States Enforcement of ObamaCare

Mitch Daniels, current governor of Indiana, wrote an editorial this week in the Wall Street Journal entitled An ObamaCare Appeal From the States.

Daniels, a Republican, wrote of several things he would like to have changed in the new health care legislation, suggesting that, without state participation in key areas, the federal government will founder.

For example, he noted that the government, in the absence of a "majority of states" participating, was unable to effectively create health care insurance exchanges for "high-cost, existing conditions." HHS had to do it. Daniels wrote,

"it went poorly, with costs far above predictions and only a tiny fraction of the expected population signing up."

So Daniels theorizes that, if enough states band together to refuse to help the federal government operate and enforce the new law, it simply won't happen. In a sentiment reminiscent of statements on Fox News of former Judge Andrew Napolitano, Daniels notes that the law simply assumed that the states would carry out the federal government's directives for free.

Daniels' editorial suggests to HHS that Indiana will only participate if the federal agency gets independent estimates of the administrative costs and agrees to fully reimburse his state for said costs.

It brings to bear an interesting point, i.e., can the federal government simply require states to spend money to comply with all of the costly provisions of legislation like ObamaCare?