Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
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.''
Lately I believe Michael Savage is right. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Here come the fascists. This is the first veiled threat to use force to compel obedience to the fascists’ dictates. Fort Sumter, 2.0 is coming, sooner rather than later.
I agree with you that basically this will play out in the federal courts in the near term (and at the ballot box in the long term). Whether enacting a state law in opposition to a federal law is the best way to go about setting up a good case is a matter of strategy. I sort of have my doubts about the success of doing that.
“If the state opts out, does that mean that they can’t take our money???? doubt it. hacks me off.’
States can seize federal receipts.
Hey, has any peeled Obama behind the ear yet? Just sayin’...
Except for the debt financed part, sure. Plus no federal skim off the top.
‘Mar 20, 2010 ... Alcee Hastings: “We Just Make Up the Rules as We Go Along”
We need a collection of these nonsensical quotes.
Very clever...
You know...We have plenty of elbow room here in Texas if you feel the need to pick up sticks again...
“Sebelius didn’t read.”
I believe I dislike her more than Obama.
For whatever reason, I can’t stand her.
I am for whatever it takes.
Not at all. State legislatures across the country would pick their delegates, but it will still take 38 States to agree to any draft constitution. No chance for radicalism at all.
Since the only thing that many States can agree to is that the federal government is out of control, and has usurped too much State power, that is what they would agree to fix. This requires a bunch of things, but is not leftist in the slightest.
Then, likely, the CC (con-con is a derogatory term created by its opponents), would have to remain seated to insure the elected government complied with the 38 State ratified convention. They would do this by ordering compliance from sitting officials, and if they refused to comply, by having the authority to remove and replace them—solely to carry out those changes.
And so they are going to set up a website to answer questions. BFD what good is a liar’s word?
And so they are going to set up a website to answer questions. BFD what good is a liar’s word?
When tshtf count me in.
I warned that this would happen. All it takes is one state.
LOL - no kidding!
They might just find a Chicago mafia insignia. Chicago thugs are the new “V”
Or maybe, that is the REAL reason we can’t see the long form BC (hmmmmm)
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers ..."
(Sometimes movies provide just the right comments for a situation)
Of course when it comes to Arizona codifying into state law the very federal laws that Obama and Co. refuse to enforce as required then Arizona's new state statutes are somehow over-stepping the Feds. Not to mention the Feds allowing states to have sanctuary cities that refuse to abide by federal law by announcing immigration status by those accused of crimes.
Very true! Cue the Twilight Zone music!
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.