South Carolina Lawmakers take air at Health Care Law

Reuters ^ | January 14, 2014 | Harriet McCleod

[Din Maker]

CHARLESTON, South Carolina (Reuters) - South Carolina lawmakers say they have found a way to stop implementation of the U.S. Affordable Care Act in their state, an effort that could provide a template for other Republican-led legislatures looking to derail the federal program. The proposed measure would ban state agencies from helping carry out President Barack Obama's signature healthcare reform law and prevent federal money flowing through state coffers from being spent on it, said Republican state Senator Tom Davis. The legislation would give South Carolina oversight of insurance rates offered through its federal exchange and require healthcare navigators, which help people sign up for the healthcare benefits, to be licensed by the state, said Davis, who chairs the committee drafting the measure. The state's 2014 legislative session opens on Tuesday. "Even though the federal government may pass a law, and even though that law may be constitutional, that doesn't mean that the federal government can direct the state to spend state dollars to implement it," he said.

[Din Maker]

I hope this is the beginning of many States following suit.

[Din Maker]

It’s supposed to be take “aim”. My bad. Cut me some slack, I’m a newbie.

[TBP]

Excellent! Let’s all play follow the leader.

[basil]

Ping!

Good on SC!

[vpintheak]

Well, snce most states already have programs set up to help the poor get insurance the ACA(ha!) doesn’t make sense in any way shape or form.
A couple simple changes like tort reform and and allowing some pre-existing conditions, would hav ebeen all that was neccessary to “fix this mess”. Insead, we have communism.

[Gamecock]

Ping!

[onedoug]

SC ping....

Until some Federal judge slaps ‘em down. Don’t look for any help from the likes of Roberts on appeal either.

[Red Badger]

Won’t work in the long run. So many federal dollars flow to the states, that the federal government can cut them ALL off for non-compliance to any federal law or edict. Highway funds, FEMA funds, Medicare, Medicaid, Food stamps, EBT, anything that the federal government decides to cut off, to ensure compliance, they will cut.

[morphing libertarian]

The state should counter by not forwarding tax dollars to the feds.

[Red Badger]

And just how does that work?...................

[morphing libertarian]

hell, I don’t know but it sounds good.

[Red Badger]

The states have become so addicted to federal funds since the 60’s that any cut off now would cause them to cry ‘UNCLE’ immediately.......................

[Red Badger]

Never think you’ve seen the last of anything.
Eudora Welty
1909-2001

[Principled]

i’ve kind of wondered that too.

it would me a massive change [needed imo]

All tax dollars go to state FIRST - then the state forwards the fed portion.

I’d dig it.

[arthurus]

I would like to think that one state, SC maybe, could steel its spine sufficiently to get itself through all that. If it did and the FedGov did cut off ALL the fed$ tot he State the State would find itself after a year in a much better position with a LOT more freedom. Most of the rules and restrictions on the States that come from DC would be unConstitutional if passed as laws but are not laws- they are conditions for accepting that federal money. If the money were not accepted, for most of it the State would find it costs them less of their own money. The States have got themselves in a mindset that they must accept federal money no matter what and wind up doing things with that money that no one wanted to do in the first place and the money isn't free because the State must put up matching funds to get it and winds up spending more money than if they had not accepted the Federal money on a project they didn't want or need.

School lunches is the glaringly visible example. With that simple program the states find themselves spending more state money than they would have spent for many rules and changes that take education away from the states, degrade education and produce NOTHING useful at all.

[Red Badger]

The Constitution prohibits the direct taxation of states.................

[Red Badger]

ALL the states are in competition with each other for federal money. What is not given to SC would be quickly divvied up by the other states thru their reps and Senators. They become like drug starved junkies getting their next fix...................

[Publius]

The Constitution prohibits the direct taxation of states...

Not true. The Constitution permits the federal government to dun the states for a share of federal revenue based on population. However, this was not used because the courts ruled during the first half of the 19th Century that there was no enforcement mechanism. Thus the federal government used excises and imposts instead. Then the 16th Amendment changed everything by permitting the federal government to tax people directly.

[Principled]

i just mean they act as middle man/tax collector. So the feds would not be taxing states - they’d be taxing individuals.

Such individuals, for convenience, would just send one check. State keeps their part and sends the fed portion on. Or withholds it in escrow until 0bamacare is repealed...

;)

I can dream man, I can dream!

[Logical me]

Sounds great. Hope other States follow suit.