Sibby Online

Is Daugaard taking stand against ObamaCare? UPDATED!!

[UPDATE: this from the comment section, "the WORST case. 3) Federally Facilitated Exchange...the state partners with the Feds, allowing them to come in the back door while shouting out the front door that we are against ObamaCare. FEDs come in under the State authority and do not have to go to the US Congress for subsidies" If this is what Daugaard is implementing, then it will be even worse than setting up our own exchange. We have to refuse that (the Federal Exchange) too in order to get it kicked back to Congress before the IRS rule discussed below comes into play.]

[UPDATE: The comment left by Lora Hubbel is correct. I found it here:

First, the federal law says each State "shall" establish a health insurance exchange in their State....but Congress CANNOT require states to act. That would be federal commandeering of states which is unconstitutional, as underscored by the Supreme Court ruling on Medicaid. The ACA requires a single federally-run Exchange to be created for use by citizens in states that refuse to install a "state" exchange (website portal). This has also been called a "federally-facilitated" exchange. However, States can refuse to share the data necessary to allow the Federal Exchange to function.

Second, there are no "state" exchanges. Every exchange is a website portal used by the federal government to reach into each state for control over health care and health insurance. The portal is controlled by the federal government through myriad rules and regulations. It is what Texas Governor Rick Perry called one of the "brazen intrusions into the sovereignty of our state"

States say no. State-run exchanges are intended to be complex federally-regulated website portals linked into a National Exchange (see diagram below) -- a highly sophisticated IT infrastructure of data-sharing, financial transfers and federal monitoring and federal regulatory controls installed for the purpose of taking over the health care system in each state. Only 13 states have said yes (Aug 2012). Many states have already said no. Every state should follow their example and just refuse to cooperate, capitulate, or comply.]

I have joined others who believe Governor Daugaard was setting up a state insurance exchange. Daugaard's response was that they were only planning one in case they are required to if ObamaCare stands. Now we know ObamaCare stands, but Daugaard has chosen to not implement a "state" exchange:

Daugaard, along with many other Republican governors, opposed the new law and had hoped it would be repealed if Obama was not re-elected. The new health law's first post-election deadline is Friday, when states must notify the federal Health and Human Services Department whether they will set up an online marketplace for residents and businesses to use in shopping among competing policies. Daugaard announced in September that South Dakota instead will let the federal government operate and pay for the online system, known as an exchange. Coverage is slated to begin in 2014.

So why did Daugaard change his mind and is now letting the federal government set up the exchange? Could it be this:

Those governors that are today considering whether or not to implement a state-run health insurance exchange under the new health care law may hold the fate of Obamacare in their hands.

Under the law, state exchanges would be responsible for dispersing some $800 billion to private insurance companies. There is no question that if governors decide to implement such an exchange, they will be aiding and abetting the implementation of this law.

That is because implementing a state exchange neutralizes the ability of businesses to fight the job-killing employer mandate.

According to a recent study by Case Western Reserve University School of Law’s Jonathan Adler and the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon, “Taxation without representation: The illegal IRS rule to expand tax credits under the PPACA.” a federal exchange that would be implemented in the stead of a state exchanges  “lacks statutory authority” to dispense the insurance subsidies.

In the study, Adler and Cannon make the case that “An Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rule purports to extend these tax credits and subsidies to the purchase of health insurance in federal exchanges created in states without exchanges of their own.”

The problem, according to Adler and Cannon, is that the “text, structure, and history of the Act show that tax credits and subsidies are not available in federally run exchanges. The IRS rule is contrary to congressional intent and cannot be justified on other legal grounds.”

This creates a real problem legally for the Obama Administration in states that a federal exchange is implemented. By not implementing the state exchange, governors such as Rick Perry in Texas or Rick Scott in Florida are effectively giving employers in those states the standing to sue against the new IRS rule.

In other words, it creates an avenue to fight against the implementation of the law. For employers that do not wish to be under Obamcare’s thumb, such a move at least gives them a fighting chance.

But if the exchange is implemented by the states, employers in those states will not have any chance at all to challenge the law.

That angle also may the reason why Daugaard is not following the demands of the South Dakota Corporate Medical Establishment:

Now that President Barack Obama's re-election has cleared the way for the full implementation of his health care law, doctors and hospitals in South Dakota are urging the state to expand its Medicaid program so thousands of additional low-income residents can receive coverage.

But Gov. Dennis Daugaard says any expansion of coverage is unlikely for at least several years while the potential costs are examined.

The South Dakota Association of Health Care Organizations said about 48,000 uninsured residents will be left behind if South Dakota doesn't ease its eligibility requirements for Medicaid, the government health care program for the poor.

"If we're left out of the benefits that can come from the Affordable Care Act, how do we take care of the people of South Dakota who are below the federal poverty level?" said Dr. Rob Allison, of Pierre, president of the South Dakota State Medical Association.

The federal law seeks to reduce the number of uninsured by requiring those who can afford coverage to obtain it. But the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot be required to expand Medicaid to cover more of those who can't afford policies.

Daugaard said he would consider expanding Medicaid after more is known about the impact and how much flexibility the state will have in administering the program.

"You can wait, evaluate your budget situation, see how your economy is going, and see how your Medicaid costs are coming into control," the governor said.

It is now more clear that the real push behind IM15 was the implementation of ObamaCare and ObamaCore (more to come on the education component). South Dakota voters said no to additional state taxes, but how many understood that they may also have complicated the implementation of the ObamaCare/ObamaCore agenda whose purpose is to increase centralized control of citizens from cradle to grave?

Cory Heidelberger debunking so-called "Big Lies" with falsehoods

Cory over at the old Madville Times is trying defend the increase tax on the working poor (IM15) by responding to the point that the increase tax is far more than what was cut in the first place:

I added the fourth column to show what would have happened to the state per-student allocation if we had followed the funding formula in 2011, 2012, and 2013 and increased education funding by 3%. We'd be at $5,251 per student. That would be $760 more than we are spending this year per student.

According to this year's sales tax revenue and K-12 enrollment, Initiated Measure 15 would increase state spending on K-12 education by about $720.

In other words, Initiated Measure 15 restores 95% of the funding that schools should have received if Pierre had not reneged on the K-12 funding formula for three years in row. Under IM15, compared to where they would have been under the the fiscal policies preceding 2011, our K-12 system will still be running short $40 per student, or a touch more than $5 million statewide.

Cory's $5,251 per student amount assumes that the increase for all years should be 3%. That is not the law, it is 3% or the actual rate of inflation, whichever is the lessor. There were no increases to Social Security during the recession because there was no inflation. I agree the amount would be great than the current $4,491, but not $760 more. And even if that was the case, the sales tax currently funds only part of the per student amount. The rest is paid for by local property taxes. I understand the goal is a 50/50 split, but has been closer to 58% state and 42% local. Using 58% the impact would be $55 million (at the most) versus the $90 million increase that the extra tax on the working poor will bring to education.

Again, the state ended 2012 with a $48 million excess and that would have covered the stated aid cut. There is no need for a rate increase. This is all about the major monopolistic hospitals wanting $90 more in state taxes and $180 million more in matched federal dollars so they can do more things like build the Sioux Falls Event Center.

And most of the cuts made in the original 2012 budget went into Medicaid and the Department of Social Services budget in the first place. There was only a $2 million reduction in total general fund spending based on the 2010 actual spending level. There is so much deception, that one can cut it with a knife. Too bad the media will not expose these lies, but they depend too much on advertising revenues from the corporate medical establishment who will benefit if the people of South Dakota don't realize they are being mislead by corrupt corporatists using children as political fodder. That is what happens when you let RINOs run the circus.

Romney and Noem Extend Leads, Fiegen/McGovern Race Tightens, Initiative 15 Opposition Builds

Survey: Nielson Brothers Polling (NBP) Statewide Survey, Oct. 31 - Nov. 4, 2012

Subject: Major South Dakota General Election Races and Ballot Issues

Contact information:  [email protected], 605 496-0911

Website: nielsonbrotherspolling.com

The final Nielson Brothers Polling (NBP) 2012 South Dakota general election survey finds Public Utilities Commission (PUC) candidates Kristie Fiegen and Matt McGovern to be involved in the most competitive statewide race. Also, Initiated Measure 15 (IM 15), which had a comfortable lead in early NBP surveys, falls behind as election day nears. 

In the final NBP tracking survey of likely South Dakota voters, conducted from October 31 to November 4, the race for PUC has tightened again. Democrat McGovern is in a statistical dead heat with Republican incumbent Fiegen (41.9 to 41.6 percent, respectively). Libertarian Russell Clarke receives 6.7 percent of support, with 9.8 percent “undecided.”

Republican candidates have extended their leads in other major races. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney appears poised to win in South Dakota, as he holds a 11.9 percent advantage over Democrat Barack Obama (53.2 to 41.3 percent), with 5.6 percent still “undecided.” Republican Representative Kristi Noem appears headed for reelection to the US House, as she extends her lead to 12.7 percent over Democratic challenger Matt Varilek (53.9 to 41.2 percent) with 4.9 percent “undecided.” In the other race for PUC, incumbent Republican Chris Nelson maintains a large lead over Democrat Nick Nemec 59.2 percent to 27.6 percent, with 13.2 percent “undecided.” NBP also asks whether voters support the Republican or the Democratic state senate candidate in their legislative district. The generic Republican senate candidates hold a 46.7 to 34.7 percent advantage, with 18.6 percent “undecided.”

In evaluating President Obama’s job performance, 45.7 percent of respondents say they approve (26.9 percent “strongly approve,” and 18.8 percent “somewhat approve”). Of the 54.3 percent who disapprove, 43.7 percent “strongly disapprove.” Representative Kristi Noem’s job approval is at 55.4 percent, with 28.7 percent saying they “strongly approve,” and 26.7 percent saying they “somewhat approve.” 44.6 percent disapprove of Noem’s job performance, with 25.8 percent saying they “strongly disapprove.”

As with previous NBP surveys, both Referred Laws 14 and 16 appear to be in danger of falling. Referred Law 14 still struggles to pick up support. 27.6 percent of respondents say they will vote for this law -- which would transfer 22 percent of the contractors’ excise tax from the state's general fund to a Large Project Development Fund. 42.4 percent say they will vote against it, and 30.0 percent of respondents remain “undecided.” Referred Law 16 also trails in support with 28.2 percent of respondents saying they will vote for it, and 53.8 percent planning to vote against it. 18.1 percent of respondents remain “undecided” about RL 16 -- which would establish programs for teacher scholarships and bonuses, standardize teacher and principal evaluations, and eliminate tenure requirements.

Opposition to Initiated Measure 15 (IM 15) continues to build as support weakens. IM 15 has now fallen behind, as 38.9 percent say they will vote for it and 49.0 percent say they will vote against it. 12.1 percent say they are “undecided.” Democratic support for IM 15  -- which raises the state sales tax one percent to bolster education and Medicaid -- decreases in this survey to 48.1 percent, while Democratic opposition climbs to 40.2 percent. Opposition among Republicans (55.1 percent against) and Independents (51.3 percent against) remains strong.

When asked about the direction of South Dakota, 52.5 percent say the state is going in the “right direction.” 28.8 percent say “wrong direction,” and 18.7 percent say they are “undecided.” 61.8 percent of Republicans say “right direction,” compared with 42.5 percent of Democrats answering the same.

“PUC candidates Kristie Fiegen and Matt McGovern appear to be in the most competitive statewide race,” says Paul Nielson, President of Nielson Brothers Polling. “Chances appear to be dimming for Referred Laws 14 and 16, and even Initiated Measure 15 suddenly looks vulnerable,” adds Nielson.

NBP surveyed a random selection of likely South Dakota voters from October 31 through November 4, 2012. The number of responses ranged from 658 (with a 3.82 percent margin of error) for the question on the direction of South Dakota, and 633 (3.90 percent margin of error) for the presidential job approval question, to 558 (4.15 percent margin of error) for the question on RL 16. 

NBP thanks all who responded to our surveys and who showed interest in our work. We look forward to continuing our study of public opinion concerning political and social issues. Interested parties may contact NBP with regard to questions and answers on past and future public surveys. For more information contact [email protected], or call 605 496-0911.