by Mitch Kokai
Senior Political Analyst, John Locke Foundation
What does Tuesday’s election mean for the future of the 2010 federal health care reform law? The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon examines the law’s vulnerabilities in a new National Review Online column.
President Obama has won reelection, and his administration has asked state officials to decide by Friday, November 16, whether their state will create one of Obamacare’s health-insurance “exchanges.” States also have to decide whether to implement the law’s massive expansion of Medicaid. The correct answer to both questions remains a resounding no.
State-created exchanges mean higher taxes, fewer jobs, and less protection of religious freedom. States are better off defaulting to a federal exchange. The Medicaid expansion is likewise too costly and risky a proposition. Republican Governors Association chairman Bob McDonnell (R.,Va.) agrees, and has announced that Virginia will implement neither provision.
There are many arguments against creating exchanges.
First, states are under no obligation to create one.
Second, operating an Obamacare exchange would be illegal in 14 states. Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia have enacted either statutes or constitutional amendments (or both) forbidding state employees to participate in an essential exchange function: implementing Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates.
Third, each exchange would cost its state an estimated $10 million to $100 million per year, necessitating tax increases.
Fourth, the November 16 deadline is no more real than the “deadlines” for implementing REAL ID, which have been pushed back repeatedly since 2008.
Fifth, states can always create an exchange later if they choose.
Read on to find seven more reasons to reject a health care exchange. Then Cannon explains why states should reject ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion.