Shikha Dalmia on Why Conservatives are ?ing ObamaCare

After suing ObamaCare for forcing them to cram more people into financially-challenged Medicaid programs, six fiscally-conservative Republican governors recently voluntarily agreed to extend these programs. Reason Foundation

Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia notes in her morning Washington Examiner column that this is because ObamaCare's perverse incentives has states in a vise: "Noncompliant states face a double whammy -- lose federal money and expose their businesses to additional taxes."

But this mass capitulation by Republican states might mean that ObamaCare is now a fait accompli:

Some Republican governors, such as Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and Wisconsin's Scott Walker, are valiantly refusing to get caught in this trap. But it is hard to imagine that they'll be able stand firm if their businesses start shrinking and throwing people out of work -- in which case they'll end up on the Medicaid rolls anyway.

Go here to read the whole thing.

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

But this mass capitulation by Republican states might mean that ObamaCare is now a fait accompli...

PPACA was never going away anyway. It will be around until it takes U.S. healthcare down the drain, at which point it will be expanded to single payer.

[T o n y]

From your mouth to Allah's ears.

[LTC(ret) John]

And we can have the high quality of Britain, with the innovation of Spain!

[DesigNate]

Yay!

[Bee Tagger]

Here's what that headline looks like when I paste it into Notepad:

Shikha Dalmia on Why Conservatives are ?ing ObamaCare

So which is it, Shikha? Loving or questioning?

[Counterfly Guard]

Bi-curious?

[R C Dean]

Under Obamacare, uninsured residents up to 400 percent of the poverty level will get subsidies from insurance exchanges set up by the states, or by Uncle Sam when states refuse. Employers will have to pay a $2,000 penalty for every uninsured employee who receives subsidies from the exchanges.

This is not necessarily true. First, my understanding is that there are no subsidies for people who would have been covered by the Medicaid expansion, but aren't because their states aren't participating.

Second, there is a lawsuit pending on the godawful mess the statute made of who gets the subsidies. It sure looks like you are only eligible for a subsidy (and thus, your employer is only on the hook for the penalty) if you have a state exchange.

[R C Dean]

The key "capitulation" by the states needed for OCare to work isn't the Medicaid expansion. Its the insurance exchanges. Sure, the feds can set up a federal exchange, but I guarantee that won't be functional on October 1 (the current deadline). They'll be lucky to get it up and running by October 1 of next year.

No exchange, no ObamaCare. Look for a huge fight this summer on pushing the whole thing back a year while they try to put the federal exchange together.

[Caleb Turberville]

The deadlines and the conceit that a bureaucracy can create a functioning "market" will be the downfall of Obamacare.

[WhatAboutBob]

FreedomWorks has a website explaining this mess: Block Exchanges

Here's what they say:

But most importantly, the health care exchanges are voluntary to the states, and without them ObamaCare cannot function. This is because of a flaw in the bill itself, the "Affordable Care Act", which only authorizes a state-created exchange to distribute the subsidies. Without the subsidies, there is no incentive to participate in ObamaCare at all.