The bill would forbid **state** employees from participating in federally mandated insurance exchanges.
What about the rest of the people?.
What about the rest of the people?.
Baby steps may well be advised here. Take small bites and win versus one big bite and lose.
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.
This is political symbolism from the Republican Party.
They are putting on a show for you to pretend they are standing up to Obamacare.
A real Obamacare ban in the state for the people of South Carolina would trigger a court fight that the state would lose.
But remember that the official position of the Republican Party establishment politicians is not the abolition of Obamcare but its modification.
They want a cross state marketplace for people to buy mandatory health insurance coverage.
The GOPe does not want to get rid of Obamacare, they want to turn it into Romneycare. Both drive up health insurance costs for people, its just that Romneycare does it a little less than Obamacare.