Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

South Carolina Set to Block Implementation of Obamacare
Cybercast News Service ^ | December 24, 2013 - 11:05 AM | Barbara Hollingsworth

Posted on 12/25/2013 7:15:18 AM PST by Olog-hai

In January, when key provisions of the Affordable Care Act go into effect, South Carolina’s Republican-led state Senate is scheduled to vote on fast-tracked legislation that would prohibit all state agencies, public officials and state employees from implementing the federal health care law.

Republican Gov. Nikki Haley, who has been a vocal opponent of Obamacare, is expected to sign the South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act (H 3101), which could become a model for other states. […]

The bill would forbid state employees from participating in federally mandated insurance exchanges, and reimburse individuals in the form of a state tax deduction for any federal tax penalties they incur for not buying health insurance. …

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: 0carenightmare; nikkihaley; obamacare; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 12/25/2013 7:15:18 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

My bet is that they will get sued in FEDERAL COURT and that the FEDERAL COURT will side with the FEDS!

Who’d a thunk?


2 posted on 12/25/2013 7:20:09 AM PST by djf (Global warming is a bunch of hot air!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

May this be “the Shot Heard Round The Nation”


3 posted on 12/25/2013 7:20:40 AM PST by MeshugeMikey ( Visit http://icantenroll.com/ In Glitch We Trust....;o})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

The bill would forbid **state** employees from participating in federally mandated insurance exchanges.

What about the rest of the people?.


4 posted on 12/25/2013 7:24:17 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai; Liz

The way Hussein is changing the rules, they better be able to amend that legislation on a daily or maybe hourly basis.


5 posted on 12/25/2013 7:24:22 AM PST by Libloather (The epitome of civility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I’m wondering what would have happened during FDR when he implemented Social Security.


6 posted on 12/25/2013 7:25:40 AM PST by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey
May this be “the Shot Heard Round The Nation”

Obama will I'm sure be quick to try and make the obvious comparison, reminding us that South Carolina was the state in which the first shots of "the war to keep slavery" (those will be his words, or something similar) began.

7 posted on 12/25/2013 7:25:54 AM PST by Steely Tom (If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

The solution is to head off unconstitutional bills before they become law. Better yet, head them off before they get anywhere. Return the states to the senate.


8 posted on 12/25/2013 7:29:56 AM PST by Jacquerie (Article V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

So long as Haley is quick enough to turn the slavery comparison back upon Zerocare.


9 posted on 12/25/2013 7:29:57 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

If the states can disregard immigration laws then why can’t they disregard Obamacare?


10 posted on 12/25/2013 7:30:53 AM PST by robert14 (cng)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
So long as Haley is quick enough to turn the slavery comparison back upon Zerocare.

Yes indeed, but in that case we can expect to be treated to daily - or even hourly - polls that show stark differences between levels of O-Care support among members of different races.

11 posted on 12/25/2013 7:35:35 AM PST by Steely Tom (If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

Yes. His Royal Proclamation will surely make just such a “dubious” comparison.

May the next State to take this step be from “The North”!


12 posted on 12/25/2013 7:37:30 AM PST by MeshugeMikey ( Visit http://icantenroll.com/ In Glitch We Trust....;o})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz
The bill would forbid **state** employees from participating in federally mandated insurance exchanges.

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.

13 posted on 12/25/2013 7:46:33 AM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

Social Security was an affordable ‘pension’ plan for most working people with the benefit of matching contributions by employers. Based on life expectancy in the 40’s and no disability payments before 65, it was an attractive money maker for the Government.

US Life expectancy today is only around 78 - so on average people who work and contribute for 40 years will only get benefits for 13 years.
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=195

Federal abuses and malfeasance to the SS funds over the past decades have perverted a reasonable annuity plan. If SS had been privatized it would have been successful.


14 posted on 12/25/2013 7:48:05 AM PST by sodpoodle (Life is prickly - carry tweezers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: djf
My bet is that they will get sued in FEDERAL COURT and that the FEDERAL COURT will side with the FEDS!

I would imagine that you are probably correct.

In which case, the proper response from South Carolina, in my opinion, would be open and unapologetic defiance of the Feds...

15 posted on 12/25/2013 7:48:31 AM PST by AmericanExceptionalist (Democrats believe in discussing the full spectrum of ideas, all the way from far left to center-left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

Maybe so but it seems like the state members always come first.


16 posted on 12/25/2013 7:49:29 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
ALL states should begin to create bills that would allow for the arrest and prosecution of any federal agents who try to implement federal programs that exceed the federal governments authority as outlined in the enumerated powers of the constitution.
17 posted on 12/25/2013 7:51:20 AM PST by Mr. K (If you like your constitution, you can keep it...Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robert14
If the states can disregard immigration laws then why can’t they disregard Obamacare?

If the FEDERAL government can ignore ILLEGALS flooding our border why can't states ignore FEDERAL laws flooding the states?

18 posted on 12/25/2013 7:54:26 AM PST by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal the 16th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: djf

At the same time, CO is set to legalize marijuana on Jan 1st in clear violation of federal law. The Feds also allow states and cities to create sanctuaries for illegal aliens without going after them. As long as Congress and the electorate allow selective enforcement of the law by the Executive Branch, we will remain a banana republic.


19 posted on 12/25/2013 7:55:19 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: robert14

“If the States can disregard Immigration laws then why not Obamacare”

Excellent point


20 posted on 12/25/2013 7:56:34 AM PST by jcon40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Ted Cruz was the first to stand up against ObamaCare. Nikki Haley is the second. I hope she is strong enough to withstand the hurricane-force blow back that is about to come her way.


21 posted on 12/25/2013 8:00:17 AM PST by Puzzleman ("Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government. " -- Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle
Social Security was an affordable ‘pension’ plan for most working people with the benefit of matching contributions by employers. Based on life expectancy in the 40’s and no disability payments before 65, it was an attractive money maker for the Government.

SS was never a pension plan. And your contributions do not belong to you. They belong to the USG, which can decide what benefits will be provided.

SS is a Ponzi scheme. SS is a pay as you go system, i.e., today's workers pay for today's retirees. In 1950 there were 16 workers for every retiree; today there are three; and by 2030 there will be two. We either decrease benefits or raise contributions or some combination thereof to ensure full benefits are paid. SS has been running in the red since 2010. The last time that happened was in the early 1980s, which prompted Reagan and Tip O'Neil to strike a Faustian bargain to save the system for the next 75 years. One change was to raise the age for full benefits from 65 to 67. Another was to force all new federal hires to pay into SS.

Federal abuses and malfeasance to the SS funds over the past decades have perverted a reasonable annuity plan. If SS had been privatized it would have been successful.

What federal abuses are you referring to?

22 posted on 12/25/2013 8:05:47 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: djf

South Carolinians will promptly tell the Feds “you made this law, you enforce it!


23 posted on 12/25/2013 8:08:48 AM PST by John 3_19-21 (Don't like Gramnesty? Support Lee Bright www.brightforsenate.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stylecouncilor

Here we go....


24 posted on 12/25/2013 8:08:58 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf
I hope they do get sued.

I'd like to see an argument made that the law is unimplementable and unenforcable as demonstrated by all the unconstitutional waivers and changes that Obama has personally made without authority.

I'd like to see them argue that no such law can be found to be constitutional because its very nature of poor construction creates a constitutional crisis every time the President makes law on his own in an attempt to fix this law.

The Supreme Court should strike it down simply because it is no law at all.

-PJ

25 posted on 12/25/2013 8:10:14 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

The IRS can pull fines directly out of people’s accounts. The state cannot stop that.


26 posted on 12/25/2013 8:12:20 AM PST by bmwcyle (People who do not study history are destine to believe really ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puzzleman

Past being prologue, Nikki will stand firm. IMHO


27 posted on 12/25/2013 8:15:24 AM PST by John 3_19-21 (Life is way too short to suffer fools long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

The only person who made that claim is Alex Jones.

FWICS, the IRS can put a lien on your bank account, though.


28 posted on 12/25/2013 8:17:06 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Under our current dictatorship this will go nowhere. King Obama will just put Haley in his place. Obey or go down.


29 posted on 12/25/2013 8:22:06 AM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Many folks are missing the excellent point behind SC's law.

It's designed to make the Feds go through hoops and implement this on their own, without SC's help.

The Feds passed this and crammed it down our throats; they can implement it then. That's their problem and states shouldn't lend a pinkie to help them.

30 posted on 12/25/2013 8:39:49 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Governor Sarah Heath Palin for President of the United States in 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanExceptionalist
and unapologetic defiance of the Feds...

Yes, that is exactly where this is going. Nationwide. Open Defiance of the Fed Gov at the State Level. The battle lines are drawn. The ComDems must go.

31 posted on 12/25/2013 8:41:13 AM PST by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Does this in any way help those SC state employees (if any) whose health insurance policies have ALREADY been terminated due to O-Care?

Regards,

32 posted on 12/25/2013 8:46:25 AM PST by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom



33 posted on 12/25/2013 8:53:09 AM PST by MeshugeMikey ( Visit http://icantenroll.com/ In Glitch We Trust....;o})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz

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.


34 posted on 12/25/2013 8:54:05 AM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
..." 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.

35 posted on 12/25/2013 9:27:40 AM PST by mosaicwolf (Strength and Honor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

SS could have worked if done correctly you’d get 100% investment on your money i.e. you pay in 6.2% of your salary, your employer matches the 6.2%.

When you retire they should just hand you a check (tax free) for the combined total, say here you go and that’s “ALL” you get.

The Government just F’s up everything it touches.


36 posted on 12/25/2013 9:30:15 AM PST by maddog55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz

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.


37 posted on 12/25/2013 10:20:23 AM PST by Nextrush (AFFORDABLE CARE ACT=HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY BAILOUT ACT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kabar

***SS was never a pension plan.***

I used quotes for ‘pension’ - but that was the public’s perception.

***What federal abuses are you referring to?***

Reviewing articles like this:

http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/05/23/government-owes-2-7-trillion-to-social-security/

“The government has embezzled all surplus Social Security revenue, generated by the 1983 payroll tax hike, and spent the money on wars and other government programs. None of the money was saved or invested in anything.”


38 posted on 12/25/2013 10:21:59 AM PST by sodpoodle (Life is prickly - carry tweezers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

Gov. Haley is a she, and a very determined she.


39 posted on 12/25/2013 10:22:28 AM PST by bytesmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

Or if SS had remained what it started out to be, which was to take care of the people who really needed. The impoverished, widows and orphans and the disabled. It became, in effect, a pension fund for everyone.


40 posted on 12/25/2013 11:13:08 AM PST by RobbyS (quotes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle
“The government has embezzled all surplus Social Security revenue, generated by the 1983 payroll tax hike, and spent the money on wars and other government programs. None of the money was saved or invested in anything.”<

Such uninformed statements show how little people know about how SS works. Since its inception SS has worked the same way.

All revenue collected thru the payroll tax is used to pay benefits and any "surplus" is deposited immediately into interest bearing, non-market T-bills. When SS goes into the red, as it has now permanently pending any reform, these T-bills are used to make up the shortfall.

Yes, the $2.4 trillion in the SSTF is included in the $17.3 trillion national debt under "Intragovernmental Holdings" as distinct from the so-called publicly held debt. The T-bills represent debt backed by the full faith and credit of the USG whether they are held by the Chinese, an individual, or the SSTF. The money has not been embezzled by the USG any more than any other debt.

All USG trust funds are treated the same way whether it is the HI Trust Fund (Medicare Part A), the federal employee pension fund, or the SSTF. They are held in interest-bearing, non-market T-bills. Some, including Bill Clinton, at one time, suggested that SS should invest the money in the stock market or some other investment. The only problem is the huge amount of money involved would distort the markets and give government even more power to use the money to influence politics and to choose winners and losers. At this stage, it is a moot point since SS has been running in the red since 2010 and Medicare (HI) has been running in the red since 2008. Both trust funds have been cashing in T-bills to make up the shortfall.

The overall national debt is not affected by such redemptions, but the publicly held debt is increased since the General Fund must borrow money to redeem the T-bills. This gives the lie to Nancy Pelosi who says that SS is not contributing to the national debt. The sad fact is that we must borrow money to pay for SS benefits and Medicare benefits. The SS DI trust fund exhausts its T-bills in 2016--just three years from now. Congress will have to authorize the movement of T-bills from the SSTF so that benefits will be paid and not reduced per the law.

Even if the SSTF contained cash, SS would still go bust. We are paying out more in benefits than we take in in revenue. The baby boomer cohort is retiring at 10,000 a day for the next 20 years. By 2030 one in five Americans will be 65 or older--twice what it is now. SS is going broke because it is not actuarial sound. We either need to cut benefits or increase taxes or some combination thereof. It is why many have compared SS to a Ponzi scheme. The folks at the top of the pyramid like me have gotten far more out in benefits than they paid in. That is not going to be the case in the future. I agree with you we should privatize most of it leaving a small defined benefit program to cover disability and survivor benefits.

41 posted on 12/25/2013 11:46:43 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

Actually, the life expectancy at age 65 is higher than age 78, due to earlier mortality lowering the average of the entire population.

For those who reach age 65, the average life expectancy for men is about another 19 years, and for women another 21 years.

Before Obama hit the medical industry, that is. Now, who knows?


42 posted on 12/25/2013 12:55:19 PM PST by muffaletaman (IMNSHO - I MIGHT be wrong, but I doubt it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

It may have been promoted as a Government resource (rather that charities and churches), to support the disabled, elderly, widows and orphans - but when the Feds mandated deductions from the working poor they called it a ‘future retirement benefit’.


43 posted on 12/25/2013 1:11:28 PM PST by sodpoodle (Life is prickly - carry tweezers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

The IRS has no enforcement mechanism to collect the individual mandate penalties, except the one mechanism they already had — offset of any tax debt against any federal refund. Just make sure that you will not get a federal refund, and it’s all good. If in the future, they pass a mechanism to levy bank accounts for the penalty, the day it is enacted or regulations promulgated will be the last day I have funds in a bank account.


44 posted on 12/25/2013 1:11:58 PM PST by Emile (Leftists are so 'open-minded', their brains have fallen out. -- (HT to GOPJ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: djf

My bet as well. Letting the fed courts adjudicate a dispute between a state and another branch of the fed gov is like holding a championship fight between Ali and Frazier, and letting Ali’s manager referee the fight. Hardly impartial.


45 posted on 12/25/2013 1:14:25 PM PST by Emile (Leftists are so 'open-minded', their brains have fallen out. -- (HT to GOPJ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kabar

A private annuity with the same record as SS would be blamed on poor actuarial and risk management....or embezzlement. Either way - they would be jailed for breach of trust.

The Feds just move tax payments around to cover their ineptitude and/or criminality without penalty. The tax payers suffer the penalties.


46 posted on 12/25/2013 1:17:00 PM PST by sodpoodle (Life is prickly - carry tweezers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: muffaletaman

Right. I check the population statistics once in a while. It should be easy for actuaries and statisticians to come up with working data to perform some better projections for SS.

Have noticed that my grandparents had 9 children and 32 grandchildren. Since that generation, the number of children per family has decreased from 0 to 1. I have 4 offspring to support my SS benefits - in addition to the 40 years I and my employers paid into it.


47 posted on 12/25/2013 1:32:16 PM PST by sodpoodle (Life is prickly - carry tweezers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle
A private annuity with the same record as SS would be blamed on poor actuarial and risk management....or embezzlement. Either way - they would be jailed for breach of trust.

If SS were an annuity or pension plan, I would agree with you. It is not. You can pay into SS for 50 years at the maximum amount and die the day after you are scheduled to start collecting benefits and your estate would get nothing.

For one third of Americans over 65, SS is their only source of income. For two thirds SS represents more than 50% of their retirement income. Most Americans are not going to have a very pleasant retirement because they have not saved and invested enough.

The Feds just move tax payments around to cover their ineptitude and/or criminality without penalty. The tax payers suffer the penalties.

The taxpayers get the government they deserve. How many taxpayers want to make the changes necessary to make the entitlement programs solvent? They represent a $90 trillion unfunded liability. We have borrowed from our children and grandchildren to fund these programs. The average Medicare recipient gets three times more in benefits than what he contributed. These programs are unsustainable and the longer we wait to address it, the more painful the solution.

48 posted on 12/25/2013 1:37:11 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

Indeed, but it was not originally intended to be something to benefit the large middle class that appeared after World War II. Like the withholding tax, it served as a handy way of capturing a larger share the wealth that fell into the hands of a growing middle class than they might have. Excerpt for withholding, companies might have simply paid workers a higher salary rather than buy health insurance for them, and started us down the road that ends with Obamacare.


49 posted on 12/25/2013 8:24:05 PM PST by RobbyS (quotes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush

Agree both drive up health insurance costs for people and the feds will pay the insurance companies what Obamacare won’t pay so taxes or fees will ensue a.k.a. screwed.


50 posted on 12/26/2013 7:18:35 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson