South Carolina General Assembly
120th Session, 2013-2014
Indicates New Matter
H. 3101
STATUS INFORMATION
General Bill
Sponsors: Reps. Chumley, Taylor, G.R. Smith, Huggins, Wells, Henderson, Crosby, Atwater, Long, Wood, Toole, Willis, Clemmons, Hardwick, Hardee, Goldfinch, Bedingfield, D.C. Moss, Loftis, Nanney, Pitts, Putnam, V.S. Moss, Owens, Barfield, H.A. Crawford, Stringer, Hamilton, Burns, Tallon, Kennedy, Allison, Murphy, Delleney, Horne, Daning and Brannon
Document Path: l:\council\bills\nbd\11021vr13.docx
Companion/Similar bill(s): 147
Introduced in the House on January 8, 2013
Introduced in the Senate on May 2, 2013
Last Amended on April 25, 2013
Currently residing in the Senate
Summary: Freedom of Health Care Protection Act
HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
Date Body Action Description with journal page number
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/11/2012 House Prefiled
12/11/2012 House Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry
1/8/2013 House Introduced and read first time (House Journal-page 83)
1/8/2013 House Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry
(House Journal-page 83)
1/9/2013 House Recalled from Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry
(House Journal-page 21)
1/9/2013 House Referred to Committee on Judiciary
(House Journal-page 21)
1/9/2013 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Bedingfield,
D.C.Moss, Loftis
1/10/2013 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Nanney, Pitts
1/16/2013 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Putnam
1/17/2013 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: V.S.Moss
1/23/2013 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Owens, Barfield
1/29/2013 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: H.A.Crawford
3/20/2013 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Stringer,
Hamilton, Burns
4/10/2013 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Tallon,
Kennedy, Allison, Murphy
4/10/2013 House Committee report: Favorable with amendment Judiciary
(House Journal-page 30)
4/11/2013 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Delleney
4/16/2013 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Horne
4/16/2013 House Requests for debate-Rep(s). Delleney, Skelton, Toole,
Atwater, Balentine, Felder, DC Moss, Robinson-Simpson,
Hamilton, Mack, Hixon, Owens, JR Smith, Lucas,
Gilliard, Neal, Wells, RL Brown, Anderson, Hosey,
Clyburn, GA Brown, Weeks, Douglas, McEachern, King,
Cobb-Hunter, JE Smith, Jefferson, Daning, Sellers,
Sabb, WJ McLeod, Crosby, Pope (House Journal-page 16)
4/17/2013 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Daning
4/24/2013 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Brannon
4/25/2013 House Amended (House Journal-page 101)
4/25/2013 House Read second time (House Journal-page 101)
4/25/2013 House Roll call Yeas-65 Nays-34 (House Journal-page 114)
4/26/2013 Scrivener's error corrected
5/1/2013 House Debate adjourned (House Journal-page 148)
5/1/2013 House Read third time and sent to Senate
(House Journal-page 206)
5/1/2013 House Roll call Yeas-65 Nays-39 (House Journal-page 206)
5/2/2013 Senate Introduced and read first time (Senate Journal-page 14)
5/2/2013 Senate Referred to Committee on Finance (Senate Journal-page 14)
5/29/2013 Senate Recalled from Committee on Finance
(Senate Journal-page 59)
5/29/2013 Senate Roll call Ayes-26 Nays-19 (Senate Journal-page 59)
5/30/2013 Senate Special order, set for May 30, 2013
(Senate Journal-page 45)
5/30/2013 Senate Roll call Ayes-28 Nays-16 (Senate Journal-page 45)
View the latest legislative information at the LPITS web siteVERSIONS OF THIS BILL
12/11/2012
4/10/2013
4/25/2013
4/26/2013
5/29/2013
May 29, 2013
H. 3101
Introduced by Reps. Chumley, Taylor, G.R. Smith, Huggins, Wells, Henderson, Crosby, Atwater, Long, Wood, Toole, Willis, Clemmons, Hardwick, Hardee, Goldfinch, Bedingfield, D.C. Moss, Loftis, Nanney, Pitts, Putnam, V.S. Moss, Owens, Barfield, H.A. Crawford, Stringer, Hamilton, Burns, Tallon, Kennedy, Allison, Murphy, Delleney, Horne, Daning and Brannon
S. Printed 5/29/13--S.
Read the first time May 2, 2013.
Whereas, the people of the several states comprising the United States of America created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes, and nothing more; and
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people themselves; and
Whereas, Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part that "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"; and
Whereas, the judicial decision of the United States Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" directly contravenes Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution because, in upholding the law by re-characterizing the Act as a tax even though Congress specifically refused to identify it as a tax, the United States Supreme Court legislated new law in violation of Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution; and
Whereas, the assumption of power that the federal government has made by enacting the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" interferes with the right of the people of the State of South Carolina to regulate health care as they see fit and makes a mockery of James Madison's assurance in Federalist #45 that the "powers delegated" to the federal government are "few and defined", while those of the states are "numerous and indefinite". Now, therefore,
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. The General Assembly declares that authority for this act is the following:
(1) The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the United States federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers delegated to it in the Constitution.
(2) Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States provides that laws of the United States are the supreme law of the land provided that they are made in pursuance of the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.
(3) It is the stated policy of the South Carolina General Assembly that provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 grossly exceed the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.
(4) The provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 which exceed the limited powers granted to the Congress pursuant to the Constitution, cannot and should not be considered the supreme law of the land.
(5) The General Assembly of South Carolina has the absolute and sovereign authority to interpose and refuse to enforce the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 that exceed the authority of the Congress.
(6) The Fourteenth Amendment provides that the people are to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
SECTION 2. Chapter 1, Title 1 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
(B) The General Assembly of the State of South Carolina is empowered to take all necessary actions to ensure that the provisions of subsection (A) are adhered to by all agencies, departments, and political subdivisions of the State."
SECTION 3. Article 1, Chapter 7, Title 1 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 1-7-180. Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a person or business is being harmed by implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and that proceedings would be in the public interest, the Attorney General may bring an action in the name of the State against such person or entity causing the harm to restrain by temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, or permanent injunction the use of such method, act, or practice. Unless the Attorney General determines in writing that the purposes of this section will be substantially impaired by delay in instituting legal proceedings, the Attorney General shall, at least three days before instituting a legal proceeding as provided in this section, give notice to the person or entity against whom the proceeding is contemplated and give such person or entity an opportunity to present reasons to the Attorney General why a proceeding should not be instituted. The action may be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction. Whenever the court issues a permanent injunction in connection with an action, which has become final, the court shall award reasonable costs to the State."
SECTION 4. Chapter 6, Title 12 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 12-6-3579. A South Carolina resident taxpayer who is subjected to a tax by the Internal Revenue Code under 26 U.S.C. Section 5000A of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act shall receive a tax deduction in the exact amount of the taxes or penalty paid the federal government pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 5000A. The tax deduction allowed by this section must be used in the year the federal tax or penalty is paid."
SECTION 5. Article 1, Chapter 71, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 38-71-44. (A) 'Health Care Exchange' means an American Health Benefit Exchange established by any state or political subdivision of a state, as provided for in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
(B) Neither South Carolina nor a political subdivision including, but not limited to, counties, municipalities, or special purpose districts of the State may establish a Health Care Exchange for the purchase of health insurance.
(C) Neither South Carolina nor a political subdivision including, but not limited to, counties, municipalities, or special purpose districts, may participate in or purchase insurance from a health care exchange established by a nonprofit organization.
(D) A health insurance contract purchased or established in violation of this section is void and must not be enforced by the courts of this State."
SECTION 6. Chapter 1, Title 43 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 43-1-300. No agency, department, or other state entity, including, but not limited to, the Department of Social Services and the Department of Health and Human Services, may authorize an employee, contractor, vendor, or any other person acting on behalf of the department to conduct or participate in an involuntary maternal, infant, and early childhood in-home visitation pursuant to Section 2951 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and any subsequent federal act that amends that section or that may refer to an entity or a process established pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010."
SECTION 7. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
TD, how many people in this country would have health insurance if they did not get it through a job?
ReplyDelete200 million
DeleteMy reply was based on the currently unemployed, via BLS, the unemployed that have fallen off the BLS data, about 30 million, the minimum wage earners, about 50 million the illegals, about 15 million and then the dark zones of the young, the homeless, and the unreported within the living zones of every big city.
DeleteYou are convinced they would all be able to afford it without the rest of us subsidizing them?
DeleteWe are already subsidizing them, food stamps, etc. the 2007 crash created the vacuum for the socialists to take hold of the Senate, but the real goal is to model our government on pure socialism. The welfare state has grown enormously in the last four years, much the glee of Harry and Nancy.
DeleteThe question never asked here of course is ... Why is health-care tied to a job?
DeleteIt started with ... you guessed it, the unintended consequence of government regulation and fiddling with the market... The 1942 Stabilization Act that forced employers from competing on wages but allowing 'benefits'. It was further compounded in when the government declared that business could not discontinue or change a benefit in the middle of a union contract. This was followed by a ruling that declared ‘benefits’ to be part of income and therefore something that could be used in negotiations by unions. Reaffirmed in 1954 was the provision in the tax code that made ‘benefits’ not taxable. This made medical insurance an ingrained feature of employment and a yoke around the necks of small business, self employed and the unemployed. These actions by our well meaning but overly intrusive federal government built the healthcare insurance industry into the monster that it is and further regulations and industry protection in the medical world cost shifted every expense it could to insurance while bankrupting an entire network of charity hospitals… Government in action folks.
TD South Carolina can pass any bogus bill they want it will be overturned. Just more obstructionism..
ReplyDeleteOverturned by whom?
DeleteThe Federalists TD.... the all knowing, all seeing and all powerful Federalists
DeleteRick... I think that the bill is quite clear in pointing out its constitutional rights and protections as delineated in the constitution... The only way that their rights as a state are bogus is because we have a federal government that does not respect or follow the constitution and a group of people who somehow are convinced that top down management is better and indeed more convenient than personal responsibility.
DeleteIt will be deemed unconstitutional in the supreme court. Here's why, it's called the supremacy clause. Article VI of the U S Constitution reads
DeleteTHE SUPREMACY CLAUSE Article. VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
'The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.
therefore
The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution explains that federal law always trumps state law which means federal always wins if there is a conflict between the two. If there is no conflict then the state law will be used but if there is any question or conflict of the two reading as the same, then the federal rule would win.
So the ACA is federal Law. Anything S C does to be obstructionist to the law well they lose. YOU DO believe in the constitution don't you?
This is the very reason that that clause was put into the constitution. Yes there are states rights to a point. That point stops at 1. trying to circumvent federal law 2. Seceding from the union because you're pissed off. S C tried that once remember; it didn't work out so well for them.
The 10th amendment..........
DeleteThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Please tell us Rick where the Constitution says the government can force you to buy a product you may not want or more specifically how they can legislate health insurance.
This ought to be good..............
Doesn't matter the law was passed, the supreme court ruled it constitutional. So that is a moot point. Federal law trumps state law. Look it's the same theory in the states that have legalized marijuana use. The fed is allowing it but could at anytime enforce federal law and roll in and charge everyone they find smoking or possessing marijuana. And the state could do nothing about it. The state of S C can pass a law prohibiting anyone in the from enforcing/allowing the provisions of the ACA. The fed can just roll in and enforce it even if it took arresting obstructing state officials, and the state is powerless to stop it. Now I see above that TS has once again invoked the words of "the Federalist" by invoking #45 into the conversation. History challenged are we TS? Don't know why the Federalist was written ? Don't know why it is not really an important constitutional document? Don't know why it was Hamilton and Madison? That my friend was not an accident.
DeleteNow where does it say that the government can force you to buy insurance? Well you know and I know that it doesn't, primarily because in the late 18th century there was no such thing as health insurance. Hell when you got the flu at that time the solution was to bleed ya half to death.
DeleteBut here's it what allows it. It is called the Necessary and Proper clause which has over the years been expanded to mean just about anything the government wants to enact well it can. This battle has been going on since day one. One of the earliest judges to uphold this concept was John Marshall when his supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States in a fight with the State of Maryland. Marshall ruled that in necessary and proper that absolute necessity did not matter. He ruled that the clause was to expand the powers of the Congress not to limit them. The Necessary and Proper Clause has also been combined with Commerce Clause (ex, price controls on farm products that limit the number of acres a farmer can plant) to combining with the Tax laws as was done with the ACA. It was all legal my friend even if you don't agree with it.
You see you have a limited view of the constitution such as Thomas Jefferson who also feared the need of the document to undergo constant change to keep up with rising technology. So even Jefferson saw the constitution as a living document and realized that it was merely the base document for the development of our country. Without the Necessary and Proper Clause the Commerce Clause and the Amendment that gives Congress the powers of Taxation our whole system of laws would have to have been a series of constitutional amendments and what a nightmare that would be with the Constitutionally provided method of amendment ratification. There would be thousands of issues in limbo at any one time and we would never get anything done. Not like this congress has done all that much anyway except to vote for repeal of the ACA 100 times.
Ba Boom That was pretty good don't you think.
"Not like this congress has done all that much anyway except to vote for repeal of the ACA 100 times"
DeleteGood thing to, just imagine the damage liberals and their republican plants could do with unfettered access to ultimate power, overwhelming use of force and a Fed ready to support any ambition the point their little fingers at.
You are correct I keep using ‘federalist’ incorrectly. I have for the longest time used it as a divisive word with respect to the federalist and anti-federalist positions. I should be talking in terms of the Supreme Federalist or perhaps the Central Committee. While the federalist papers were no more than a sales pitch... much like a presidential candidate.. they along with the anti-federalist papers are quite clear in what the federalist 'said' they represented and what the anti-federalist papers clearly showed would happen if strong controls were not put in place to contain the federal government... and the rest is history.
It is interesting how people like you seem to relish in the total disregard of the purpose of the constitution and indeed the amendment process. You know as well as I that your explanation above renders ” powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” absolutely mute. As a matter of fact Madison struggled with the admission of the word "expressly" because in his view the amendment was fine as it was…. We can see from later abuse that it was fine at all.
With regard to amendments… amendments are broad stroke not individual laws and those laws should always conform to the constitution… otherwise they are unconstitutional… not so you would know it with the dysfunction we see in so many Supreme Court decisions.
“Now where does it say that the government can force you to buy insurance? Well you know and I know that it doesn't, primarily because in the late 18th century there was no such thing as health insurance.”
What a ludicrous comment… insurance is not the point and you know it. It is about the federal government forcing people to buy or do ANYTHING to be a lawful breathing citizen except in matters of national defense and latter taxes which needed to be modified to feed the monster. By the way, with respect to ‘insurance’… the government still can’t but for the absolutely magical contortion of the constitution they managed to redefine the definition of a tax.
“The Necessary and Proper Clause has also been combined with Commerce Clause (ex, price controls on farm products that limit the number of acres a farmer can plant) to combining with the Tax laws as was done with the ACA. It was all legal my friend even if you don't agree with it.”
Of course it is Rick, I don’t deny that if you have a corrupt government built by career politicians bent on consolidating power most anything can be made legal… Stalin used LAWS to … consolidate power, collectivize agriculture, increase the police and surveillance apparatus, imprisoned millions. When international capital dried up because of his policies, he confiscated wealth and rationed services. Important achievements were social liberalization (nothing approaching today’s liberal view) free education which lead to the first generally universally literate Russian population (regardless of the propaganda children were fed… it was free… today we share a similar literacy rate with Russia which is far from stellar) and universal health care that greatly improved the health of the population… until it didn’t.
Let me ask you a question. Just how far is too far in the consolidation of the power at the federal level and by extension in the office of the Executive?
What you fail to realize Rick is that there are those that will tell the federal government to f - off. States can exist without the federal government yet the federal government cannot exist without the states.
DeleteWhen is consolidation too much. Well my friend it was too much long before you and I were even a sparkle in our fathers eyes. When will it stop? Probably not in our lifetimes. What can we do about it? Nothing. Nothing that is until we take the money out of politics and return it to the people then the government can be returned to the people.
ReplyDeleteI am glad that you realize that the federalist was just as you say a series of essays sole written for the purpose of swaying the votes of the ratification conventions in two states New York and Virginia because without those two states the whole thing was lost. So keep in mind that they were the skewed opinions of two men who were writing to sway votes, two men by the way who could not govern together.
A little hot are we tonight because what was done to pass the ACA was entirely legal? There is a lot of worse shit in this country that was passed under the same premise. Why don't you consistently gripe about those things.
Only the military huh? Not deliver the mail and form fire companies for protecting your life and property. that is the usual libertarian credo. You know TS complete democracy would be a wonderful thing if it would give us the little utopia you seek but it won't. Is true democracy going to purify the hearts and minds of men so that there is no need for the rule of law? Is it going to purify the hearts and minds of men so that we would need no regulation to protect the weak? The answer is no. We would descend into a chaotic anarchy where the strong prey on the weak, a Darwinian economy of the survival of the fittest. An anarchy where the guy with the biggest gun controls his neighborhood. An anarchy where business eats consumers and workers alive because the one thing true democracy won't destroy is the greed of mankind. It has always been there since man began to realize possessions and always will be until mankind finally implodes.
If it weren't for rules, laws and regulations you would today be living in that thing you most fear, a totalitarian state where the government controls everything because it controls the army which is used to control the population.
And you see TS that is the big problem. We can continue left into socialism or we can continue right into totalitarianism. There is no standing still. Basically my friend we are fucked.
No comment.
Delete