South Carolina bill would make it a crime to implement ObamaCare

page: 1
9

log in

join

posted on May, 3 2013 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Looks like the state I reside in has decided that they don't want ObamaCare here:



The bill, approved Wednesday by a vote of 65-39, declares President Obama's signature legislation "null and void." Whereas the law that Obama pushed and Congress passed is known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, South Carolina's law would be known as the Freedom of Health Care Protection Act. It would prohibit state officials and employees from "enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws" and "establish criminal penalties and civil liability" for those who engage in activities that aid the implementation of ObamaCare. Read more: www.foxnews.com...


Link

All that is needed now is Nikki Haley's (the state governor) signature to pass it into state law.

I do wonder what affect this will have down the road on larger businesses that operate out of state, the big retail companies such as Walmart, Target, etc.

Personally with my VA health benefits that I have, and my wife's insurance that she already had, I wasn't too worried about being "fined" or "taxed" for lack of having insurance.

On the other hand, this is very interesting to me to see states standing up to the federal government, watching history unfold as it were.

Thoughts on this development?




posted on May, 3 2013 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Welcome to the growing club, South Carolina. Missouri passed this into a State Constitutional Amendment over the 2012 election by a powerful majority, going by today's standards. Obama has also said, naming Missouri specifically among those he was talking about, the Feds will disregard our State Constitution as it now sits amended and set up the Federal Exchange to operate in our state whether we like it or not.

I think the pushing will come to HARD shoving by sheer legal necessity the moment that happens. It's not a mere law when it's a properly passed Amendment. It can be bypassed only 2 ways, as I understand the reading of it here. The Statehouse must overwhelmingly agree...or the people have to have another referendum to approve whatever would be implemented.

Neither of those things are likely to happen before he plans to ram it down our throats ....so when people talk about the irresistible force meeting the immovable object? It won't be guns. That's fuzzy. This is rock solid in every way....and can't end without a legal fight royal, at the very least.

Like I said.. Welcome to the club. Or should I say, Welcome to the ring? It'll be quite a fight I'm thinking.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


My state of SC has always been a bit of a "wild child" of the US.

It was the first state to secede from the union and the first state to have shots fired and start the civil war (Fort Sumter).
However, the state paid dearly for all that. It was not until after WW2 that SC was considered fully "recovered" from the civil war.

I can tell you having lived here since 1989, that the people of SC tend to be very much for "State's Rights" still, and a lot less for federal control of anything.

Still, the state has been proud to sponsor the US military here. Places like the naval base down in Charleston that home ported Teddy Roosevelt's Great White Fleet, and then later into modern times before the base was shut down (I was stationed there). The people here have always been supporters of US Veterans



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 

Well, last I had bothered to check, Missouri was among a half dozen or more to have done this by Amendment or Law...whichever each state chose as their way of Opting out with prejudiced, so to speak.

I imagine if you're the first to "fire shots" in the coming battle over this, we'll be happy to help you out this time, as well. I'll bet Missouri isn't even a divided state as it was in Part 1.
(We can let Kansas have Kansas City and St Louis always was more Illinois than Missouri anyway..lol)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Don't forget Ft Jackson, where I did Army Basic, or Parris Island, home of Marine BCT



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Plus there's Shaw AFB in the Low Country, and McEntire AFB, home the SCNG, in the Midlands. If shots are fired, Donaldson AFB, now inactive as a US AFB, but active still as a landing field could be revamped in the Upstate.

Palmetto gal myself. The possibility of a second secession has been topic of conversation many a time around my supper table.

Oh, wait...for the benefit of the alphabet agencies, CISPA, and well intentioned persons with fingers hovering over the Concerned Citizens tip line...

I love my government. I love my POTUS. RAH...RAH...RAH... Go Team USA!



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
good reason for moving to SC - nice.
you other states listening?
i'd sooner move than join.
let me be blunt - gubbers (as in gubberment) in the east you are a bunch of thugs and have no interest in representation - well not the socalled leaders and czars.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Obama has also said, naming Missouri specifically among those he was talking about, the Feds will disregard our State Constitution as it now sits amended and set up the Federal Exchange to operate in our state whether we like it or not.



Care to run that by me again - are you saying Obama has declared the state constitution of Missouri null and void? Help me understand this better because if thats what he's done, i bet thats unconstitutional. Another reason to impeach the slob LOL.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 

Sure thing... It takes a bit of digging and backtracking because it was seriously downplayed almost immediately, causing MSM to kinda "miss" the story. The letters my state and others received weren't supposed to be the feature of press releases, it would seem.

Well, they shouldn't have sent them.


But the feds will be overseeing the health care law in Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming after those states told HHS they couldn’t or wouldn’t implement the new rules.

“We are enforcing because Oklahoma notified … that it has not enacted legislation to enforce or that it is otherwise not enforcing the Affordable Care Act market reform provisions,” Gary Cohen, director of the federal Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, wrote to the Oklahoma Insurance Department on Friday. Officials in Missouri, Texas and Wyoming received similar letters, an agency spokeswoman said.
Source

Keep in mind, the Missouri Department of Revenue has already been busted hard with their paw in the Federal cookie jar, implementing the Real ID act, despite state law prohibiting them from doing that very thing. It's a mess...and in that case, DHS was sending the equipment and grants through the backdoor, apparently hoping no one would notice. Ooops... We did. Or, I should say a few sharp eyed people did and made a state case about it in Jefferson City not too long ago.

It seems that 10th amendment stuff is just a guideline to him. A guideline he figures he can write himself a waiver for. Ummm.. No.. It's not.
edit on 3-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I think there was something similiar going on with the RealID thing here in SC.

I know SC was refusing to implement it, and there were so bills drafted.

I'll have to dig and see what is going on with that.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


This only pertains the the Texas mention in your quote, but the only thing Texas is doing is choosing not to set up their own state run exchanges. That does not mean that the State of Texas is not participating at all. Just means the state is letting the feds set up and run the exchanges for Texas.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


It is a shame that a quote like this gets applause at CPAC


"Not in South Carolina," Haley declared at the Conservative Political Action Conference in March. "We will not expand Medicaid on President Obama's watch. We will not expand Medicaid ever."


They are applauding not helping poor people get medical coverage. It's just sad.


Anyway, the bill does nothing...the state wouldn't be "enforcing" Obamacare anyway...the feds do. And the State can't stop the Feds from enforcing a federal law.

If South Carolina chooses not to participate, then they give control over their citizens healthcare over to the Federal Government...now the Federal Government will be responsible for setting up their state health insurance exchange.

This won't exclude or exempt South Carolinians from Obamacare...it just gives the Feds more control over the options they have...ironic, huh?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Welcome to the growing club, South Carolina. Missouri passed this into a State Constitutional Amendment over the 2012 election by a powerful majority, going by today's standards. Obama has also said, naming Missouri specifically among those he was talking about, the Feds will disregard our State Constitution as it now sits amended and set up the Federal Exchange to operate in our state whether we like it or not.

I think the pushing will come to HARD shoving by sheer legal necessity the moment that happens. It's not a mere law when it's a properly passed Amendment. It can be bypassed only 2 ways, as I understand the reading of it here. The Statehouse must overwhelmingly agree...or the people have to have another referendum to approve whatever would be implemented.

Neither of those things are likely to happen before he plans to ram it down our throats ....so when people talk about the irresistible force meeting the immovable object? It won't be guns. That's fuzzy. This is rock solid in every way....and can't end without a legal fight royal, at the very least.

Like I said.. Welcome to the club. Or should I say, Welcome to the ring? It'll be quite a fight I'm thinking.


I am not entirely sure that the war to repeal based on Constitutional grounds is over yet. The act clearly violates the origination clause of the Constitution because of the tax ruling by the Supreme Court. I know that they used
a bill that originated in the house, gutted it completely, called it something else and that is what became Obamacare but I don't think the validity of that action will hold up under legal scrutiny.

A lot of people thought the Supreme Court bowed down to Obama in their ruling but I personally believe they set it up to be struck down on another avenue by using a very clever tax ruling and in doing so brought Obamacare into direct conflict with Constitutional authority on how laws regarding taxes are drafted in Congress.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 

I do hope you're right on the idea that federal ruin to this thing will still be possible before it brings ruin to what was, at one time recently, among the finest medical system in the world. World leaders came HERE for their medical care and often, to include routine work, not just specialized care. Now? Well.. I hope you're right and there is time to reach the Super Court on the time frames they are working with. If not? I'd say the ultimate fight comes when it hits the states who have outright said no.

Missouri not only made it illegal to participate in any Exchange system with regard to the 2009 ACA, it prohibited by state law, any penalty assessed by anyone, in or out of the state, against a resident OF our state for failure to comply with terms of it.

In other words, under Missouri law, as passed by over 60% of our state's voters? Obama has the Great Wall of Reality, even he can't just wish away on this one.





new topics
top topics
 
9

log in

join