South Carolina this week could become the first state in the country to restrict the enactment of Obamacare since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that law last year.
A proposed bill, on special order in the state Senate, would allow the state attorney general to take businesses, including health insurers, to court if he “has reasonable cause to believe” they are harming people by implementing the law. The bill already has passed the House.
If it passes, the bill could push South Carolina to the forefront of Obamacare resistance, giving the state’s Republican leaders a national stage. It also could push South Carolina into yet another costly legal battle in the federal courts that, critics say, is unnecessary and avoidable.
“It is going to get us in court, as we all know. But ... it is worth the risk to see if we can protect our state from this far-reaching federal legislation,” state Sen. Kevin Bryant, R-Anderson, one of the lawmakers pushing for the Senate to pass the bill this week before it adjourns for the year.
Many Senate Democrats, and some Republicans, dismiss the bill as nothing more than a symbolic political salvo meant to provide fodder for lawmakers’ legislative newsletters and campaign signs. But health-insurance companies are worried the bill could complicate further their efforts to navigate the regulatory landscape.
“We need to make sure that companies – health-care providers in South Carolina – aren’t faced with situation where the federal government says you must and the state government says you cannot,” said Bob Coble, an attorney for Nexsen Pruett who represents several hospitals.
For example, some health-insurance companies say the bill would prevent them from helping customers buy insurance through a federally operated health-care exchange, designed to lower costs by federal subsidies and pooling insurance.
“If all of a sudden it becomes illegal for me to help a citizen go through an exchange and get a subsidy, that kind of defeats a lot of the purpose of trying to help them get coverage,” said Mark Riley, legislative chairman for the S.C. Association of Health Underwriters.
But state Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, said nothing in the bill would prevent a business from participating in a federal health-insurance exchange, rejecting the suggestion the bill would make businesses “choose state law or federal law.”
“That doesn’t seem to be in there,” he said.
What is troubling about the bill, Martin said, is a provision that effectively would wipe out federal tax penalties for not complying with the law. For example, if someone refuses to buy health insurance, that person would have to pay more in federal taxes. But if South Carolina passes the proposal, that person would get a state tax deduction to offset their increased federal taxes.
Martin said he cannot support that. “No. 1, it is an unknown amount of money involved, and No. 2 ... all you would be doing is encouraging folks not to pay for insurance so their fellow South Carolinians can pay the premium for you.”
But Bryant compared the tax deduction to the economic incentives the state awards to companies to locate in South Carolina.
“Every time we give a tax credit, the taxpayer pays for it, essentially,” Bryant said. “You can get a tax credit for everything under the sun.”
Republican Gov. Nikki Haley was an outspoken opponent of expanding the state’s Medicaid program under the Affordable Care Act. Haley’s spokesman would not say Monday if Haley would sign the anti-Obamacare bill if it comes to her desk.
“The governor has also been very clear about her priorities this session – blocking Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, restructuring and ethics reform,” Rob Godfrey said in a written statement.
Haley might not have to decide whether to sign the bill this year.
The Senate is scheduled to adjourn for the year at 5 p.m. Thursday. While the bill is on special order – making it harder for lawmakers to pass it over – it is behind the ethics reform bill, which could take several days to debate and pass.
“I can’t venture to see any type of possibility that it passes this session,” said state Sen. Gerald Malloy, D-Darlington, who said he likely will oppose the bill. It could pass next year, Malloy added, but only after “one of the most extensive debates we have had in recent times.”
Honestly, I'm glad to see this. I am not happy with the final outcome of the ACA, but it set us on a path to eventually find a better way to run our health care. I appreciate, Angie, that you posted an article that includes quotes from R's, D's and even insurance under writers. Of the bunch, only Republicans seem to be in support of this. BTW, it is ludicrous. As with the abortion issue we are discussing on another thread, this is another prime example of the far far right wing of the Republican party using local legislation to effectively block them from ever having to play by the rules everyone else does. This will bite them in the ass in the long term of course, but there is nothing more satisfying to a Republican then cutting their nose to spite their face if it means they can feel morally right about it.
ReplyDeleteA lot of people clog our ER's right now and pay nothing for their health care. Those with insurance don't think they are affected by this, but they are. While the poor and elderly are paid for from tax dollars, we have a larger and comparatively healthier group who collectively pay more in premiums then they consume in health care. That cherry picked bunch generates a ton of profit for health care companies that do nothing more then process claims and skim a "taste" for doing so.
Ridiculous as this bill is, I love that it will put the state on the hook for all the people who choose to stay uninsured and show up for healthcare anyway.
Representatives of the citizens are simply saying they disagree with the USSC's decision supporting the forced purchase of health care. They do not believe it is constitutional, do not support being told what they have to spend their hard earned dollars on.
ReplyDeleteThe fine citizens of South Carolina will prove prescient in their understanding of the imminent collapse of Obamacare.
1773-2009
"They do not believe it is constitutional, do not support being told what they have to spend their hard earned dollars on."
DeleteWesley Snipes didn't believe taxes were constitutional. How'd that work out? The reality today is that a growing chorus of whack jobs believe that everything they don't like is unconstitutional.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
DeleteWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Obamacare
DeleteFast and Furious
IRS/Political bias
Benghazi
EPA/Political bias
AP/Taps
Rozen/Fox/Taps
AG perjury
Verizon/Taps
Secret email accounts/Jackson/Sebelius
Attacks on the 1st amendment/AP/Rozen/Fox/IRS
Attacks on the 2nd amendment/Gun Control
Attacks on the 4th amendment/Boston
Attacks on the 5th amendment/EPA
Attacks on the 10th amendment
Attacks on the 13th amendment/Obamacare
Here's what gets me William. On something like Drone strikes and our secret wars, you personally are silent even when the poster child for your cause, Rand Paul, waged an honest to God, talking filibuster. You, and many like you, have your panties perpetually twisted over things that don't really matter.
DeleteObamacare- sorry champ. You lost. Obama ran on this and depending on how you phrase the question, this has a lot of support. But, let's go a step further. The idea that the mandate is actually a demand for personal responsibility is a Republican idea. You can disown it if you like, but that doesn't change history.
Fast and Furious- a program started under Bush. This is another dead story involving a lot of incompetence well below the office of Eric Holder. Further, on gun control, name a single, repeat, a SINGLE law Obama put in place that has restricted guns. Not bullshit he talked about. Not bills that didn't pass, but a true thing Obama did that restricted guns. Until the school shooting, he did nothing. Not one, F'n, thing.
IRS- you should really just be quiet about this and thank your lucky stars this happened. This has nothing to do with Obama. The job of the IRS is to collect revenue and go after those who seek to avoid paying revenue. They targeted a group who doesn't want to pay taxes. Surprise, surprise. At a time when people were finally starting to accept we can't eat cake and lose weight like the Republicans have promised, this story breaks and now the nut jobs come pouring out of the woodwork like roaches to abolish the IRS. Again, you should be grateful.
Benghazi- a bureaucratic fuck up. A tragic fuck up to be sure, but also one that is well below the level of outrage of angry fuckheads like Issa, McCain and Gosh Golly Graham.
EPA- a decades long whipping boy of everybody on the right except Nixon. When you beat the same dead horse every chance you get, it's hard to take you seriously on overreach.
Secret email accounts- Yawn.
Now the news outlets. On this front, there is something to be concerned about, the left has been on Obama for this. At the center of this story, is the leaking of classified information, which we should also be concerned about. However, I believe that over time all administrations have abused the classified tag in order to avoid being held accountable. Not surprisingly, there was a journalist shield bill that Republicans killed that may have helped here. None other then asshole Issa was one of the congressmen who voted against it. The bill passed congress, but then was killed in the senate by Republican filibuster. Per reports, it could have passed with 52 votes, but as we all know, folks like yourself believe it is okay to block everything without 60 votes because the country would have given the Dems 60 seats if they wanted them to be able to govern.
And at the top, of course, we have your love of quoting others because you are not capable of making a point yourself.
I was expressing a trend that the good people of South Carolina are cognizant of. If you can't catch my drift that's your problem. Discount each event if you like but the weight of history will bear down on this administration like none other since Nixon.
DeleteAs we discussed in another thread. The tacit approval of Obama's background and his employment of so many left wing zealots has lead to these tragic outcomes.
Any unusual clicks on your cell phone today Max?
1773-2009 Tea Party meeting tonight at 6:30. Expecting our rank to continue to grow.
Your drift is abundantly clear, you believe things have gotten so bad that we need to arm ourselves and overthrow the US government because it is soooooooo oppressive to you. If, William, you ever used your reasoning to hold Republicans accountable, you would be bitching about them here far more then you do Democrats.
DeleteArmed revolt may be coming sooner than you think if Dictator Obama doesn't change course ASAP.
DeleteYeah, and when I was a kid, people used to say, "Wait til my Dad get's home!" I'm never quite sure when you are serious Brian. Think about what you are saying. What, in this current environment, is sooo oppressive that you would be willing to take a weapon and go kill some government person over? It's so far out of proportion to what is happening that it's flat out ridiculous. Every time a Democrat is in office, this crazy shit starts amping up. In my lifetime, the biggest atacks on person freedom have come from Republicans. In my lifetime, when Republicans are in office, spending goes up, debt goes up, deficits go up and the economy goes down. What we are living through now is the result of a deregulation bubble.
DeleteThe Tea Party is a non-violent movement. If the administration is to collapse it will be from the inside out, much like the implosion of the USSR.
DeleteI note you still use the cute term tea bag. Latent homosexuality Maxie?
the biggest atacks on person freedom have come from Republicans. In my lifetime, when Republicans are in office, spending goes up, debt goes up, deficits go up and the economy goes down. What we are living through now is the result of a deregulation bubble.
Delete-------------------
Haven't you been reading the headlines for the last five years regarding personal freedom, government spending, deficits, and our economy? Someone would have to be living under a rock not to see the damage this Kenyan has done to our country.