Sam Hall’s recent op-ed/blog gives Commissioner of Insurance Mike Chaney’s side of the story on why Chaney wanted a state-based health exchange. But it’s a story that doesn’t fit the facts.
Here are five clarifications.
First, when opponents of a state-based exchange argue a state exchange would allow for more federal intrusion, what they mean is helping the federal government set up any kind of exchange will only lend a stamp of approval to a health care agenda controlled by Washington. In addition, the law indicates penalties against Mississippi businesses cannot be imposed in a federal exchange. Once a majority of states decided against setting up an exchange, the Obama administration instructed the IRS to impose the penalties anyway — an illegal move prompting multiple lawsuits but one underlining who is clearly in charge.