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.''
The supremacy clause does not mean that an unconstitutional federal law supersedes the US Constitution. The Leftists never recognize the 10th amendment (as well as the 1st 2nd, 5th etc) and must regard the bill of rights as largely an annoyance because they confer state and individual rights so plainly and directly. Leftists categorically reject the concept of dual sovereignty whereby the states exercise sovereignty through the “police” power which have historically included health care law and regulation.
If the Marxists had their way, the only thing states could do would be to name the state flower.
“There WILL be people in Florida who petition the feds for equal protection under the 14th amendment.
Then, what do the feds do? Send in the guns?”
As I was reading this thread, it occurred to me WHY the financial ‘reform’ bill will be the crux of the matter.
Once the FEDS have ALL access to EVERYONE’S MONEY, they have us ALL by the #$%$!!!!!! Everyone would be vulnerable to blackmail. Starve or do as I say, blackmail.
IT IS IMPEARTIVE TO STOP THAT BILL!!!
I prefer opt-in only. Better luck next time on your legislation, Sebelius.
Hey, Sibelius, go across the street to the Archives and read the Constitution. You are such a sub-human loser. I can only hope everyone (including your family) shuns you into eternity, you feckless twit.
There is quite a bit of difference between your uncle telling you that in 2014 he is giving you a bike, and your uncle telling you that in 2014 you are required to HAVE a bike or you get your allowance taken away.
And yet the media is all pretending that we all get new “bikes” in 2014, instead of being fined if you do not have a “bike”.
They need to hold tight and see if the 10th Amendment still exists in America.
...the top U.S. health official said Thursday night that will not be permitted... 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.Looks like the partisan media shill wrote "so-called 'federal takeover'".
I am not sure the feds will win this one.
I disagree with how such challenges are best handled. I think that taking unilateral action at the State level is the best, most expedient method of getting to a resolution of the conflict. When States pass Laws that challenge the Federal power, that asserts to the Federal Government, “Hey! This is OUR jurisdiction under the Constitution, NOT yours!”
If such a Law usurps the enumerated powers of the Federal government, then such a Law must be ruled illegal, and struck down. However, this conflict was not initiated by a State Legislature causing such a usurpation. This conflict was created the other way around: by the Federal power attempting an illegitimate extension beyond its Constitutional limits, usurping the delegated powers of the States. No argument that it has done this repeatedly, but THIS time several States are (at long last) standing up and saying, “Stop! You’ve gone too far!”
If the Federal government now refuses to acknowledge that the States are correct, that the States are acting within their delegated powers under The Constitution, and that it is the Federal power who needs to back down, then the Laws passed at the State level become part of the anvil upon which the entire argument gets hammered out in the Supreme Court. I think that’s a healthy course to take.
At least in The Supreme Court, unlike Congress, BOTH sides can still have their arguments heard.
My greatest concern is that The Supreme Court will have an opportunity to clearly reassert the Constitutional limits binding upon the Federal power, and will sidestep that final, golden opportunity, and consign the nation — not to Federalism — but to abject totalitarianism. If The Supreme Court gets this kind of case, and fails to make crystal clear that the Federal power is bound to the limits of the enumerated powers in the Constitution, then I fear that will be the last blow of the hammer on the last nail in the coffin of Limited Government; indeed, of The Constitution itself except some dire upheaval ensue.
We are, I greatly fear, JUST ONE, SINGLE, BAD Supreme Court decision away from being forced as a nation to face the choice our founders faced: Slavery or Bloodshed.
Almighty God in Heaven, have Mercy upon us all.
yep
The state legislation I've heard about on this matter doesn't prohibit state residents from using the system, but prohibits the feds from requiring them to. More lies and obfuscation from the big government crowd.
Uh, hah, hah, ha....wipes tears from eyes...that's a good one....
Well, and Muslims. I guess we're all Muslim now.
...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
Justice Scalia, concurring in Raich, 6 June 2005.
Only if the states are willing to accept the ruling of SCOTUS, should it rule against the states. I'd think the states would be inclined to the viewpoint that SCOTUS has a mammoth conflict of interest in matters involving the limits of federal power.
Bump and a ping to the 10A and liberty crew!
A ConCon definitely falls in the category of be careful what you ask for. No doubt ACORN would be in charge and we'd end up finding out everybody has a right to our stuff, and we don't have half the rights we thought we did.
That’s what I’m afraid of. We have been living under 1-party rule since 11/4/08 & that includes the judiciary. And the states are owned now - because they all have one hand in our pockets & the other hand out to the feds for money.
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.