Bill Text: IN SCR0005 | 2012 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Health Insurance Exchanges - Federal Funding (ALEC Resolution).
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 1-0)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2012-01-04 - First reading: referred to Committee on Health and Provider Services [SCR0005 Detail]
Download: Indiana-2012-SCR0005-Introduced.html
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION urging Congress to defund planning grants for state insurance exchanges under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
January 4, 2012, read first time and referred to Committee on Health and Provider
Services.
RESOLUTION No. 5
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION urging Congress to defund
planning grants for state insurance exchanges under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Whereas, The federal government has enacted the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) ostensibly for
the purpose of making health insurance more affordable for
American citizens;
Whereas, PPACA includes a provision requiring the
creation of health insurance exchanges (exchanges) in each
state; at the exchanges, only health insurance policies that
meet certain requirements determined by the federal
government may be bought and sold;
Whereas, Exchanges may be established by each state only
subject to approval by appointed federal officials;
Whereas, If a state does not establish an exchange,
appointed federal officials will establish one in that state;
Whereas, State created PPACA exchanges put states in the
position of ceding their resources and sovereignty to the
service of the federal government, sacrificing their ability to
flexibly serve their own citizens;
Whereas, 26 states are suing to have PPACA struck down partly due to the arguable unconstitutionality of the individual mandate, and briefs submitted by the federal government in Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services make clear that exchanges are a key part of
the individual mandate;
Whereas, The United States Supreme Court states, in part,
in its recent ruling in Bond v. United States, "Federalism
secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States to
respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the
initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of
their own times without having to rely solely upon the
political processes that control a remote central power,"
effectively instructing state leaders that they share in the
responsibility to preserve liberty;
Whereas, Judge Vinson, in his order of March 3, 2011,
staying his original decision in Florida v. U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services striking down the PPACA as
unconstitutional, stated in footnote 7 that "the severity of that
injury [from the PPACA] is undercut by the fact that at least
eight of the plaintiff states have represented that they will
continue to implement and fully comply with the Act's
requirements, in an abundance of caution while this case is
on appeal, irrespective of my ruling," clearly implying that
as states continue to plan exchanges in preparation for
PPACA implementation, the perceived harm to states is
reduced, making it less likely the PPACA will ultimately be
declared unconstitutional;
Whereas, The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services recently released 70 pages of new rules regarding
exchanges that required 172 pages to summarize and clarify,
including numerous references to future rulemaking,
bringing into question the idea that states have significant
flexibility in the establishment of exchanges;
Whereas, If the PPACA is struck down, states planning
PPACA exchanges will have participated in wasting millions
of dollars of taxpayer funds in planning defunct exchanges;
Whereas, Despite claims by some that states can create PPACA compliant exchanges that enjoy the benefits of market forces, these exchanges would be completely artificial devices offering insurance products regulated in their essential characteristics by the federal government, making
exchanges anything but free markets;
Whereas, PPACA health insurance exchanges will continue
to be subject to the arbitrary whims of the federal
bureaucracy which, having extensive ongoing rulemaking
authority, can render any plan for a state exchange today, no
matter how rational and well-designed, obsolete, and
irrelevant at a later date;
Whereas, The PPACA does not clearly and unequivocally
preempt state law, containing only a vague provision that
seems to say that federal law does not preempt state laws
preserving free enterprise health care systems; however, the
establishment of exchanges necessitates that state laws
conform to PPACA, and states establishing exchanges will
actively participate in the preemption of their own laws;
Whereas, There is no penalty for a state in allowing the
federal government to implement an exchange, and doing so
puts federal officials in the position of asking a state for
permission to operate an exchange rather than states
supplicating to appointed federal officials; and
Whereas, States can, and should, develop and implement
their own state-based health reform solutions that are
tailored to the targeted needs of their citizens without the
mandates within PPACA: Therefore,
SECTION 1. That the Indiana General Assembly believes it is not in the best interest of Indiana for any state official to participate in planning or establishing health insurance exchanges as provided for in the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
SECTION 2. That the Indiana General Assembly urges Congress to defund planning grants to states for the establishment of PPACA health insurance exchanges by the states.
SECTION 3. That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the Secretary of the Senate to the President of the United States, the appropriate leadership of the United States Congress and the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and all the members of the Indiana Congressional delegation.
