The DCRP's statement on the issue is that beginning to implement part of obamacare "just in case" is NOT the answer. Other organizations such as Americans for Prosperity and The Platte Institute for Economic Research agree.
excerpts from my dcrp post:
Heritage Foundation scholar Ed Haislmaier warns that, "States should refuse to create any type of ObamaCare-compliant Exchange and send back all federal ObamaCare grants."
There should be discussion on how best to go about preventing/limiting the effects of obamacare on Nebraska if the Supreme Court rules the wrong way. As far as we know, this discussion currently is NOT taking place and we simply would like to encourage it, as opposed to beginning implementation of obamacare before the Supreme Court has even ruled on the case.
Nebraska is not the only state refusing to implement these health exchanges before the Supreme Court rules on the matter.
Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty signed Executive Order 10-12 in August 2010 that prohibited all executive department and state agency participation in federal health reform unless required by law or directed by the governor’s office. Florida Governor Rick Scott decided to wait for a Supreme Court ruling before continuing with implementation. Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell currently is planning not to comply with law after the Florida court ruling that PPACA is unconstitutional. Add Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to the list as well!
As Peter Suderman of the blog "reason.com" points out, "States whose legislators oppose last year's health care law have a number of reasons to refuse to participate in implementing its requirements, particularly when it comes to the exchanges. Refusing to play ball with the federal government ensures that the federal government will have to take responsibility for the complex details of the law's implementation. Given that Missouri's residents voted overwhelmingly last year to reject one of ObamaCare's key features, the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, it's clear enough where the state's voters stand. Finally, there's the constitutional question: Shouldn't states currently challenging the law's constitutionality—like Missouri—steer clear of implementing it?"
So where should the discussion start on how to go about opposing the implementation of obamacare?
Do we start with the example of Texas and affirm Nebraska's Sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, designating that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed?
We could join 16 other states that have considered measures to create an "Interstate Freedom Compact," joining forces across state lines to coordinate or enforce opposition; four states now have enacted laws. We could encourage participation in the compact from all 27 states currently challenging obamacare in court.
We could take a lesson from Catholic Bishops and refuse to enact a law that oversteps federal boundaries, challenging the President to flex his muscles and battle a majority of the Union. Several states considered bills that propose the power of "nullification," seeking to label the federal law "null and void" within the state boundaries.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, "In response to the federal health reform law, now known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and separate state reform initiatives, some members of at least 45 state legislatures have proposed legislation to limit, alter or oppose selected state or federal actions. In general many of the opposing measures, in 2010 and 2011 focus on not permitting, implementing or enforcing mandates (federal or state) that would require purchase of insurance by individuals or by employers and impose fines or penalties for those who fail to do so. The seek to keep in-state health insurance optional, and instead allow people to purchase any type of health services or coverage they may choose. They also contradict or challenge specific policy provisions contained in the 2010 federal law."
There are plenty of other options discussed here.
And that's what this is all about…to get discussion rolling rather than throwing up the white flag!!! Let's take the lead!!!