South Carolina May Ban Obamacare

[apexviper]

Check this out, South Carolina found a loophole in the law regarding Obamacare:

Andrew Napolitano: SC Plan to Ban Obamacare Will Be 'Test Case'

The neat thing is the state is trying to pass one bill to override the bill known as Obamacare. The bill will ban any government employee from "cooperating with establishing or enforcing [the law]." The states are to set up Obamacare but Congress has to pay for it. This will bill will hinder the setting up of Obamacare in South Carolina.

Thoughts?

I for one hope all of the states catch on.

[apexviper]

Georgia is also following South Carolina's lead:

Georgia legislators to introduce bill blocking Obamacare | Washington Times Communities

[applepansy]

"Obamacare" is hurting so many people. I hope more States will at least try to protect their citizens.

[apexviper]

I just read that 21 states have at least done something to avoid the portion of the Obamacare that requires abortions to be part of insurance. The country is starting to fight back.

[Guest]

"Banning Obamacare" is very misleading.

States don't have the power to ban Obamacare because Federal law trumps State Law.

So, Obamacare is not going to be banned in South Carolina. It just won't participate in the exchanges (its citizens can still get healthcare from the ones that are available outside of the state exchange) and it won't participate in implementation of Obamacare. The Federal govt can still implement Obamacare in the State but it will need Congress to modify the ACA to provide the Feds enough resources. So, if Congress retains its Republican control of one of the houses, it will be almost impossible for the Feds to implement ACA in SC the way ACA is written now, especially if many States follow the same path.

In my opinion, this is a good thing for States opposed to ACA but it does sow confusion for those citizens who benefit from the ACA. And it leaves the question of - where am I going to buy my insurance from? for those that are self-insured. Because - they still wouldn't be able to purchase affordable bare-bones insurance.

But then, I'm not thinking straight today, so maybe y'all can flesh this out with me.

[beefche]

I was wondering that if this were to go into effect if the citizens of SC who don't have health insurance will still have to pay the tax.

[LittleWyvern]

The bill will ban any government employee from "cooperating with establishing or enforcing [the law]."

It looks to me like this bill essentially tries to codify a form of nullification. This theory states in its simplest form that states can ignore federal laws whenever they disagree with them. Regardless of my opinion of Obamacare I think this is a really dangerous precedent to set. Even if this law does pass, I don't think it will last very long, as the Supreme Court is likely to strike it down via the same arguments used in Cooper v. Aaron, a case where states tried a similar form of nullification.

EDIT: Now that I've looked into it more, there are cases such as New York v. United States which state that the federal government can not "commandeer" state governments or resources in order to to enforce federal laws. Thus, this bill could pass muster but only in a very restricted form which I think will only delay the inevitable.

Edited December 13, 2013 by LittleWyvern

[Guest]

I was wondering that if this were to go into effect if the citizens of SC who don't have health insurance will still have to pay the tax.

Coded in the bill is a tax deduction in State taxes equal to the Federal fine if one doesn't enroll in ACA. Now this is going to be another axe for the Feds to use. Because, the fine increases yearly. The Feds can make the fine very punitive which will make it difficult for States to cover it. But then, it would also make every other citizen that does not get State tax deduction have to pay higher fines... so the balancing act would be how many people are outside of these states that are nulliying ACA and how many pay the fine as opposed to enrolling in ACA. It may be that the number of people paying fines outside of these states is not big enough to impact elections.

Edited December 13, 2013 by anatess

[Guest]

It looks to me like this bill essentially tries to codify a form of nullification. This theory states in its simplest form that states can ignore federal laws whenever they disagree with them. Regardless of my opinion of Obamacare I think this is a really dangerous precedent to set. Even if this law does pass, I don't think it will last very long, as the Supreme Court is likely to strike it down via the same arguments used in Cooper v. Aaron, a case where states tried a similar form of nullification.

EDIT: Now that I've looked into it more, there are cases such as New York v. United States which state that the federal government can not "commandeer" state governments or resources in order to to enforce federal laws. Thus, this bill could pass muster but only in a very restricted form which I think will only delay the inevitable.

SC is not ignoring the law. They are simply not allocating resources to implement the Federal law. The Feds imposed the law so they will have to provide the resources if the States don't have the resources to implement it. This is similar to Immigration law in border states. Remember that goopla between Arizona and the Feds? That was the backwards scenario of Obamacare where the State decided to impose their own Immigration laws because the Feds "failed" in protecting the border.

[LittleWyvern]

SC is not ignoring the law. They are simply not allocating resources to implement the Federal law. The Feds imposed the law so they will have to provide the resources if the States don't have the resources to implement it.

Ok, so if this is a "no state resources" law as mentioned in New York v. United States, SC doesn't assist in implementing the new healthcare law, the federal government steps in and performs the actions that the SC state government refuses to do and... SC accomplishes what, exactly? I mean, I guess I can see the point, Republican and Tea Party lawmakers are trying to do what they think they need to in order to Save America, but I don't see any tangible end result to this law other than SC having a new shiny expensive tax deduction. Perhaps the lawmakers who are behind this bill are intending this as a act they can use in their future campaign efforts, so they can say they stood up against Obama's Efforts to Destroy America, even though this bill doesn't do much.

It kinda reminds me of protesters going into "dead weight" mode in order to make arresting them harder. It doesn't accomplish anything, but it is a symbolic gesture, so maybe that's the point.

[Guest]

Ok, so if this is a "no state resources" law as mentioned in New York v. United States, SC doesn't assist in implementing the new healthcare law, the federal government steps in and performs the actions that the SC state government refuses to do and... SC accomplishes what, exactly? I mean, I guess I can see the point, Republican and Tea Party lawmakers are trying to do what they think they need to in order to Save America, but I don't see any tangible end result to this law other than SC having a new shiny expensive tax deduction. Perhaps the lawmakers who are behind this bill are intending this as a act they can use in their future campaign efforts, so they can say they stood up against Obama's Efforts to Destroy America, even though this bill doesn't do much.

It kinda reminds me of protesters going into "dead weight" mode in order to make arresting them harder. It doesn't accomplish anything, but it is a symbolic gesture, so maybe that's the point.

It banks on the reality that the ACA as written relies on States to provide State Exchanges. The Feds do not have the resources to implement ACA in all the States. Just producing the Website has cost $640 BILLION and it's not even finished. And that's just a Website.

For the Feds to be able to implement Obamacare in the States (especially if the measure passes in 21 States), a change to ACA will have to be made to provide for new budget deals. With Congress divided and the ACA losing popularity, it is not gonna happen in the foreseeable future.

[LittleWyvern]

It banks on the reality that the ACA as written relies on States to provide State Exchanges. The Feds do not have the resources to implement ACA in all the States. Just producing the Website has cost $640 BILLION and it's not even finished. And that's just a Website.

For the Feds to be able to implement Obamacare in the States (especially if the measure passes in 21 States), a change to ACA will have to be made to provide for new budget deals. With Congress divided and the ACA losing popularity, it is not gonna happen in the foreseeable future.

Yeah, I guess I see the point. If all SC wants to do is throw up an expensive roadblock in front of federal law, more power to them. As long as the law follows the "no state resources" idea and not the nullification idea, it seems constitutional to me. Still, though, this law feels like a waste of money in only delaying the inevitable.

[Guest]

Yeah, I guess I see the point. If all SC wants to do is throw up an expensive roadblock in front of federal law, more power to them. As long as the law follows the "no state resources" idea and not the nullification idea, it seems constitutional to me. Still, though, this law feels like a waste of money in only delaying the inevitable.

Yes, it may serve only to delay. But I'm not so sure about the inevitable. It depends on who gets the Presidency in 2016. That might be just enough delay until Obamacare is scrapped.

[apexviper]

SC is not ignoring the law. They are simply not allocating resources to implement the Federal law. The Feds imposed the law so they will have to provide the resources if the States don't have the resources to implement it. This is similar to Immigration law in border states. Remember that goopla between Arizona and the Feds? That was the backwards scenario of Obamacare where the State decided to impose their own Immigration laws because the Feds "failed" in protecting the border.

The whole purpose of the state law SC wants to pass is to avoid Obamacare being used in that state. Thus it is indirectly a form of a ban.

If half of the nation follows SC on this, good luck to the Feds on providing the resources for each state. If such laws are taken to the Supreme Court in an attempt for the Federal Government to overrule these laws, that's going to cost the Feds even more.

[talisyn]

I look forward to January 2015. The states that have done their part for the ACA to succeed are the guinea pigs, so to speak. We'll know a lot more about state exchanges, what works and what needs tweaked, and the will of the people participating.

[LittleWyvern]

I look forward to January 2015. The states that have done their part for the ACA to succeed are the guinea pigs, so to speak. We'll know a lot more about state exchanges, what works and what needs tweaked, and the will of the people participating.

Oh, I think we've already learned something with the dismal performance of healthcare.gov and the ease of use and stability of state exchange websites. If your state decided to run their own exchanges, things generally are working great. See how much better things work when you run things on a state level?

[Just_A_Guy]

If your state decided to run their own exchanges, things generally are working great. See how much better things work when you run things on a state level?

Well, except for that whole sticker-shock issue, and millions of people losing their current plans . . .

But given that the long-term goal is single-payor and increased citizen dependence on Washington in general and the Democratic Party in particular, that's a feature, not a bug.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[PrinceofLight2000]

If they do, I'll move there!