The Corner

States Should Absolutely Refuse to Set Up Obamacare Exchanges

Proponents of Obamacare are making one argument that some conservatives may find appealing — namely that it is much better, from a states’ rights point of view, to set up state-based exchanges than to let the feds come in and do it themselves. This argument is absolutely wrong. Allowing your states to be deputized as instruments of federal policy is just as bad as bowing to federal commandeering of state agencies, which is unconstitutional. 

Let’s begin with the principle that the federal government is not allowed to command states or their officials to do anything. That was settled in the two modern commandeering cases, New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997). The federal government has gotten around that through a variety of schemes under the general category of “cooperative federalism.” The Supreme Court has generally taken a permissive attitude of these schemes, only because the states supposedly retain freedom of choice, “both in theory and in fact.” But it is increasingly clear that their choice is not really free, because they are penalized if they don’t comply with the federal program. 

This problem is clear with programs like Medicaid: The feds tax money away from the states (or they borrow it from the capital markets) and then offer to give it back to the states on condition that they comply with federal preferences. In the Obamacare decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the feds can’t present states with the “loaded gun” of losing existing Medicaid funds if they don’t comply with the Medicaid expansion requirements. But states still lose the money Obamacare “offers” for the Medicaid expansion itself, hence there is still a draconian penalty.

With the exchanges, there is also federal conditional “aid” in play, but the real penalty the states face if they don’t bow to the will of Obamacare is that the feds will come in and take over the health-care market. But it’s much easier for the feds to do that in a handful of states than for them to do it in most of the states. Feds might not be able to do it in a large number of states without asking Congress for more money or for amendments to the law. That would strengthen the position of the House of Representatives, and its GOP majority.

State governors should be under no illusions: You are not preserving one iota of state autonomy by setting up your own Obamacare exchange. On the contrary, you are letting the feds deputize you as instruments of federal policy. Let the feds set up the exchanges themselves; they can pay for them and be accountable for the results. That will impose a real limit on federal power, and provide leverage for rolling back some of Obamacare. In the meantime the message of state governments to the Department of Health and Human Services should be an absolute and unequivocal “NO.” 

Mario Loyola — Contributing editor Mario Loyola is senior fellow and Director of the Center for Competitive Federalism at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. He began his career in corporate ...

Most Popular

Film & TV

Why We Can’t Have Wakanda

SPOILERS AHEAD Black Panther is a really good movie that lives up to the hype in just about every way. Surely someone at Marvel Studios had an early doubt, reading the script and thinking: “Wait, we’re going to have hundreds of African warriors in brightly colored tribal garb, using ancient weapons, ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More