May state legislative applications limit an Article V convention? Subject, yes; specific language, probably not
- September 12, 2013
For some prominent pundits, tax-funded vouchers for “private” insurance are OK when a Democrat proposes it, but not OK when a Republican does.
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 MOREGovernment-run exchanges “are just the next layer [of political meddling in health care]: a government solution to government problems. But it’s worse than déjà vu. Exchanges are likely to exacerbate the problem of political distortion.”
READ MOREColorado Senate Bill 11-200 advances to the state Senate without the provision that “would nullify the bill unless the state is allowed to opt out of the federal Affordable Care Act,” reports the Denver Business Journal
READ MOREThe Denver Post has quoted Colo. state rep Amy Stephens as saying that “Most people viewed exchanges as the most free-market part of Obamacare.” But viewing state-run exchanges as somehow free-market is also wrong because privately-run exchanges already exist.
READ MORE