This is Part 4 in my series about ObamaCare health care exchanges. Be sure to read Parts 1, 2, and 3 here, here, and here.
Minnesota’s Citizen’s Council for Health Freedom advocates and researches health care issues and has written a brief, easy bullet list (below) explaining why Minnesotans should say “no” to health care exchanges. Although the Minnesota bill is not written exactly as Colorado’s SB 11-200, the purpose and end result of both bills is the same: they each create a state health insurance exchange as ObamaCare requires.
CCH’s arguments against exchanges demonstrate both the danger exchanges pose to freedom, as well as the threats they pose to current lawsuits against ObamaCare.
Read and ask yourself if this is something you want in your state…
Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom – Why Minnesotans Should Say “NO”
Why Minnesotans Should Say “NO”
1) THE LYNCHPIN – The Health Insurance Exchange has been called the ‘lynchpin’ of reform, the ‘glue’ that holds Obamacare together. The Exchange also has a key federal policing function. Nationally-recognized health economist Stephen Parente testified that 700 pages of Obamacare are a re-write of IRS code to allow extensive, real-time data-sharing on individuals through the Exchange to determine incomes, eligibility for tax credits, and compliance with the ?credible coverage mandate — the requirement that all citizens buy federally-approved health insurance.
2) VENEER OF FLEXIBILITY – The MN bill, HF 497, would codify the federal Exchange into Minnesota law [as it would in YOUR state]. The bill mentions Obamacare 38 times. Proponents claim that if the State does not create their own exchange, the federal government will impose a federal exchange. However, the “state” exchange becomes a defacto federal exchange. It is the Administration‘s preferred and expected exchange – the one they don‘t have to set up, has to comply with Obamacare and its rules, and is established by its opponents. It‘s a federal exchange with a veneer of state flexibility:
“In a February 24 letter to the nation’s governors, Sebelius extolled the four types of flexibility that Obamacare allows states in shaping their exchanges: 1) States can restrict insurers from participating; 2) states can add even more benefit mandates than Obamacare requires; 3) come 2017, states can opt out of Obamacare by creating a single-payer health-care system; and 4) states can adopt their own “governance structure” and “operational philosophy.” In sum, states can impose harsher regulations than Obamacare requires and can choose who sits on their exchange’s board. That’s it.” [emphasis added] – “Obamacare Can’t Be Fixed,” Michael Cannon, Cato Institute, National Review, March 21, 2011, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12858
3) EXCHANGE WILL NOT GO AWAY – Supporters of the MN Exchange Act, HF 497, say a sunset clause in the Act assures the repeal of the Obamacare Exchange 30 days after the U.S. Supreme Court rules the law unconstitutional. [Colorado’s bill does not have a sunset clause.] However, sunset clauses can be sunset. Lawsuits can be filed and injunctions can be imposed. Once the bureaucracy is set up, the data system built, the MN Dept of Commerce spends $52 million, and the private sector invests in the transition, it will be difficult to undo the Exchange. Already, Judge Vinson stayed his injunction partially to not disrupt current Obamacare implementation activities now underway by the States. What will the U.S. Supreme Court decide after another year of implementation?
4) UNDERMINING THE LAWSUITS – Judge Vinson, writing his March 3 ?clarification to his January 31 multistate ruling said State requests for federal dollars and State implementation of Obamacare provisions undercuts his ruling against Obamacare. Judge Vinson also said that the Executive branch is using delay tactics to allow more provisions to be implemented by States.
5) FODDER FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA? – A GOP–established Exchange may be used to claim Republican support for Obamacare, as Obama has claimed with RomneyCare. An Exchange codified by a GOP-controlled legislature before a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court signals state acquiescense and compliance. It does not protect Minnesota [nor does it protect YOUR state]. It strengthens Mr. Obama‘s hand.
Colorado’s State House Representative Majority Leader Amy Stephens(R) is Fighting to BRING Us Health Care Exchanges
As I write this post, exchanges are on the table in Colorado’s state legislature. Check out Colorado SB 11-200 here. This is a bill being co-sponsored by Colorado State House Representative Majority Leader Amy Stephens(R) and Colorado State Senator Betty Boyd(D). The purpose of the bill is “creating a process for the implementation of a health benefit exchange in Colorado.”
Do YOU think Representative Stephens(R) should be facilitating ObamaCare in Colorado???
If you say NO, like Minnesota’s Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, contact Representative Stephens today and tell her to stop facilitating ObamaCare, and that you want NO health care exchanges in Colorado. Tell her to pull her name from sponsoring this bill and to vote against any exchanges for Colorado. This is about freedom from massive federal intervention in our lives, and it starts right here. Here’s her contact information:
Rep Amy Stephens
Rm # 271
200 E Colfax
Denver, CO 80203
There is Still More to Come
Now that you’ve read Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of my series, do you think there just can’t be anymore bad news about exchanges? Guess again. Part 5 is next… and you’ll want to know.
Michelle Morin is Mom4Freedom, a conservative blogger, speaker, and patriot for freedom and America’s founding principles. Join her for valuable freedom updates here.
No comments yet.