Gov. Walker says he will NOT set up exchanges
This just in, Gov. Scott Walker officially notified the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services "that Wisconsin will not build a state-based health insurance exchange and will defer to the federal Government's insurance exchange."
Yesterday afternoon, talk show host Mark Belling talked about this, that the word was, Wisconsin would be joining with 19 other states opting out of creating their own exchanges.
The Governor's letter restates the dilemma: "No matter which option is chosen, Wisconsin taxpayers will not have meaningful control over the health care policies and services sold to Wisconsin residents. If the state option is chosen; however, Wisconsinites face risk from a federal mandate lacking long-term guaranteed funding."
And if you called the Governor, you are mentioned in the letter: "...after much consideration and outreach with citizens across the state [that's you!], and in the best interest of the taxpayers of Wisconsin, we have determined Wisconsin will not develop a partnership or state-based exchange."
State Senator Leah Vukmir is on Vicki McKenna right now talking about this. I urge you to listen to the podcast when it becomes available: Hour 1, Part 1 11-16-12. Vukmir says there could be more states doing the same, and some Democrat governors have joined in the opt-out. She also mentioned a few mandates we would be spared from.
Illinois, Minnesota, and Michigan are said to be setting up the exchanges, so if you are a mid-west business, where would you rather locate?
In a related issue, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius just announced she is "granting them [governors] an extension to Dec. 14 on the decision." Hmm, I wonder why she is doing that? I am sure they are hoping to peel off a few of those 20 resistant governors.
The 10th Amendment might be finally getting its day in the sun: "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."
Here is another thought: If a state spends its own taxpayer money to fund their own exchange, aren't we still required to pay our federal taxes, a portion of which go to funding the federal health care exchanges? It's a variation of spreading the wealth around in my opinion. In effect, it would mean states with exchanges are paying twice.
If the 20 states stay united, thus not funding the government mandate, where is the federal government going to get the money to fund their mandate? (Republicans hold the majority in the House, where all funding bills originate.)
I am sure we will know more as time goes on, but at least we have dodged this first bullet. And taking a page from the Democrats, any measure to slow down the process is progress. This push-back could lead to more.
Gov. Scott Walker's letter to Secretary Sebelius
HHS Extends Exchange Deadline a Month
Analysis: 20 states will run their health-law exchanges
Yesterday afternoon, talk show host Mark Belling talked about this, that the word was, Wisconsin would be joining with 19 other states opting out of creating their own exchanges.
The Governor's letter restates the dilemma: "No matter which option is chosen, Wisconsin taxpayers will not have meaningful control over the health care policies and services sold to Wisconsin residents. If the state option is chosen; however, Wisconsinites face risk from a federal mandate lacking long-term guaranteed funding."
And if you called the Governor, you are mentioned in the letter: "...after much consideration and outreach with citizens across the state [that's you!], and in the best interest of the taxpayers of Wisconsin, we have determined Wisconsin will not develop a partnership or state-based exchange."
State Senator Leah Vukmir is on Vicki McKenna right now talking about this. I urge you to listen to the podcast when it becomes available: Hour 1, Part 1 11-16-12. Vukmir says there could be more states doing the same, and some Democrat governors have joined in the opt-out. She also mentioned a few mandates we would be spared from.
Illinois, Minnesota, and Michigan are said to be setting up the exchanges, so if you are a mid-west business, where would you rather locate?
In a related issue, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius just announced she is "granting them [governors] an extension to Dec. 14 on the decision." Hmm, I wonder why she is doing that? I am sure they are hoping to peel off a few of those 20 resistant governors.
The 10th Amendment might be finally getting its day in the sun: "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."
Here is another thought: If a state spends its own taxpayer money to fund their own exchange, aren't we still required to pay our federal taxes, a portion of which go to funding the federal health care exchanges? It's a variation of spreading the wealth around in my opinion. In effect, it would mean states with exchanges are paying twice.
If the 20 states stay united, thus not funding the government mandate, where is the federal government going to get the money to fund their mandate? (Republicans hold the majority in the House, where all funding bills originate.)
I am sure we will know more as time goes on, but at least we have dodged this first bullet. And taking a page from the Democrats, any measure to slow down the process is progress. This push-back could lead to more.
Gov. Scott Walker's letter to Secretary Sebelius
HHS Extends Exchange Deadline a Month
Analysis: 20 states will run their health-law exchanges
Links: Practically Speaking, Fairly Conservative, Jay Weber, Vicki McKenna, WisPolitics Quorum Call, Wisconsin Reporter, CNS News, Mark Levin, Breitbart BigGovernment, The Heritage Foundation, The Way <><
Labels: Conservatives, Constitution, Government/Bureaucracy, Governor, ObamaCare, President Obama, Taxes, Wisconsin
posted by KYLE PRAST | 11:00 AM
|
0 comments
