Silver linings? Sure, for now. But that just means the left will have to delegitimize federalism entirely. For the fairness:
Over the past week, the list of states not participating in the system has grown to nineteen as the states of Wisconsin, Ohio and Nebraska chose to join sixteen others in rejecting the state health insurance exchange that is called for under the Obamacare law.
[…]The state health care exchanges are a creation of the Obamacare law where the state would create a massive database of health insurance options that those without insurance could access. The state is given the option under the law to either create the exchange or to leave it up to the federal government to provide it.
Another under-reported aspect of the law is that the statute itself only allows the state exchange to levy penalties against employers who are accused of not following the requirements of the law. After the law passed it was discovered that federal exchanges do not have the authority to impose penalties. Upon this discovery, the IRS hurriedly wrote regulations claiming that power contrary to what the law allows.
Employers in states without a state exchange will have the option of contesting any penalties in court with a reasonable likelihood of success due to the IRS’ extra-legal regulations.
The probable net effect is that states whose governors refuse to enact state exchanges will put their states at a significant economic advantage over those businesses in states with one. The promise of lower health insurance costs will help employers in these states who want to expand without worrying if hiring an additional employee will throw themselves into new Obamacare taxes.
Currently, nineteen states are rejecting the state exchanges, sixteen states are enacting them, three are attempting a state/federal exchange hybrid, and twelve will decide before the new December 14 deadline.
The undecided states are: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, Michigan, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.
[my emphasis] Two thoughts here. First, court contests favoring employers because of extra-legal regulations only survive so long as the SCOTUS doesn’t quickly devolve into a bastion of progressive activist philosopher kings/queens who are able to find some way to skirt plain law and appeal to (ironically) what the intentions were for the federal government to be able to wield punitive powers, despite forgetting to include it in the law as passed.
Second, why, with 30 states controlled by GOP governors, are only 19 states so far rejecting these exchanges — and why isn’t the GOP leadership in the House signaling support for a rejection posture rather than acceding, as John Boehner has, that “ObamaCare is the law of the land,” as if the election results, which in addition to re-electing Obama (with 9 million fewer votes) kept them in the control of the House, was somehow an indication that Americans who don’t want ObamaCare and never have are suddenly eager to embrace it without further fight?
By the way, as an aside to all the genius GOP mouthpieces who told us that the Roberts’ ruling would actually be good for the Republicans, galvanizing an electorate to sweep them into power: this is why bad law is never to be spun as a net positive, and why we should never analyze Court decisions based on their (hoped for) political impact alone.
Not that it will hurt the ratings or the traffic of those who sold us this crap sandwich of an argument. But I just thought I’d mention it anyway.
Capitulation. It’s the new black.
Blood in the streets. It’s the future black.
I fear the answer is worse than we think. It’s time to realize that the adage about not suspecting corruption when incompetence holds sway has it precisely backwards. Corruption is easier and it pays far, far better.
We haven’t been hijacked. We were hijacked decades ago, a point I wish all recent converts away from the GOP would admit outright.
So, how will you react, patriots?
I may be giving him too much credit, but isn’t Boehner’s statement playing out? The “law of the land” mandates states’ approvals; they (some) are NOT playing along & therefore O-care is being rejected legally, as “the law of the land” states is can be. …just sayin’
If anyone wants to primary Boehner I’ll gladly send him/her some money if that’s still legal. (I’m in Texas). You never know with OIHO.
If Boner ever gets anything right it will be entirely accidental on his part. He is not playing 3-dimensional chess, he is playing checkers, and he is losing.
Jim Geraghty gets it exactly backwards:
…yet this cheap and deeply falacious lie won a link from Reynolds, who together with Whittle, Ace of Polls, et al, pleaded with indies to go Romney this time.
How hard do you think it will be to find a federal judge who will “interpret” the statute to mean the exact opposite of what the words say, because it’s necessary for the statute to function properly? Not hard. The federal bench is infested with liberal hack judges. Mostly appointed by Obama and Clinton, but also by the Bushes. They only need to find one judge to interpret it that way, to force the issue up to the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court doesn’t want to touch this.
Our Constitutional Republic is dying. The decision to twist Obamacare, instead of going through a legislative process to fix these mistakes, will be an important nail in its coffin. It will mean that the law is whatever Emperor Obama needs it to be, political process be damned.
Again: No.
Boehner is not failing due to incompetence any more than Obama is.
Russ —
The statement is playing out but not with the help of the House. Rather, it’s because the law as written contains certain missteps from the perspective of the would-be tyrants to whom Boehner routinely surrenders. Because he’s both weak and because to a large extent he is fine with a big government paradigm.
But governors have been alerted to it. The upshot being that if it plays out like it surely will — and the press is unable to bury the travails of a cumbersome top down system (a big if) — the GOP candidate can always point out that if as a state you elect a Democrat governor, no matter what he or she pledges before hand, that governor will be pressured by the leftists to reconsider their state’s stance. And why would you even want to take that risk?
“cranky-d says November 19, 2012 at 12:36 pm
If Boner ever gets anything right it will be entirely accidental on his part. He is not playing 3-dimensional chess, he is playing checkers, and he is losing.”
Looks more like ‘don’t break the ice’ to me.
Blood in the streets. It’s the future black.
What’s the matter with you?
IT CAN’T HAPPEN HERE.
Sheez.
The governors have stuff like balanced budget requirements, and are looking in the face of new mandates, requirements and such to please Uncle Fed. If they tell DC to pound sand, I will cheer them – I am in IL, so we will do whatever is most craven and expensive (to taxpayers, God Bless the few of us remaining here).
Oh, and there are 30 GOP governors – Chris Christie still (nominally) being one.
And Bobby Jindal. Also still (nominally) being another…
Mary Fallin, OK Governor will not develop a health-care exchange under the ACA.
“OK Governor will not develop a health-care exchange under the ACA.”
In the dictionary, next to OK is a picture of an Okie!
As easy as saying “John Roberts.”
[…] […]