While constitutional scholars across the country pore over Supreme Court transcripts from last month’s oral arguments challenging the president’s health law, states like Alaska are faced with a decision: whether or not to voluntarily implement a key part of the law—a health insurance exchange—even though they oppose the law itself.
Though proponents characterize exchanges as little more than informational websites to provide consumers with information, in reality they represent new bureaucracies intended to facilitate a federal takeover of the health insurance market. A study in Illinois estimated the cost of operating an exchange to total $89 million annually in the state alone—hardly a bargain.
Alaska, both a party to the multistate lawsuit challenging the law, and the only state in the nation that refused to apply for federal grants to establish an exchange, had previously been a leader in resisting the unprecedented law, but now appears poised to consider implementation.
In January, Gov. Sean Parnell hired Public Consulting Group to study the state’s options for setting up an exchange—with the hope that the firm could help answer questions concerning the form and cost of operating an exchange in Alaska. A report from the group is expected soon.
But with a decision from the Supreme Court not expected until June, and numerous uncertainties surrounding exchanges, there are several reasons moving forward with an exchange might not be in the best interest of Alaska.
First, proponents of the law claim that the federal government will establish an exchange if the state doesn’t create its own. But they fail to mention that the law doesn’t provide Washington any money to set up a federal exchange, nor does it offer subsidies to people buying insurance through a federal exchange.
Second, there would be no difference between a state and federal exchange. Proponents of the law claim that a state-exchange will preserve flexibility. But any exchange, state or federal, would be under the control of Washington bureaucrats.
Third, spending taxpayer money implementing a law that could be ruled unconstitutional in a time of financial uncertainty isn’t prudent. Some states are considering taxes on health insurance premiums, doctors, and “sin taxes” to pay for their exchanges; others have considered cutting education, law enforcement, and other state programs to find the money. None of these options is right for Alaska.
Finally—and most importantly—setting up a state exchange means further entrenching the federal health law in Alaska. State officials who are serious about seeing the federal health law repealed or declared unconstitutional should stop hedging their bets by taking measures to implement a health exchange.
Alaska has been a leader among the states thus far in opposing the federal health law and refusing to implement its key provisions. As it now turns and considers implementation, the reasons for resisting an exchange in the first place should not be forgotten. Alaska was wise to resist exchanges last year, and the facts on the ground have not changed since.
• Herrera is a health policy expert and is director of the Health and Human Services Task Force at the American Legislative Exchange Council, the nation’s largest nonpartisan individual membership association of state legislators.
Comments (32)
Add commentALEC
Those four letters explain a lot about the article.
There is a lot of information on the internet about the American Legislative Exchange Council and its funding and recent problem. I recommend that those interested read some of these articles about the ALEC and members of the group in the Alaska State Legislature.
Recently the Anchorage Daily News carried an article by Shanny Moore entitled " ALEC is cloning laws for Alaska."
ALEC
Im curious who writes the author bio at the bottom of these articles. Im assuming..or hoping...it isnt the Empire because of all the things ALEC and Christie Herrera are, non-partisan isnt one of them.
ad hominem is so smart
I'm loving the intellectual debate in the comments that don't actually refute anything in the article, keep up the good work!!!!!!
Maenwhile.....http://news.investors.com/article/607902/201204161652/obama-health-care-plan-to-cost-4-trillion-through-2035.htm
@cm12
OK where's your intellectual debate then? Sorry to say, the minute I saw it was written by a member of ALEC, I chose not to read it as I already read the same type of opinion pieces written by Herrera in several other states newspapers such as in Texas, Tennessee, Georgia. One doesnt need to read this one to know where she stands on this or other subjects including voter suppression, womens rights, etc.
ALEC advocates for limited
ALEC advocates for limited government and individual liberty and is now being attacked by communist Van Jones and his radical Color of Change organization.
ALEC's support of voter ID laws, immigration policies and protection of the 2nd Amendment has riled up the progressives.
Coco Cola, Kraft and Pepsi have now ended their membership with ALEC.
More Alinsky tactics on display from the left - the enemy must be destroyed.
Read more -
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/14/legislative-group-ale...
Parnell has made the right decision on holding off on creating a health exchange. A Supreme Court decision on BOCare will be coming soon and then Parnell can heave a sigh of relief or proceed to Plan B.
Information is deciminated
through various means and forums. For intellectual debate to have any merit one must be versed in both sides. Limiting oneself to only sources which supports the position the reader already subscribes to lessens the 'intellect' in debate and only assures 'argument', which, as any forensic coach will attest to, is not the tenet of debate.
@cm12 - there's usually no
@cm12 - there's usually no intellectual debate from the left.
Alinsky Rule 12 - "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
"No intellectual debate from the left."
Calypso Sixty -two years ago, when I began college, I spent my first two years at St. John's University in Minnesota. All of my professors were Benedictine monks - nearly all of them had earned doctorates from secular universities. The one thing they taught me was to have an open mind.
At the time, a big issue in the US was "communism." My professor of history/political science then told me that I needed to read Karl Marx's "Das Kapital" (in English translation) and write a paper analyzing the arguments, "facts" data, explanation and theory to evaluate that book and other writings by Marx. I did so. I took me a long time to read, analyze and evaluate Marx's work and did my best to demonstrate where I think he was wrong or mistaken.Then, another monk told me I needed to do the same with the works of Sigmund Freud. In both cases, I followed the style of Thomas Aquinas and listed each of their strongest and best arguments, and then replied to each topic at a time.
I'm quite sure that today we would call the monks "conservative" but they were scholars with open minds.
In my opinion, they were some of the best teachers I ever had. I have followed their tradition, and openly say that I am a "liberal" or whatever one wants to call a person with an open mind, willing to listen and evaluate what other say.
True debate comes not from espousing one's beliefs, prejudices, assumptions, and not listening to others, but in weighing all that one reads, whatever "facts" or information is available. I guess the old monks "brainwashed" me into learning to think for myself.
It may surprise you, but "liberals" even have debates among themselves.
@wally
WELL SPOKEN!!
Ken and Wally. Best posts
Ken and Wally.
Best posts I've read in a LONG LONG time on here.
I don't care where you land with your personal opinions but I promise you will be even more sound in your opinions if you look at multiple sides on an issue. And you'll sound smarter.
Liberal
Conservative
Independent
I propose a new one,
Sheep. Doesn't matter which side or where you fall, if you only repeat things others have said and only listen and read things you agree with, this is where you belong.
Oh wally - where to start
Oh wally - where to start with you?
You always slam me for my opinions and convictions then you go on expousing how open-minded you are. I'm confused.
And because a monk had you read Marx's works and dissect them in your mind, doesn't make your opinions right or wrong. Same thing could happen with the Bible. I'm not sure where the open mindedness comes in.
Maybe I've missed it, but I've never seen you "evaluate" anything I've said. There's never any discussion - just ridicule and then you threaten to ignore me. And I would disagree with your definition of "true debate". Seldom does a person start at a neutral position - they have some sort of opinion. I see debates as trying to bring people over to your way of thinking through all sorts of tactics (moral of course).
Is my feeling right that I would have been a hated student of yours?!
As far as calling yourself a liberal. You may think it means having an "open mind" however American liberals certainly have an agenda and to call yourself one, you're going to have to buy what they're selling. Is that good with you? For those of us on the outside looking in, liberals are anything but open minded.
And your assertion that monks are conservative - don't be so sure. Same with nuns. Many are not living up to their vows...
@stu - so the squishy middle
@stu - so the squishy middle is the best?
That way you can straddle the political aisle (kinda like a Murkowski?).
In my opinion, it's much better to pick a side and stand up for your convictions. Otherwise you're going to get squished...
Calypso, surprisingly I agree
I don't "always slam you for your opinions" Perhaps if you read all my comments on your comments, you might find that at times I have agreed with you.
I don't "dissect things in my mind" I read, study and evaluate them as best I can and did the same through four years of studying the Bible and theology.
As a liberal, I don't have to "buy what others are selling" as you propose. Perhaps that's what makes "liberals" threatening to others. I am a careful shopper.
I have never "hated" students. I have been disappointed or disillusioned by them at times, but I think those who have been my students (you don't have to take my word for it) have said that I have been fair. Beyond that many former students have become my respected friends and taught me a lot both in class and later in life.
To me you are not an "outsider looking in" but someone I might be able to carry on a good conversation if you would ever like to do that. Hey ! You might even convince me I am wrong at times - several students I have had have done that.
There is a difference as you and many others can see. I don't hide behind a code name. You may do so and I respect the Juneau Empire for allowing you to do so. I just admit who I am and if people want to contact me they can easily get my telephone number and e mail address. As a "liberal" I have nothing to fear if people do not agree with me.
Calypso
You regularly like to respond. But at the present time, your silence resounds among those who might like to read your response to what I wrote.
The reason I'm in the middle
The reason I'm in the middle is because I support different issues to varying degrees that fall on both sides of the line.
I don't need to pick a side to stand by my convictions because no one out there agrees with me 100%. I decide what I believe and support. If either side actually wanted to work what's best for this country out, I'd throw my vote more that way. All I see in politics are a bunch of children that can't agree on anything. No morals, no direction other then power. I do get it, to make change you need control. But in the process of gaining control and power, they are ALL pissing our money and time away.
anonymity
While there are inherent opportunities for abuse in expressing one's opinion behind a 'pen' name said abuse would probably occur anyway with many who prefer the 'poison pen' approach, which is often the last refuge for a failed argument. What I see often in this forum is the speed in which the opinionated responds. Personally, the 'messenger' does not make the message any more or less credible to me. Delivery, on the other hand, can do a lot to take away from the message.
@wally - I wasn't ignoring
@wally - I wasn't ignoring you - just other duties.
Thank you for helping clarify where you stand.
Clearly we are on different sides of the aisle so let's keep discussing and hashing out the differences. It makes life interesting when there are disagreements.
I can safely say I'll never be a "liberal" (atleast not in the near future) but I'm always ready to poke and prod in hope of swaying others. Although, on this forum it's mostly a project of futility. Put it this way - I'm not preaching to the choir!
Let's get it on - next topic, please!...
@stu - that's why an informed voter is the best voter. We do need to toss a bunch of these career politicians. Ours will never be the perfect system but I'll take it over anything else in the world. Agree?
Got me there.
Got me there.
Feds into our health, education, energy et al
So, the federal govt wants to do everything for us, including healthcare, education, control our energy and protect us from ourselves (TSA). Check this out: http://www.alaskapolicyforum.org/2012/03/obamacare-exchanges-are-a-poor-...
Im curious
@fencesitter I see the link you provided indicates its a think-tank group for those with conservative ideas. If you dont like the Affordable Care Act, then what proposals do you have? The site you link to supports free market. Free market has been the status quo in healthcare and premiums have become so expensive its becoming something unreachable for most Americans. As far as energy, Im also curious, if the group you linked to is really for free market, are they advocating for elimination of the oil subsidies at the Federal level? The site doesnt mention it. Most people get it that conservatives dont like the Affordable Care Act, but what answers or solutions do you have then keeping in mind that the mandate was originally proposed by Republicans in the late 80's. I read alot of comments on how Republicans dont like this or dont like that but I rarely read anyone giving any solutions other than more tax cuts for corporations or the rich which was already done under the Bush Admin & it sure didnt get us very far. I understand you dont like TSA however that program was started under the Bush Adminstration sponsored by Don Young and both are conservatives...so if the group you link to is a conservative think-tank that doesnt like the past actions of Bush and Young, Im curious did you speak out about it back when they were introducing those legislations in 2001? The copyright on the group you link to is 2010 so Im guessing not.
@kiki - our healthcare system
@kiki - our healthcare system in America is anything but free market. With Medicare and Medicaid and the children's programs actually it's already mostly socialized. So it's left up to the people with private insurance to make-up the loses to hospitals and docs with higher premiums.
It's so tiresome to hear the left whine on about 'no solutions from the Republicans'. May I suggest you expand your reading sites on the internet or change channels on your tv because there are lots of solutions being proposed. It just so happens that right now the Republicans only control half of 1/3 of the government. Kinda hard to get anything done. By the way, the 80's were a long time ago - the right has changed their minds on mandates now.
Not sure what "oil subsidies" you're talking about. The oil industry follows the current tax code as written, like a lot of other industries.
Read more here -
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/about_those_oil_subsidies.html
I don't think the TSA is at the top of any conservatives list presently. I do remember the left practically having a heart attack over the Patriot Act under Bush then Obama doubled down on some provisions and extended it and strangely it's crickets from the progressives now. Big hypocrisy?
Here, this will put a damper on your evening - under Obama our debt has increased by $5T in just 39 months. Under Bush it increased $4T in 8 years. Presently every citizen counted in the last census owes $48,700 to cover that debt. Manufacturing output is down 0.2% (corrected) and housing starts are down 5%. New jobless claims were 386,000 last week...
Calypso says: "our healthcare
Calypso says: "our healthcare system in America is anything but free market. With Medicare and Medicaid and the children's programs actually it's already mostly socialized. So it's left up to the people with private insurance to make-up the loses to hospitals and docs with higher premiums."
The people covered under Medicare and Medicaid are high-risk, the old and the poor. Were they on insurance, they'd likely receive more money in the form of healthcare than they'd pay into the system. This would INCREASE private insurance costs, not decrease them.
Furthermore, why don't you mention some of these fabled Republican proposals? I certainly haven't heard any (other than the same BS they suggest for every problem: cut taxes! Reduce government! Deport brown people! Blah blah!). I'm betting you won't, because you can't. There aren't any, other than the aforementioned talking points that are all factually at odds with reality.
p, quit ranting. Have you
p, quit ranting. Have you ever heard of the Ryan Plan? Google it and read it. He's got solutions for Medicaid and Medicare. Remember the government only reimburses docs and hospitals between 80 and 90 cents on the dollar for the "socialized" plans. Somebody's got to make up the difference - like private healthcare patients.
One idea with Medicare and Medicaid is for the government to give vouchers and let people shop.
From CATO -
"That's why, as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) proposes, Congress should give each senior a fixed voucher to purchase their medical care. Poorer and sicker seniors would get larger vouchers. But the key is that seniors would keep whatever money they save. Only then can Congress reduce Medicare spending, as both Republicans and Democrats propose, while protecting seniors from government rationing."
Other ideas - allow private insurance to be bought across state lines, have health savings accounts that can be carried over year to year and TORT reform (I know you know about this because you argued it wouldn't make any difference).
Read some more ideas here -
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/best-worst-health-care-refor...
Let me know if you have trouble with understanding your reading assignment - I'll be here to help!!
sigh...
@Calypso, so you dont believe that people without health insurance getting treated at emergency rooms and not being able to pay that bill has anything to do with the rest having to pay higher premiums?
As far as the debt goes, I found this article to be informative, and yes, unlike the sites you link to, this one happens to be pretty middle of the road. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/
And if you didnt know that oil companies were receiving subsidies from the Federal government, here's a good link. Heck, even Christian Science Monitor knows about the oil subsidies.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0309/Budget-hawks-Does-US-nee...
Reuters said while the housing starts in March are down, future construction permits rose to their highest level in 3 1/2 years. They actually feel the market is trying to find its bottom which is a good sign. And on manufacturing output, everywhere I read says for March it fell 0.2% which is not 2.0% as you said. Reuters says manufacturing overall rose at a 10.4 percent rate for the quarter, the largest gain since the second quarter of 2010.
If you want to learn more about the recovery, Reuters has a lot of good information, but I suspect you are hooked on the paranoid rants that American Thinker offers. Hey, whatever blows your hair back.
I stand corrected - 0.2% is
I stand corrected - 0.2% is right.
A case of semantics with "subsidies" vs tax deductions -
"Oil industry tax deductions cover costs incurred in exploration, drilling, production, transportation and refining. They aren’t subsidies or special tax breaks. They are essentially the same deductions claimed by all manufacturers, in conducting their business under our complex tax code. They ensure that businesses recover their costs and get taxed only on net income, in the process of making essential products."
"Between 1981 and 2008, the largest consolidated oil companies (“Big Oil”) alone paid $1.95 trillion in severance, property, excise, sales and corporate income taxes, the Tax Foundation reports."
Cutting the billions of dollars of "subsidies" to ethanol and wind and solar ventures would be a much smarter idea. Remind me again what the tax revenue was from Solyndra.
"Manufacturing slowdowns mean fewer new hires; fewer new hires means lower demand for home purchases, which leads to fewer housing starts, and all of that gets reflected in the purchase mortgage application statistics which were down 11% last week."
There are lots of ways to spin the numbers - that is if we can even believe the numbers...
@ Calypso
We need fair access to insurance and someone needs to keep an eye on the industry so they don't abuse their power.
"Have you ever heard of the Ryan Plan?"
I'll read it as you suggest but you should know that everyone isn't exactly on board...Today's headlines.....Bishops: Rep. Ryan's Budget Plan Fails to Meet Moral Criteria
now why would they feel that way? Could it be because once again the wealthy are favored with tax cuts while the poor are punished with skyrocketing prices for basic needs?
Break out the leaches cause it's the only health care most of us can afford and the insurance industry is to blame.
"House Speaker John Boehner
"House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) chastised Catholic bishops at a Wednesday news conference on Capitol Hill, saying they needed to look at the bigger picture after they complained that the GOP budget plan fails to meet "moral criteria."
"I want them to take a bigger look," Boehner said. "And the bigger look is, if we don't make decisions, these programs won't exist, and then they'll really have something to worry about."
The Catholic Church leadership finds itself between a rock and a hard place on lots of social issues. Many Bishops and nuns have wandered away from the church's teachings and are in fact going against Church doctrine.
Like this -
"WASHINGTON, April 18, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has launched a 5-year reform of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), the association of the leaders of congregations of Catholic women religious in the United States representing more than 80 percent of the 57,000 women religious (nuns) in the country.
Based on a 2008 investigation into the nuns, the Vatican evaluation was candid, noting, “The current doctrinal and pastoral situation of the LCWR is grave and a matter of serious concern.”
The CDF doctrinal assessment, released today, criticized positions espoused at LCWR annual assemblies and in its literature as well as the absence of support from LCWR for Church teaching on pro-life issues, women’s ordination and homosexuality."
So I'm not surprised that there's a group of bishops that are screaming about class warfare.
I wonder how this same group feels about the government prying into Catholic Charities and their practices and actually causing many of the charities' offices to close rather than bow to the nanny state?
It's all so confusing...
@Calypso: I have heard of the
@Calypso: I have heard of the Ryan Plan. You'll note in my previous post I said Republicans have no other plans than reducing taxes and "limiting" government (except when it comes to your private life, of course). The Ryan Plan cuts taxes and services and actually raises the deficit. You should read Krugman's review of it. He's an actual economist, you know. With a Nobel prize. Probably knows a thing or two.
Krugman? - Ick...and he has a
Krugman? - Ick...and he has a Nobel prize? Well, so does Obama...
So let's just not do anything, oh, except raise taxes on the "rich".
p, you're like a broken record. I'm going to start calling you the party of "no".
How is it that progressives can just ignore history? Lowering tax rates leads to increased government revenue. America doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.
Ideology is the elephant in the room - the poor, the poor, the poor. What will they ever do? Maybe if the unemployment rate, thanks to the government, wasn't at 15+%, the "poor" could actually work and make their own way through life. But then they couldn't be used as tools by the left to further the ideology.
Hey, it's one big, giant circle...and a way we go!
How's Greece looking about now because that's where we're headed.
Thanks for this post,
Thanks for this post, Calypso. I sometimes forget you're a troll. But then you go and mention Voodoo economics with as serious a face as you can muster and I remember this important fact.