Posted on 04/24/2010 3:19:30 PM PDT by pissant
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.
“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.
(Excerpt) Read more at healthnewsflorida.org ...
“Like Obama said “they won”.”
Ah, excuse me, you’re in our way. Could you move over please and let the rest of us through? You’re blocking our view of a free republic.
>>> You might want to brush up on your pre-civil war history just a wee bit.....
Feel free to educate me.
No doubt there were several states rights issues which were testing the resolve of the states against the federal government... but it was state condoned slavery which defined the war front.
If it was not a state’s choice to comply or reject Lincoln’s anti-slavery edict that defined them as confederate or union, then what was it?
“so my state says you will not be forced to purchase something you do not want
DC says no go to hell we have to buy what we say
bozo and his commies friends are really getting pissed off by the states fighting back
I bet they didn’t count on this when they planned the take over years ago”
The nub of the issue is simple. Short of intimidation or browbeating or deception such that the people voluntarily put chains upon themselves, every utopian must sooner or later resort to external, coercive force. At that point, the utopian invites a response in kind, and may or may not win with that wager.
Wrong on all counts. And being wrong can really screw you up, friend. The States are not mere subdivisions of the Federal Government. The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union of the Independent States. Certainly, not to subordinate them as vassals of the Federals. There’s a big difference.
There were draft riots in New York by people who didn't to fight the south. Slavery was a secondary issue. And I don't advocate slavery. I'm just hoping to avoid it now.
Hate to see states start to ‘opt out’ of the Union, then.
It sure doesn't seem that way now does it? It wasn't that way then.
Every socialist is a latent totalitarian.
Their scheme requires that people submit to rules they don't want to submit to. Therefore, coercion becomes an essential part of the proposition.
Great points and post!!!
Sorry, friend. Wrong. Dead wrong. Not even close. It was ENTIRELY about States’ rights.
Does anyone else see “1861 re-do”? Only this time there will be no argument that it’s about states’ rights.
It is so obvious these clowns in charge today believe there should be no state borders.
Neither did the vast majority of the subjects, er, electorate who were screaming their heads off for months trying to get their voices heard!
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some states will try to secede. Don’t know if they will be successful, but it looks like it’s going to be a long hot summer for this administration and its lackeys. Between the tea parties, the primaries and general elections, various lawsuits against the feds over health care, Blogo’s subpoenas and what not, Obama and his henchmen will be fighting on a lot of fronts. And when you have to fight on too many fronts, you are more likely to fail. If that happens, I’ll be dancing on the nearest bar.
It’s hilarious Kathleen “H1N1” Sebelius should talk about ‘misinformation.’
Of course, they don’t want borders. It’s all part of Obama’s vision of one world government with himself in charge. He’s hell bent on world domination.
The right to Liberty necessarily precludes slavery, especially since ALL men are created equal. However, there is no decree in the Declaration of Independence or right enumerated in the Constitution whereby the US Federal Government can do what it is trying to do.
Fighting to eliminate slavery - with the ancillary issue of States not being able to continue the practice of slavery which violated the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - is radically different from the fight against Obamacare, especially from a States Rights issue. The States are not fighting to keep an immoral, unconstitutional institution running, but to keep such an institution from being established.
He inherited that from the Bushes for sure!
Human rights? That term is in the US Constitution?
That is the main problem, folks adding what they think along the way. Just read it and quote it as written, you’ll never be in error if you do that.
Best;
It’s OK for you to like who you like and me to like who I like. What isn't OK is for government to force their ideas of association or non-association on us.
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.