May state legislative applications limit an Article V convention? Subject, yes; specific language, probably not
- September 12, 2013
Establishing state-level government-run insurance exchanges “offers no protection against future decisions by the federal bureaucracy, collaborates with an unconstitutional framework, and risks undercutting court cases across the country.”
READ MOREThe feds have broad authority over how state legislatures operate nominally “state-run” health insurance exchanges. The exchanges have “police” functions helping the IRS punish the uninsured. They also expand gov’t dependency & power.
READ MOREGov’t-run “exchanges are cogs in the machinery of the federal bill. SB 200 creates increased bureaucracy & the framework for subsidies — costs for most of us — & mandates, while conveniently concentrating the action in a perfect shooting gallery for the same special interests & connected players that drag the current system.” Shawn Mitchell in the Denver Post.
READ MOREOn April 27 the Colorado state Senate passed SB 11-200, which could establish a government-controlled health insurance exchange. Read up on why this is a bad idea.
READ MORE“ObamaCare is unpopular, unwieldy, expensive, arguably unconstitutional, and a prime target for repeal. It requires the states to do much of the federal government’s dirty work. Right now, the federal government is paying states $1 million to plan health insurance exchanges designed limit the kinds of health insurance policies available to state residents.”
READ MOREA state-run insurance exchange in CO cannot defend itself from burdensome federal regulations. Collaboration w/ ObamaCare “confuses the commitment to repeal.” You “do not want …Obama campaigning on Obamacare’s faux flexibility and responsiveness — as would have been demonstrated by bipartisan state legislation to implement it.”
READ MORE