Greenbeard
Gold Member
The schism on the right about how to approach Obamacare continues. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a longtime critic of Obamacare and former CBO director for a previous GOP Congress, weighs in today with his suggestion in "Yes to Exchanges." He pulls out some of the right's greatest rhetorical hits from the past three years to warn that the tack some Republicans have taken on the state level is unintentionally embracing a "single-payer Trojan horse."
The alternative, if states decline to design and operate their own exchanges, is a federally-facilitated exchange--an option several conservative governors have already chosen. Holtz-Eakin doesn't like this one bit:
This is spicy stuff!
I have to say, watching the debate on the right about what to do now is fascinating.
If states fail to establish their own exchanges by December 15, the law says the federal government will step in and establish the exchanges for them. Already 18 states have decided to leave their exchanges to the federal government, choosing a slippery slope toward precisely what liberal Democrats want: a federally controlled health-care system that would be the first step toward European-style, single-payer health care.
Conservatives have an obligation to keep this from happening. Setting up state-based exchanges is an important piece of defense.
Under Obamacare, health-insurance exchanges new, state-based markets for buying health insurance must be up and running in every state by January 1, 2014. States that establish their own exchanges will design them and decide how they will function. States can take steps to keep exchange costs low, respond locally to consumer questions and concerns, and make sure that consumers have many health-insurance products to choose from.
States can, and should, control their destinies by deciding how their exchanges will function, which private insurance companies can participate, and what kind of insurance coverage will be offered. They should use their political leverage the administration desperately wants them to sign on to Medicaid expansions to pare back the regulations and unrealistic timetables that would govern a state exchange. This is the kind of local decision-making that works best for businesses, workers, and taxpayers.
The alternative, if states decline to design and operate their own exchanges, is a federally-facilitated exchange--an option several conservative governors have already chosen. Holtz-Eakin doesn't like this one bit:
This would truly be a Washington takeover of health care. And if conservatives allow it to happen, they will be consenting to an unprecedented and potentially irreversible intrusion into states economies and health-care systems. It would give single-payer advocates a foothold across many states.
In fact, federal fallback exchanges are the single-payer Trojan horse hidden in Obamacare. Conservatives must not allow themselves to be outfoxed and overrun.
This is spicy stuff!
I have to say, watching the debate on the right about what to do now is fascinating.