It’s not about state employees having or not having Obamacare insurance. It’s about the Printz precedent. If you read the bill, its passive aggression. The Printz case proved the fed cannot force a state to implement a federal law using state infrastructure. So SC is basically saying, fine Obama, you have a federal law, use your own flimsy little federal resources to enforce it, if you can. There’s more to it than that, but that’s the centerpiece. Basically, a state supported boycott. If every state followed suit, the new system never gets a long-term foothold, and enough of the old system survives to give hope of weathering the storm. They’ve written this within the confines of established states rights. I think it could work.
I agree. If the Feds file suit against the state the State of SC can say the changes to the law by Obama admin makes the bill unconstitutional as only Congress can change written laws. This will be a wonderful can of worms to be opened up.
Hope it works but not sure it will.