Alaska will reluctantly implement health care reform, while trying to shift costs to the federal government, Gov. Sean Parnell said Thursday following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision upholding most of the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Parnell said the state may resist implementing parts of the legislation where that’s legal and an option for the state.
“We may have lost the battle, but we are not going to stop fighting,” he said.
Alaska had been one of 26 states suing to block implementation of the law, and Parnell made clear he is still philosophically opposed to it.
“When it comes to individual freedoms, and the individual mandate, we may have lost the battle but we are not going to stop fighting,” he said.
The key provision upheld by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision was the requirement that everyone has health care coverage, or pay a tax penalty if the don’t.
Parnell made clear his opposition to the bill that critics call “Obamacare” but the Republican governor shied away from personalizing his criticisms as many of the law’s harshest critics have done.
In a written statement about the ruling Obama was not mentioned at all, and speaking at a press conference in Anchorage Thursday, Parnell only once used the term “Obamacare” while continuing to criticize the Affordable Care Act.
“This federal health care legislation will be implemented,” Parnell said. “The supreme Court deemed it constitutional, this was a political choice by the people’s political representatives in Washington that made it so,” he said.
Now that the court had upheld the Affordable Care Act, Parnell said it would be up to political leaders in Washington to change it.
Parnell said that he had not yet talked with legislative leaders about how the state should respond. The legislature includes some harsh critics of the Affordable Care Act, as well as President Obama, but they were unable to pass legislation in opposition in the last session.
The Legislature was quick to show its opposition, introducing House Bill 1 in 2011 at the start of the two-year session aimed at blocking its implementation in Alaska.
That bill, prepared by the conservative lobbying group American Legislative Exchange Council, would have tried to block the requirement for health care coverage in Alaska. It took until nearly the end of the 2102 session to pass the House and died in the Senate.
Its House passage was on a nearly party-line 24-16 vote, though Rep. Cathy Munoz, R-Juneau, crossed party lines to join Rep. Beth Kerttula, D-Juneau, and most Democrats in voting against it.
Kerttula Thursday welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, and urged Parnell to help Alaskans get health care by implementing the act.
“I like freedom, what I don’t like is seeing people losing their homes and losing their lives because they can’t meet their child’s medical bills,” she said.
Parts of the heath care law that have already been implemented have boosted coverage for young people, prohibiting exclusions for pre-existing conditions for children and extending dependent coverage to age 26.
Sen. Hollis French, D-Anchorage, said that while he didn’t know whether the Legislature would adopt optional parts of the health care law, he doubted there would be continued attempts to confront it directly.
“At this point the legislative process has played itself out,” he said.
Reaction from the state’s congressional delegation split along party lines, as did the original votes on the Affordable Care Act.
“While the law is not perfect, the status quo was not an option,” said Democratic Sen. Mark Begich.
“Health care costs were skyrocketing and insurance companies were in charge of escalating those costs. There is still plenty of work to do, and I look forward to the State of Alaska moving forward on implementation,” he said.
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who sometimes crosses party lines, called the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the act “A new precedent in governmental overreach.”
Republican Rep. Don Young, who had already voted in the House to repeal the Affordable Care Act, said he remained in opposition.
“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court does not change the fact that ObamaCare sticks the American people with new taxes, new regulations and devastating cuts to Medicare,” he said.
Parnell said Thursday that while his administration was still reviewing the 193-page ruling, an exercise expected to take weeks, his goal would be to implement the act at the lowest cost to the state.
“I will work to shift back to the federal government those costs it is imposing on our citizens,” he said.
The federal government included money for the states to implement parts of the health care law, money that Alaska has in some cases rejected fearing it would come with burden
Parnell said he didn’t know whether the state would begin accepting that money, but those decisions would have to be made later on a case-by-case basis.
One victory for opponents of the health care law was the Supreme Court’s decision that the federal government could not threaten state’s with loss of all their Medicaid funding if the refuse to expand the program in their states.
Parnell said Alaska might now reject the extra federal money, which funds the expansion at 100 percent for the first 3 years, but only 90 percent after that.
“With no penalty we need to rethink what we’re going to do with Medicaid and the requirements that have been imposed by the act,” he said.
• Contact reporter Pat Forgey at 523-2250 or patrick.forgey@juneauempire.com
Comments (57)
Add commentRuling
A good victory for the poor and working class people of this country!
Interesting...
...How pretty much the same politicians that the unlimited massive secret money going into our elections under Citizens United say it's just 'free speech' and "corporations are people too" are screaming about government overreach here.
Now Governor, just get on with it. Start making decisions for the residents of this state who are lacking healthcare, rather than grandstanding with your teaparty political positions. Stop being a politician just once, and try being a leader.
And thank you, Cathy Munoz, for not following the party line.
ruling
One plus to this ruling is that all the free loaders who pay nothing for health care and expect the very best will now have to at least pay $750.00 a year.
Go Governor!
I'm glad that Parnell is staying strong on this, it was a sad day for America yesterday...with a judge who sold out being the deciding vote. This IS a TAX. Regardless of what the hypocrite in chief wants you to believe..and EVERYBODY will pay. The Constitution just got thrown under the bus.
Health Care
srmsr51 are you talking about yourself?
Quit complaining, health care is a good thing for everyone. I have health care coverage paid out of my paycheck for that I am grateful to have any health care.
For those who complain, maybe you should look into it before making a statement like that!
I personally know of several families who need health care but doctors reject them due to pre-existing condition. I know others who are on Medicare and still doctors won't see them unless they pay cash only. Now why is that?
Most of us in Alaska already
Most of us in Alaska already have health care therefore most of us will not be affected by the tax. It's good that people have to pay a tax (mandate) if that means everyone will be paying something to reduce free loading. What is great about health care reform is that pre-existing conditions and many of the other ways the health insurance field gets away with not paying the bill and screwing the insured will no longer be allowed.
Finally
Legislating from the bench is NOT going to improve our country. This bill PASSED in our federal legislative branch. That's how America works. Checks and balances. There was doubt, and our highest court ruled it legal and binding.
Do I Agree with it? I think it has good parts and some I'm not so sure.
Begich hit the nail on the head: "While the law is not perfect, the status quo was not an option,” said Democratic Sen. Mark Begich.
If reelected, Obama may concede some changes. If elected, Romney may change or repeal.
Let's leave it to the voters (we the people) to decide.
Amazing......
A couple of things that simply boggle the mind:
- Conservative battle cries today for "individual freedom" on this issue - where is that ideal when it comes time to marry the person you love or make an individual decision regarding reproduction? Apparently "individual freedom" is only a part-time thing for the Republicans.
- The idea that we can run the country and do things that are good for everyone without ever having any taxes, ever. I don't know how it works in republicanland, but when I know I have a new bill for winter oil coming, I both cut some spending, and raise some new revenue. Of course, if you're not the one who will ever suffer due to cuts in spending, I suppose it might not matter to you that there are children in this country who don't get enough to eat. (April - House proposes $33billion cuts to SNAP - food stamps)
- The fact that a republican-invented idea, based on 'individual responsibility', that the CBO has determined will decrease the deficit in the long run, is somehow now toxic because a Democratic president implemented it. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
- The repulsive notion that anyone can be against something that will allow big insurance companies to continue to deny coverage to the more expensive cases, or drop people with pre-existing conditions, even those who are desperate to pay for insurance, because it cuts into corporate profits, and it's cheaper to just let the woman with re-occurring breast cancer die.
Heh. I love how so many
Heh. I love how so many people are screaming about how the constitution got "thrown under the bus." Do they not realize the constitution itself explicitly states the Supreme Court gets to decide what is constitutional?
The fact of the matter is that for most of us, nothing will change.
More taxes on benefits
I've heard that folks receiving benefits, like State retirees, are going to be taxed on the value of the benefits as Alaska's health plan is considered a premium plan. $20,000-$30,000per family added to one's retirement income for federal income tax purposes. Anyone else know if this is part of the new Affordable Healthcare???
Ahhhh Persnickety
I understand that most people do feel that way, but I truly
believe this healthcare will work itself out for each state. It's not perfect but something has to be done with our health care system.
I believed in what Ted Kennedy was trying to do to make sure every American had some kind of health care that would betterment their own lives.
I have seen my friends medical bills they cannot afford the $500-$900 a month out of their own pockets, let alone pay for their rent, and food.
I am glad something had to be done and a decision had to be made, now we know where we all stand on this health care.
Parnell - "We may have lost
Parnell - "We may have lost the battle"
The US is the only developed country that considers helping provide health care to its citizens a battle.
Parnells whole family has Government provided health care coverage let's see Parnell give this up, if he wont hes a hypocrite
I would not call a 5-4 decision
a clear resounding victory. Time will tell.
"When it comes to individual
"When it comes to individual freedoms" This is such a line because:
Our individual freedoms END when what we do hurts others.
This is what freedom is truly all about - helping others. Helping others is what our country was built on, this is the spirit that truly built our Nation.
It was not built by a group of mean spirited individuals out for themselves saying I can do what ever the heck I want because I have individual freedom thus the heck with you. This is crap.
@snagger - you're right -
@snagger - you're right - "The seventh new tax that directly impacts the middle class, along with all citizens, is the Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans or the “Cadillac” Health Insurance Plan Tax. These are plans that provide extensive coverage and that are generally fully paid for, or largely paid for, by employers. This provision imposes a 40% excise tax on the employer-paid premium on taxpayers who are covered by such plans, beginning in 2018. The reason it begins in 2018 is because most unionized workers are covered by plans that fall under this definition and a deferral was made to spare union members from this tax for at least a period of time."
p writes - "The fact of the matter is that for most of us, nothing will change."
Oh, how naive you are...
And by the way, welcome back, we've missed you. I thought maybe you just got mad and went away!
This fight ain't over until it's over.
I've seen written that by calling the mandate a tax, it'll only take 51 votes in the Senate to repeal it by reconciliation and it cannot be filibustered.
Come on November...
Adminstrative costs??
This is a total mess. The IRS enforcing health care? What are they going to do with the millions of people who don't pay? Its going to take a huge expansion of the IRS and thousands of new agents to monitor and enforce this law. Thousands of dollars will be spent to get one individual to cough up the $400 penalty. This is a mess.
I'll
Take the insurance begich has, better yet make them take what being passed off on us
swimmer
Barrys plan cut 500 billion from Medicare kinda puts the 33 billion into perspective
Obamacare ROCKS!!!
ALL Americans deserve good health! To every employer out there who refused to help their employees with medical insurance,time to PAY UP! To all those fat cat insurance companies who refused to cover those already ill,time to PAY UP. To all those hospitals and air ambulances who overcharge for their services. Time to STOP. To the Doctors who treat patients who can not pay,finally some relief for your services. To the politicians who hate on our president and spent the last 4 years obsessed with making sure he is not re-elected therefore not passing one thing in congress.(Like cancer medicine for ill children) just because Obama is in office. Well, we were watching you this time,and I can't wait to vote you OUT for doing that to our country! Especially DON YOUNG! Happy 4th bloggers,let the fireworks begin..lol
To have or not to have health care?
Come on people, tell us how many of you would want to have health care for your own family, especially the ones that you know about that in dire need of some kind of health plan?
Of course, we all pay taxes for on our health care benefits. Like we pay for Auto insurance...duh! (Which by the way is mandatory in all states!).
How many of you have been turned away due to not having any health care plan at one time? Or do you have a loved one was recently turned away because she or he couldn't afford to pay cash at an emergency hospital?
Ken Dunker,The Mariners
Ken Dunker,
The Mariners scored a run last night in the 9th inning and walked away 1-0 winners over the Red Sox. A one point win is still a win. Too bad for the FOX News groupies.
Calypso,
Kudos on another great cut-and-paste job.
Everyone,
I can hardly wait to watch Huckabee this weekend.
All right-wingers are going to want to tune into HBO this evening to hear Bill Maher's two-bits worth. That ought to jumpstart the old heart.
President Obama pushed for
President Obama pushed for the Public Option & for lowering the age for people to qualify for Medicare these are still the best ways to go. Lets hope we can still get there.
Medicare is a national social insurance program, administered by the U.S. federal government, it guarantees access to health insurance for Americans over 65 etc...
It spreads the financial risk associated with illness across society and could work to protect everyone, and thus has a somewhat different social role from private insurers, which must manage their risk portfolio to guarantee their own solvency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)
Pres. Obama compromised with the Republicans and that is how we got to this Affordable Care Act.
Pres. Obama never wanted the individual mandate, this was a Republican idea that the Pres. agreed to in order to make some progress in covering more Americans that were without health insurance.
Since its a cut and paste day...
"The thresholds for the proposed excise tax are sufficiently high that most health insurance plans would not be affected.
■In 2009, the average employer-sponsored health insurance plan is valued at $4,824 for a single individual and $13,375 for a family, far below the thresholds for the excise tax.[4]
■The health insurance plan most commonly chosen by federal employees — including Members of Congress — costs $5,872 for individual coverage and $13,446 for a family.[5]
■Under the Finance Committee’s plan, the threshold for taxation would be at least $21,000 for family coverage in 2013. A plan costing $21,000 in 2013 (the equivalent of about $17,550 in 2009) would be about a third more generous than the plan that most Members of Congress have. It also would be about a third more generous than the typical employer-sponsored health insurance plan.
The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that only 7.7 percent of tax filing units would be affected by the excise tax in 2013 and 17.6 percent by 2019. For those plans that would actually pay the excise tax, that tax would apply to only a portion of the plan’s value — the amount above the threshold.
Moreover, most of the affected plans and households would not actually pay the excise tax or higher premiums that reflected that tax. The JCT, as well as most economists and health analysts who have examined the proposal, concludes that health insurance plans and employers generally would respond by modifying their health plans to stay within the thresholds and avoid the excise tax; employers would convert the savings produced by modifying the health plans into higher wages or other compensation for employees. (Economic analysis finds that employees ultimately bear the employer share of health care premiums by receiving lower wages than they otherwise would. If an employer with a high-cost insurance plan scales back the plan to avoid the excise tax, the employer generally will move the savings to another form of employee compensation. If employers scaled back health plans to avoid the excise tax without passing the savings through in this manner, they would put themselves at a disadvantage with other employers in competing for workers.)"
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2957
AK State Employees get around $10,000 for their plans from the SOA.
“While the law is not
“While the law is not perfect, the status quo was not an option,” said Democratic Sen. Mark Begich.
How would he know it wasn't perfect? Did he even read it before he voted for it? Why is he against tort reform? Why is he against purchasing insurance across state lines? Why is he in office?
@fume - but did you learn
@fume - but did you learn anything or do you just like to criticize? Do you want me to teach you how to research and do a "great cut-and-paste job"?
@el_boor - and you're willing to believe what the government estimates? Since when did government numbers make sense? And why did Obama give unions exemptions from taxes if none of the members will be affected?
I'm also not buying anything out of the Soros funded Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Just alittle biased and in BO's pocket, I'd say.
This BOCare is going to be sooooooo expensive that taxes will only go up and even then we'll get rationing. Just look at the states' Medicaid unfunded liabilities and the dismal state of Medicare at present. Add millions to those roles and it's going to be scary. Taxing "the rich" isn't going to solve anything. Those so-called "rich" are actually small businessmen. How will unemployment be affected?
It's so discouraging to read all the progressive euphoria over this mess. Look down the road (and at Europe) and quit vilifying insurance providers, doctors, hospitals, etc.
Be careful what you wish for...
she was right
Nancy Pelosi was right when she said "you need to pass it in order to see whats in it". Now we are going to see what is in it now that SCOTUS has approved it. It is now a taxable law that will become another tax burden on the middle class. It is going to inflate the IRS even more and we will see our federal income taxes rise faster than the ocean to pay for this.
@ calypso
Sorry that facts get in the way of your delusional reality.
I am still waiting for the One World Order UN jack booted thugs to drag me off to re-education camp that you promised would happen if Obama was elected President of the United States.
How is handing over health care to insurance companies, a Heritage Foundation idea from the early 90's, the death knell of the USA?
Looking at Europe’s current economic crisis and saying that their health care, which is cheaper and produces better outcomes than ours, that is the cause of the financial crisis speaks volumes about how informed you are.
Progressive euphoria? We are still miffed that there is not a single payer option. Which accounts for half of the people who were not happy with the ACA.
I thought Parnell took an Oath
I thought Parnell took an oath to uphold and support the Constitution- the whole Constitution, not just the parts he likes.
Now that the Supreme Court has decided that the Affordable Care Act is Constitutional, Parnell needs to stop whining. He has expensive government-paid insurance, and it's time for him to CHOOSE RESPECT for those who don't.
And while he's at it, perhaps he can explain why if you want to drive a car, you have to have insurance, but if you want health care, you don't.
It's helpful to cut and paste
It's helpful to cut and paste current information, not from the original bill that has been revised and updated...
*Originally scheduled for 2013, the Cadillac Tax was postponed until 2018 when Unions asked for an exemption. It taxes insurers (aka insurance companies) 40% on amounts of premium above the thresholds - $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. For retirees, it's $11,850 for individuals and $30,950 for family plans. Insurers are taxed but those costs will likely trickle down to employers and ultimately employees. (Meaning, rates will go up to pay for the 40% tax and therefore costs are shifted to the individual in the form of higher deductibles, premium costshares and out of pocket expenses.)
*The initial tax penalty for not having individual coverage is $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016 (higher for families). After 2016 it's indexed to inflation but capped at 300% of the flat dollar amount.
*Small employers (2-50 employees) are exempt from having to provide health insurance coverage to employees. There is no penalty to small employers for not providing coverage.
*Congress will be required to participate in the Exchange plans in 2014 - those will be the same plans available to you and I.
*Insurance companies are only part of the health care reform issue. Until the outrageous costs by doctors, hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, etc. are also addressed, rates will continue to climb.
Instead of speculating on outdated information, call your agent, broker/producer, HR person - or go to the HHS's official website. The HHS has the latest information (spun in the most favorable light, of course) but it's all there to see with the new updates and new regulations. www.healthcare.gov
Why's Parnell waiting? I thought he supported small business
.....one of Mr. Romney’s top advisers, Michael O. Leavitt, the former secretary of health and human services, has advised a half-dozen states about how to set up exchanges.
“An exchange can greatly expand the number of insurance choices available to employees of small businesses,” said W. Brett Graham, a partner in Mr. Leavitt’s health care consulting business.