. I wonder how much the Blue Dog democrats got from the Koch brothers.

      1. I wonder how much they didn’t give to the Blue Dog’s opponents.

        1. It is anyone’s guess as the Blue Dog caucus was one of 2010s biggest losers.


        2. Hobie Hanson|3.30.11 @ 9:21PM|#
          “I wonder how much they didn’t give to the Blue Dog’s opponents.”

          Cut your welfare payments, did they hobie?

    3. One word: delusion.

      1. “One word: delusion.”

        Naah, too kind.

    4. Did Richard Mellon Scaife croak or something?

      1. Nope, Steve Kangas didn’t finish the job.

  3. Our worker’s paradise would just be around the next corner if it wasn’t for those pesky billionaires and their fake movement!

  4. Two words: Kochroots teabaggers.

    Conversely I think we miss the left bank’s narrative when Dr. Obama inevitably goes up in fiscal smoke: ‘It was the Kochtopus! If only we could have shipped them to Siberia Alaska with their fellow Palinites worker’s paradise would be here!’

    1. If only we could have shipped them to Siberia Alaska with their fellow Palinites worker’s paradise would be here!

      It’s been tried. Lulz ensued.

    2. It is so sad to see the leader of the free world reduced to the status of fanatical Ed Craine hater.

  5. Nullification, bitches!

  6. It’s clear enough that many of those working within state governments oppose the law?if for no other reason than the fact that 27 28 states are currently challenging the law’s constitutionality.

    Seven Six to go for a Constitutional Convention.

    1. Ug, There would be nothing worse than a constitutional convention at this time in history. Who would the delegate be and what would they understand of liberty?

  7. Never mind. The tea party people are an unpopular non-entity now. I read it right here on Reason.

  8. “States will not be able to do it their way. They’ll have to do it Washington’s way.”


  9. As long as health care remains “for profit”, NOTHING will ever change.


  10. Six to go for a Constitutional Convention.

    There is serious debate going on in Texas and other states regarding calling a Constitutional Convention. They are trying to put together a resolution that will limit the Convention to specified topics.

    Should be very interesting. I predict we will see a Convention, but not right away. The precipitating event will be the collapse of the federal fisc and the dollar.

    1. Honestly, they don’t have to worry too much about limiting the debate of the convention.

      The system itself has a weeding out process to prevent too many radical changes, the fact that nothing proposed at the convention could be ratified without approval of 3/4 of the states.

      This in and of itself will limit what would be considered legitimate amendment proposals.

      1. I agree. I don’t get the fear.

        However, I’m not sure what ammendments could be passed that would do anything.

        My first priority would be :

        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        But somehow I think they Federal government would figure out ways to get around that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.