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 ...
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?
May this be “the Shot Heard Round The Nation”
The bill would forbid **state** employees from participating in federally mandated insurance exchanges.
What about the rest of the people?.
The way Hussein is changing the rules, they better be able to amend that legislation on a daily or maybe hourly basis.
I’m wondering what would have happened during FDR when he implemented Social Security.
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.
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.
So long as Haley is quick enough to turn the slavery comparison back upon Zerocare.
If the states can disregard immigration laws then why can’t they disregard Obamacare?
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.
Yes. His Royal Proclamation will surely make just such a “dubious” comparison.
May the next State to take this step be from “The North”!
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.
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.
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...
Maybe so but it seems like the state members always come first.
If the FEDERAL government can ignore ILLEGALS flooding our border why can't states ignore FEDERAL laws flooding the states?
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.
“If the States can disregard Immigration laws then why not Obamacare”
Excellent point
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.