Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was constitutional.
The Administration takes this as a green light to implement ObamaCare to its fullest extent possible. Because the election went in President Obama’s favor, the Senate and House have lost any desire to overturn the law. Without the overturn, it looks like the law making Obamacare a reality is going to stand forever.
Or is it?
In order to make Obamacare work properly, as it currently stands, there are two mainstays of Obamacare that must be carried out on the state level. Each state must implement an insurance exchange and they must drastically expand Medicare according to the law. These two items of ObamaCare will cost the states untold millions of dollars to implement.
When federal law goes bad, it is up to the states to protect their citizens. The legal theory is called nullification. Nullification is the idea that any given state has the right to invalidate federal laws that they consider unconstitutional. Somewhere along the line the Supreme Court got it wrong in their reasoning. Accordingly, it is like saying that since the government has a stake in GM it can create a law that says we can only buy GM cars. If we buy any other type of car we have to pay an extra tax on it.
With all the new costs that would be required to implement ObamaCare, states are facing the need to increase taxes to cover any shortfalls. State budgets are strained to their breaking point in this down-turned economy. Many of the Republican governors throughout the land are weighing their all their options. Several states (14 thus far, and more looking to follow suit) decided to take things into their own hands and passed some form of law, resolution or constitutional amendment that make it illegal to enforce the Obamacare Law at the state level.
This means that already, in 14 states, they cannot set up insurance exchanges or expand Medicare. Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia now forbid any of their state employees to participate or assist in any way, shape or form, the execution of any individual or employee mandate set forth by the federal government.
Not surprisingly, if the states do set up an exchange, they won’t have control over it. All control of all exchanges is done by Washington D.C. Who wants to pay for something and then have no control over it? That is like saying you want to buy a car so you give me $20,000 cash to buy one for you. I then spend $4,000 on the car and pocket the rest all while you have no choice or recourse in the matter.
No matter how people feel about ObamacCare, the states are currently under NO obligation to set up any exchanges. There is a default federal exchange that the federal government is supposed to set up. This means that if the states do not set up their own, they will not incur the costs associated with the funding of one.
Government can only control people by force. This is done either by the point of a gun or by finances. When dealing with state governments, the federal government usually does this through finances. They use one of two options, either by giving some amount to help with costs or threatening to remove funds if they do not fall in line.
When offering funds, in order to appease the states of costs, Congress usually covers the costs with something called “fallback” funds. There were no fallback funds authorized by Congress for the exchanges. Without the fallback funds, there may be no way for the federal government to force the states into any exchanges.
Now I grant you, people are known to like their “freebies” from the government. Believe me, there is no such thing as a free lunch. If the things from the government were free then we wouldn’t have a federal deficit problem now would we? Speaking of which, as the states go through this nullification process, they are in fact helping to reduce the federal deficit.
One of the key points in ObamaCare is the fact that insurance company subsidies are only paid through state run exchanges. That means that if the states do not set up and exchanges, the federal deficit will decline by some $700 billion or so per year because those subsidies will never get paid out.
We also know that Medicaid and Medicare are full of fraud, waste and abuse. Not a week goes by where we do not here something somewhere about a doctor being caught for cheating one or the other. Expanding either one would only increase the likelihood of more fraud, with no increase in medical services.
There are some estimates that show expanding these systems according to the federal government’s wishes in ObamaCare will cost the states upwards of $50 billion within the first ten years alone. As inflation takes hold and the economy worsens the problem is only going to get deeper. Budgets are stretched to the limit already. No state can afford to absorb such increases.
In the Supreme Court’s decision they managed to give the states the option to get out of the expansion mandate. Every single state in the union ought to exercise that option and decline to participate. If they all refused it would save some $900 billion in federal deficit spending.
ObamaCare is extraordinarily unpopular throughout the country. Congresswoman Pelosi said we had to pass it in order to be able to read what is in it. Now that it has been read, people know just how damaging the law really is. Their eyes have been opened. Many states recognize the problem and are taking the correct steps to nullify its impact.
If you do not live in one of the 14 states that have already begun the nullification process, you are highly encouraged to contact your local state leaders and convince them to follow the other state’s lead. Even though the people in Washington D.C. may have lost their gumption to do what is right, if enough of the states work to nullify ObamaCare, Congress will have no choice but to revisit the issue and get rid of the law altogether.
For more information on health care nullification efforts, click HERE.
Yours in Liberty
- Understanding The 10th Amendment - April 26, 2013
- Surprise: Law Professor Misinterprets Supremacy Clause - January 26, 2013
- Federalism and the 10th: The State Reclamation Begins - December 14, 2012