S.C. Governor Haley says no to health exchanges

COLUMBIA, S.C. (Nov. 15, 2012) – On Thursday, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley sent a letter to HHS Secretary Sebelius indicating the Palmetto State will not create a state insurance exchange under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. “After several months of public meetings and external research, the committee recommended that the state not…


Nebraska governor on health insurance exchanges: nope

LINCOLN, Neb. (Nov. 15) – Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman rejected setting up a health insurance exchange under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, saying it was simply too expensive.

Heineman made the announcement Thursday, one day before the deadline for states to commit to creating an exchange.

“The reality is that the federal health care law is being totally dictated and totally controlled by the federal government,” he said at a news conference. “On the key issues, there is no real operational difference between a federal exchange and a state exchange. A state exchange is nothing more than the state administering the Affordable Care Act with all of the important and critical decisions made by the federal government.”

The governor’s budget office estimated that a state run exchange would cost roughly $646 million between fiscal years 2013 and 2020, according to an Associated Press report. Heineman also said the state-run option was full of mandates, leaving little control to state lawmakers.


Alaska governor refuses to commit to state insurance exchange

JUNEAU, Alaska (Nov. 15, 2012) – Alaska Governor Sean Parnell reiterated Thursday that he will not set up a health insurance exchange under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Parnell indicated he would not move forward with setting up the exchange last summer, saying that the feds should pay to set up a federal program, not the state.

On Thursday, the governor reiterated his position through spokeswoman Sharon Leighow

“The federal law passed more than two years ago and there are still many unknowns regarding the exchanges,” she said in an email to the San Francisco Chronicle. “Bottom line: Governor Parnell is not going to commit the state to a program that is largely undefined at this point.”

The deadline for states to commit to setting up an exchange is Friday.

Parnell joins a growing list of governors who have indicated they don’t plan to move forward with implementing a state-run insurance exchange. Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey said he wasn’t particularly impressed with the Alaska governor’s reasoning, but the decision to refuse to move ahead was a good one in and of itself.


Indiana governor-elect says ‘No!’ to health insurance exchanges

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. (Nov. 15, 2012) – Indiana Governor-elect Mike Pence announced today that he would not move forward with setting up a state insurance exchange in pursuance of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Pence made his position known in a letter to current Gov. Mitch Daniels.

“I do not believe the State of Indiana should establish a state-based health insurance exchange because doing so will cost taxpayers millions of dollars and it is not clear that Hoosiers would benefit from incurring the cost of implementing this new federal healthcare bureaucracy. Without knowing more details on the cost and nature of state-based exchanges, it is possible that our state could be placed in the untenable position of serving as the administrator of a new federal healthcare bureaucracy over which we have little control.”

Pence estimates that creating the exchange would cost the state $50 million per year.


Florida Bows to the Feds

Governor Rick Scott (R-FLA), had this to say about Florida creating healthcare exchanges by Obama’s January 2014 deadline, “Just saying ‘no’ is not an answer.”

The statement, which seems to be a change in Scott’s stance on the healthcare law, shows the obedience of Florida state leadership in submitting to the feds.

Moreover, Florida State Senator Don Gaetz (R-Destin) made this comment.

“I don’t like this law, but this is the law, and I believe I have a constitutional duty to carry it out.” This raises the question; what should be the duty of state governments?

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.”

Clearly, the Constitution establishes federal law as supreme.  However, what if federal mandates go beyond their constitutionally enumerated powers?  The answer, comes from Thomas Jefferson, in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, “But, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits.”


Election: Glass Partly Full

Isn’t it interesting—when Republicans win big, lefty spinmeisters talk compromise and bipartisanship. When Democrats win, even if they win small, lefty spinmeisters just want to crush everyone else.

So, not surprisingly, one of these sublapidarians is now arguing that the size of Obama’s win is a mandate for the “progressive” agenda. Beyond absurd.

The results were bad, but they were not that bad. Keep in mind that:

* Any sitting President gets several million votes from the exposure due to incumbancy—votes that have little to do with policy.

* Despite the celebrated demographic changes, Obama really won by the skin of his teeth—around a 2 percent margin, maybe less.