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.''
See?Right there is their authority in the Constitution!All those other words setting limits are just so much un-needed and out-dated.
The arrogance of the federals knows no bounds. Once again, though it were any other way, the States are being pushed hard, individually and in groups, towards a constitutional convention.
The federal government of the United States is out of control.
Even assuming the Republicans win a tremendous victory in the next elections, things may have reached a point where because they are unable to act, all that may be required of them is to keep the federal government out of the way, as the States take control back.
There should be no fear of radicalism here, because the only thing that 38 States will agree to is that federal power must be diminished with respect to State power. And while this could mean many changes to the constitution, likely they will choose just the path of minimum change, with maximum agreement.
War for Independence III
(1861 was Rev 2)
just let the states go that wanted to not be a part of this whole load of collectivist crap,
but it’s gonna get messy, because they won’t.
Because Obama won and we lost and that’s how it is to them. Screw them.
Mr Haynesworth an Mr. Pickins, man your cannons.
They’re going over the state heads to the freeloaders themselves. Its a perversion of the Ronald Reagan method of going directly to the voters.
“..they cannot deny their citizens access to its benefits or requirements”
Citizens have the “right” to “access requirements”?
Citizen, pay up. It is your right!
Or Muslims and Amish
Who is John Galt?
.
So, the Americans in Florida do not want San Francisco extremists running their lives?
Where in the Constitution does it say that an HHS Secretary has the power to trump state law when the state is asserting its 10th Amendment rights?
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? 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.
Florida proposed law would not deny, mere allow one to opt out without penalty.
Huh? How is that possible? What a bunch of insane dictators these people are.
I live in Florida, and believe me the battle is on!
“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.”
This should be repeated over, and over, and over, and over, and over........until every single American has heard it. Then, just maybe, those with their heads in their nether regions, will GET A CLUE!
Wow.
Get the lawyers ready for another round of litigation that will go all the way to the SC.
It doesn’t. The health bill, however, empowers “The Secretary” to do all kinds of stuff...none of which seem to be Constitutional.
Course, that doesn’t stop libertards from doing what they do: march towards Marxism.
If 0’b ain’t legal,,there ain’t nuthin to opt out of , Goober.
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.