Posted on 04/23/2010 11:58:03 AM PDT by tutstar
By Carol Gentry and Jim Saunders 4/23/2010 © Health News Florida Only hours after the Florida House and Senate voted to “opt out” of the new federal health law, the top U.S. health official said Thursday night that will not be permitted.
Without mentioning any particular state or going into detail, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that state and local officials can vent all they want about a so-called “federal takeover” of health care. But they cannot deny their citizens access to its benefits or requirements, she told the Association of Health Care Journalists. Our eAlert subscribers read it first! “They may want to opt out, but they don’t get to opt out all of their citizens who want and need health care,” Sebelius said.
Florida has an estimated 4 million uninsured, most of whom will be covered when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) takes full effect in 2014.
At least 30 states have passed state constitutional amendment legislation similar to that approved by the Florida Legislature, according to theNational Conference of State Legislatures.
Sebelius said the backlash against the ACA has been ginned up by “misinformation,” much of it deliberate. Thus HHS will be setting up an Internet site to answer frequent questions and a toll-free helpline, similar to that operated for Medicare beneficiaries. HHS staff members present at the conference said they hope to have the Internet site up by July 1 and the help desk soon after.
The opt-out measure passed in the House and Senate on Thursday, a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution, will go before voters in the November election. The proposal says, in part, that Floridians may not be forced by law to "participate in any health-care system.''
Dividing along almost strict party lines, the House passed the proposal 74-42, and the Senate followed in a 26-11 vote. Republican supporters say the issue is a matter of freedom and preventing encroachment by the federal government.
"The fact that we have to have this debate in the United States of America is troubling and bizarre,'' said Rep. Mike Horner, R-Kissimmee.
Democrats said the proposal's supporters have spent more time trying to prevent expansion of coverage than they have on solving the state's health-care problems.
"That is the folly of this moment, and this constitutional amendment is misguided in the extreme,'' said Sen. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach.
The measure is primarily aimed at part of the health-reform law that will eventually require people to buy health insurance or face financial penalties --- a concept known as the "individual mandate.'' Republicans in Tallahassee and other state capitals have launched numerous efforts to allow people to opt out of the requirement since the Democrat-controlled Congress passed it last month.
At the same time, Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum has launched a separate legal battle challenging the federal law. That lawsuit is pending.
Democrats have repeatedly argued that the legislative attempts to allow Floridians to opt out of the federal law would violate the so-called "supremacy clause'' of the U.S. Constitution. That clause generally gives precedence to federal law over state law when conflicts occur.
"We should not step on the United States Constitution, and that's what you are doing now,'' Davie Democrat Martin Kiar said during the House debate today.
But supporters dispute that the supremacy clause bars the state from allowing people to avoid the individual mandate. "The supremacy clause does not say the feds control the states,'' Melbourne Republican Ritch Workman said.
Supporters also say that even if the proposal ultimately is found to violate the supremacy clause, it would remain in place to protect Floridians from future state health-care requirements. As an example, it would prevent Florida from approving coverage requirements similar to those in Massachusetts.
More broadly, however, Palm Harbor Republican Peter Nehr said it is the Legislature's duty to "step up and reassert the rights of Floridians.''
GREAT tagline!!
SECESSION. and impeach Charlie Crist at the same time.
Ummmmmmmmmmmm....... an exceptional woman here and there (prophets, no less) doesn't make the "sweeping generalization" any less true.
The passage clearly implies that being oppressed by children and ruled by women is not a good position to be in, at least in general. And, curiously, both conditions are on the increase in the good ol' USA.
It’s a battle allright. Will we be forced to go commie or stay a freedom loving republic? Obama’s not a socialist. He’s a communist.
Yes, that is what we want.
You don’t seem to get it too well, so let me enlighten you just a bit. The Constitution is/was a CONTRACT between We, the People, and the Several States, which authorizes the creation of a federal Government to do certain things in our names and on our behalf. FedGov is a CREATION of the States and is most assuredly NOT sovereign over them. ONLY in certain areas where specific authority has been granted to FedGov, such as handling foreign affairs or coining money, does the “Supremacy” clause apply. IN ALL OTHER MATTERS, either the Several States or We, the People, reign supreme. Which includes slapping down FedGov when needed OR seceding from the Union, if we feel the necessity. In the present instance, FedGov has pretty much VOIDED its contract with us by its own dastardly deeds.
Like all socialist schemes, it depends entirely on force in order to have effect.
The grand experiment in communism, the Soviet Union, was forced to erect an "Iron Curtain" to prevent the productive people among them from fleeing the tyranny.
One test of the freedom permitted in a nation is to examine its borders to see which way the guns point. If the guns point inward to challenge the people's ability to flee, then it is socialism.
Which states, if any, would opt out of "National Healthcare"? Those whose citizens were most inclined to provide for themselves. Which states would not opt out? Those whose citizens were most inclined to let the government solve their problems.
But like all socialist schemes, it is the productive who must pay and cannot be allowed to "opt out". Without the ability to force states to participate, the federal government will never be able to supply a fraction of what has been promised.
“I joined the High School debate team for about a week once. I discovered that Oh yea, F**K you didn’t win the debate!”
Ron White
My point is this. I do understand federalism and the constitutional limits on the federal government. Here’s my point: Challenges to federal action need to be addressed at the federal level. Addressing them by unilateral action at the state level is ultimately disruptive to federalism and requires either capitulation by the federal government or secession and disunion. Do you see the federal government capitulating? I don’t. The alternative is disunion (and not without bloodshed). We need to change the federal government. Just Vote Them Out. Stop this silliness about states passing laws to negate or restrict the implementation of a federal law.
For when they say, "peace and safety!" then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman.
I believe our own federal government is offering us "peace and safety", in health care and unemployment insurance and protection from predatory lenders and unscrupulous wall street execs ....
If the courts side against the CONSTITUTION and rule for a clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL HEALTH CARE SCAM, then WE THE PEOPLE will have to either submit to tyranny or WE THE PEOPLE need to reinstate the CONSTITUTION.
That seems pretty simple, doesn’t it?
This nation was BORN in blood, the blood of Patriots and Tyrants and the servants of tyrants. If it takes blood to refresh the Freedoms God has given us, then so be it. If you have nothing to STAND for, you’ll FALL for anything, and if you’ve no principles worth DYING for, nothing for which you are willing to draw a line in the sand and say, “This is AS FAR AS YOU GO,” then you are a morally deficient and depraved excuse for a human being. Why do you think the Founders ensured that a guarantee of our God-given right to self defense was specifically included as an area NO government was allowed to trespass into? It WAS NOT so we could go shoot Bambi for dinner.
Let’s see what happens in November.
And I might add: There are a lot of cases coming before the federal courts.
No, it's NOT the 14th Amendment. It's the New Deal Commerce Clause - the darling of Drug Warriors and Nanny Staters.
Now, we’ll have a Constitutional crisis! 10th Amendment vs the feds. I’m betting on the 10th!
30 states seem to think so, these days.
"A lot of blood was shed 1861-65 to determine whether this would be the choice. The outcome seems to have been that federal problems need to be resolved at the federal level."
Actually, more pragmatically, the outcome seems to have been that any effect the 10th amendment might have originally had has been entirely superseded by whoever has the best ability to force their viewpoint on the group that differs. That means that, very likely, even though 3/5ths of the states may have legislatively disagreed, it doesn't make any real difference to a "federal" government gone wild.
The Constitution contains mechanisms (a free press, elections, and the federal courts) to address the situation we’re in. Let’s make the best possible use of them.
Not just a free press, but the whole Bill of Rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.