As you probably know, Obamacare permits states to establish health insurance exchanges that will operate as new bureaucracies to oversee the purchase of government-approved insurance. There has been an ongoing debate within conservative circles about whether or not it is best to implement the exchanges now in order to retain some state control or whether states should whole-heartedly fight their implementation. In Arkansas, Republicans have been united & adamant that the exchanges be delayed.
Now a new report has set out to debunk some of the purported benefits of implementing the exchanges.
According to Jonathan Ingram, a health care policy analyst for the Illinois Policy Institute, states electing to create these exchanges must comply with federal rules that will dictate virtually all aspects of the exchanges’ operations.
“If a state chooses to establish an exchange, it will bear the full cost of running it. While a number of people are urging states to immediately create an exchange, the reasons are based on myths, not facts.”
In this report, Ingram responds to those myths.
Myth: If a state does not build an exchange, the federal government will build its own and operate it here in Illinois.
- Fact: Nobody knows what will happen if Illinois refuses to implement an exchange.
- Fact: While Congress supplied funding for the states to set up health insurance exchanges — though not to run them — it did not provide the federal Department of Health and Human Services with the resources necessary to establish a federal exchange in every state that refuses.
Myth: An exchange administered by a state will ensure the state has greater flexibility than if the federal government administers the exchange.
- Fact: Although the state exchange would be run by state officials, the state would have no more freedom or flexibility than under a federally-imposed exchange.
- Fact: Federal rules will dictate virtually all aspects of the exchange’s operation.
Myth: The Supreme Court case only concerns the individual mandate and the exchanges will move forward regardless of the Court’s ruling.
- Fact: The Supreme Court is deciding several issues concerning the ACA, including whether to strike down the entire law.
- Fact: If the Court strikes down the entirety of the law, the money and effort expended to create the exchange will have been wasted.
- Fact: Even if the Court upholds the law — or part of the law — legal challenges to the exchange provisions and their related federal rules are already being prepared.