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 top U.S. health official said Thursday night that will not be permitted.”
This is where we start...federal arrogance of assumed power...they can disregard or make up federal powers in the USC and mandate what we can and can’t do.
And we’re supposed to take it.
11/2010
11/2012
Fine, give each state's citizens the right to accept "free" health care insurance and let them pay the taxes and fees associated with it. But, give me the same right to opt out of it and pay nothing!
Right. I don’t consider this ‘silliness.’ Not for those of us who care about the USC, the 10th Amendment, et al. It is forming the parameters of the coming battle royale for the Constitutional soul of our nation.
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 asthe "individual mandate.''"A Bill of Pains and Penalties"!
Which is as Unconstitutional as 'heck'. Legally it's identical to A Bill of Attainder which is Verboten per Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 of that Constitution thingy.
Definition: A Bill of Attainder is an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. (Exactly what ObamaDeathCare entails)NOTE: In a Bill of Attainder the Death Penalty is an option. A Bill of Pains and Penalties involves Monetary Fines or Seizure of Property (for a Felony). And as I recall the IRS is very good at seizing Property and your Bank Accounts.
That is the crux of the problem, its still SOCIALIZED healthcare, for it to succeed ALL the people have to participate.
And the ones supporting Obamacare won’t accept those opting out, its of course part of Obamas plan to DIVIDE America.
Individual states MUST opt out completely, ho half way measure. It would actually make Obama very happy if indeed states were to allow citizens to opt out because then its like splitting a diamond by hitting it in the wrong spot, it will shatter instead.
“There shouldn’t even be a Secretary of Health and Human Services,nor an EPA,nor a Labor Department,nor a Department of Education,nor a long list of federal usurpation of state,local, and private authority”
AMEN to that
And by FORCING it on the people, you're FORCING it on the State, you stupid bitch!
----
[The above was posted with the full knowledge that this will probably be my second pulled post in my entire time of FReepdom...but I can't help myself]
States Will Be Last Line of Defense
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042210/content/01125114.guest.html
Theres going to be blood in the streets if the feds overide states rights.
The Third Reich (aka the current regime) says the Constitution can not be over ridden, etc.
As if this Fascist regime gives two cents of regard for the Constitution.
I have been telling my son - and mentioned here sometimes - that in the end the only way some states may be able to protect their citizens from onerous taxation due to debt, and onerous heavy-handed federal controls due to tyranny, is to secede from the Union
This statement by Sebelius only reinforces that view... the Democraps have been planning this overthrow of the Constitution for many years, and now they see their opportunity. Naturally, the media will give them all the support they can to accomplish this coup d'etat.
Thanks for the heads up on this one, EdReform.
The hell they can’t, what about the 14th Amendment?
What I’m curious about: with the number of states that have done (or are planning to do) the same thing, why did Sebelius pick Florida to single out?
“... this will probably be my second pulled post in my entire time of FReepdom...”
-
Ma’am, you just ain’t tryin’ hard enough.
LOL! And here I thought we were supposed to avoid having posts pulled.
I guess I've just been doing it wrong. :-)
Selective interpretation of the Constitution by the left:
Interpret the Supremacy Clause as the supreme clause of the constitution, overriding all others.
Ignore Enumerated Powers.
Fabricate the Separation of Church and State Clause (non-existent)
Interpret General Welfare to mean Create a Nanny State and ignore the financial General Welfare.
Ignore the freedom and individual choice the Constitution was created to engender.
And that ends our lesson on Insidious Progressivism 101.
Class over.
“If a state were free to nullify federal laws within its borders, or, by logical extension, to secede from the union altogether, that would pretty much spell the end of federalism in favor of a loose, and not very durable, confederation of states. Is that really what we want?”
Yes.
I was talking to an insurance consultant a few days ago about ObamaCare. He said a national organization of underwriters has basically been asked by Congress to explain what’s in the bill they passed. It’s a hodgepodge of crap thrown together from various camps and no one really understands it. He said it’s full, for example, of sections that contradict each other. It’s an unadulterated mess.
MM (in TX)
I doubt that zero ever thought he would find this much resistance.
This is why he tried to ram through health care without any discussions in a weeks time when he first started his push.
Now that people have a chance to fight it before any coverage actually takes effect, it may be stomped away.
They never thought there would be this much resistance.
It should be a signal to congress and the senate that people are unhappy, but they apparently just don’t care.
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.