South Carolina does not want, and cannot afford, the president’s health care plan. Not now, and not ever. To that end, we will not pursue the type of government-run health exchanges being forced on us by Washington. Despite the rose-colored rhetoric coming out of D.C., these exchanges are nothing more than a way to make the state do the federal government’s bidding in spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars on insurance subsidies that we can’t afford.The article portrays this attempt at nullification as a "viable alternative to secession," but seeing organized resistance to the Federal government at the state level does not make secession less likely. Nullification crises also preceded the Civil War, after all, as well as other very tense moments in early American history that led to the several great compromises of the early 19th century. Another compromise might have put off, or avoided, the Civil War -- but there were some set on having their way, including not just the hot-tempered folks from South Carolina but a president, Lincoln, who was utterly sure of the rightness of his position.
Today we have both aggravating conditions as well as a law that is likely to meet nullification efforts elsewhere as well as in South Carolina. Its implementation may well prove incredibly unpopular given the vast increases in cost and taxes, and the damage it will do to people's ability to find work adequate to making a living. Congress can take no effective action to fix the problems with the law until 2015 at the earliest, and it will be 2017 before there is a chance of repeal. The Supreme Court has upheld the law, twisting themselves in a knot in attempt to find it constitutional. So the states have to be the field of action for the necessary resistance: there's no getting around that.
Well, it'll be an exciting time to be alive, anyway.
It's not just Obamacare. Kansas has just enacted a law that blocks enforcement of any federal gun laws on guns produced and sold within the state of Kansas.
ReplyDeleteOn the negative side, Jones & Laughlin and Wickard argue for the Federal government's authority to reach inside a State to determine the rules of intrastate commerce.
On the plus side, if Kansas stands tall on this--and if Gov Haley signs her bill and South Carolina also then stands tall--the resulting argument would present the Supreme Court with an excellent opportunity to reverse those prior errors.
Eric Hines
I think I can tell you what is going to happen, absent court action.
ReplyDeleteYou have basically 4 groups of people that have health insurance:
1. Individuals: Mostly self-employed, under the ACA, they're going to end up paying more for the same coverage. Since they're already individually insured, they're most likely to shop around and find the best deal.
2. Small groups, usually defined as 2 to 99 people, usually provided by small businesses. All these people are going to lose their current coverage, as their businesses take the penalty and just don't insure them anymore. These are the people that are really going to get hammered with this law.
3. Large groups: Usually anything over 100 people--Large corporations will end up paying more, and the employees will end up paying more, but it probably won't change that much, unless the company pulls the trigger, and does what the small group are going to do, and not insure their employees anymore. Or, more insidiously, will only insure the employee, and not the employee's family. Look for this to happen.
4. Medicare: Seniors are going to find things get tougher, as medicare payments will shrink, and more and more doctors will not accept it.
The currently uninsured will pretty much remain uninsured if they are poor, pretty much because they already are poor and ignorant. If they are uninsured because they are rich, (and there are plenty of those), they'll buy the cheapest policy and just go on as before. Sort of like the two tiered system of health care that is evolving in Canada, where those with the money pay to see a doctor, and those without have to wait. and wait. And wait.
The great unknown in this is how the Federal government proposes to actually enforce the individual mandate. I think it is all going to fall flat on its face when it comes to that.
I haven't even brought up the new study that appears to claim that medicaid is not improving outcomes. If that gets any traction, then all bets are off for this thing.
The great unknown in this is how the Federal government proposes to actually enforce the individual mandate. I think it is all going to fall flat on its face when it comes to that.
ReplyDeleteThey already have the enforcement mechanism, and it's already going to fall flat. The Roberts Tax for not buying a policy is substantially less than the cost of a policy. That'll work out to a few bucks for government and skyrocketing insurance premiums for the suckers.
The Feds will have to change the enforcement mechanism, which will be hard to do with a divided Congress.
Eric Hines
Darned if I can see why we voters can't elect Congressmen and Senators who will appeal the monstrosity. But some astonishing percentage of voters don't even understand that Obamacare is in effect: many believe it was repealed, or that the Supreme Court threw it out.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that the House already has a "no ObozoCare" mechanism; it's called "the budget."
ReplyDeleteNo funds to implement it, no ObozoCare.
But they've already rolled over on that one for this year.
I'm fascinated by the shift in state legislation. The state bills in KS and other states uphold the Supreme Court decision and, it could be argued, thus are not nullifying federal laws (since the Supreme Court has already ruled that the right to bear arms in a personal right, et cetera). But South Carolina has taken the next step in (theoretically) nullifying a federal statute that the Supremes have upheld. (Again: see 1820 and the Tariff of Abominations).
ReplyDeleteLittleRed1
The world burns as Nero fiddles. Not to mention the burning helped him consolidate some land he needed for his demi god monument. Just a coincidence, of course.
ReplyDelete