State Action to Refuse Participation in National Healthcare?

BigRob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
7,541
Location
USA
I saw this legislation was introduced in the Louisiana State Senate by Senator Crowe. Generally, it states:

A. Congress is attempting to enact proposed legislation which, if passed, would require Louisiana to expand the income limits for the medicaid program and would, thereby, negatively impact the state general fund.

B. The U.S. Supreme Court in Printz v. United States, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 521 U.S. 898, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997), has declared that states cannot be required by the federal government to provide services which are not compensated for by the federal government.

C. Louisiana law prohibits any public funds made available to any institution, board, commission, department, agency, official, or employee of the state, or any political subdivision thereof, whether such funds are made available by the U.S. government, to pay for elective abortions, except in certain limited cases.

D. Proposed federal mandates would require Louisiana taxpayers to pay for or subsidize all elective abortions and would be in conflict with state law.

E. To coerce individuals to enter into contracts with private companies, particularly health insurers, would go beyond the authority of the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution and, therefore, be unconstitutional.

F. To require the citizens of Louisiana to pay for certain federally mandated services while exempting the taxpayers of certain other states is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

G. The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that "The 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." Issues regarding health care and health insurance were never delegated to the federal government by the states and, thus, are reserved to the states.

I have seen some legislation in state governments about the 10th amendment, however anything that has actually passed has seemed to be something that is non-binding.

Is this type of thing something that people would expect other states to follow on, or have other states already introduced legislation of this sort?

I am not sure I see it really going anywhere, outside of a few arguments in there that could be problematic for the Federal Government, but I am not sure it would sink anything entirely.

What do you all think?
 
Werbung:
I saw this legislation was introduced in the Louisiana State Senate by Senator Crowe. Generally, it states:



I have seen some legislation in state governments about the 10th amendment, however anything that has actually passed has seemed to be something that is non-binding.

Is this type of thing something that people would expect other states to follow on, or have other states already introduced legislation of this sort?

I am not sure I see it really going anywhere, outside of a few arguments in there that could be problematic for the Federal Government, but I am not sure it would sink anything entirely.

What do you all think?

Likely to end up like the stimulus funds.

The ones that said they weren't going to take them eventually saw they were loosing out by not.

Or who knows there may be an opt out in the Bill. We'll have to wait and see.
 
Likely to end up like the stimulus funds.

The ones that said they weren't going to take them eventually saw they were loosing out by not.

Or who knows there may be an opt out in the Bill. We'll have to wait and see.

Well, even those who said they would not take stimulus dollars only ended up taking some of the dollars. They continue to refuse to accept other parts of the money.

I do not see how that model can translate into the healthcare legislation. This one seems more like an all or nothing situation.
 
B. The U.S. Supreme Court in Printz v. United States, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 521 U.S. 898, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997), has declared that states cannot be required by the federal government to provide services which are not compensated for by the federal government.

Has any state challenged and won this argument in court anywhere in AMERICA. I'm wondering about the Public Schools that are currently banning together to file suits against the state for funding that they are being denied because of that 'NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND' debacle {not that this compares to the health care issue} just wondering if that court ruling had ever been challenged by any state since the 1997 date!
 
What do you all think?
The states have to assert their rights as states to prevent the federal government from steamrolling over all of us, and our rights. Unfortunately, states like California and Michigan are heavily in debt and face potential collapse without bailouts from the federal government. States with such life threatening self inflicted wounds are going hat in hand to the federal government for rescue and not even considering asserting their rights.

Here's a good article:

Memo To Foes Of Health Reform: Repudiate The Morality Of Need

The message is clear: If you have a need, you are entitled to have it fulfilled at others' expense.

The reason we continue to move toward socialized medicine is that everyone — including the opponents of socialized medicine — grants its basic moral premise: that need generates an entitlement.

So long as that principle goes unchallenged, government intervention in medicine will continue growing, as each new pressure group asserts its need and lobbies for its entitlement, until finally the government takes responsibility for fulfilling everyone's medical needs by socializing the health care system outright.

The concept of need legitimizing the violation of rights is both immoral and impractical.
 
If this is what it takes to get the public to finally notice the 10th amendment and start wondering what it means, then I guess that's a small silver lining on the black cloud of government-run health care.
 
The states have to assert their rights as states to prevent the federal government from steamrolling over all of us, and our rights. Unfortunately, states like California and Michigan are heavily in debt and face potential collapse without bailouts from the federal government. States with such life threatening self inflicted wounds are going hat in hand to the federal government for rescue and not even considering asserting their rights.
The concept of need legitimizing the violation of rights is both immoral and impractical.

But isn't that a double edged sword; our government bailed out the 'BIG APPLE' when it was about to implode {we support our government who in return supports all of us when we need them to}...what would have been the outcome had NEW YORK not received the assistance that they asked for? I just shudder to think about that low that many years ago!
 
Maybe, just, maybe, if the states fail, the polciy makers in those states will realize that they cannot just pass every social entitlement they want and not be expected to pay for it.
They can't be like California, and drive out businesses and make safe haven cities for illegal immigrants. They have to stop the environmentalists silly notiions about no "pre-burnings" for the forests.

Most of what is brought in is brought on by themselves.
 
Maybe, just, maybe, if the states fail, the polciy makers in those states will realize that they cannot just pass every social entitlement they want and not be expected to pay for it.
They can't be like California, and drive out businesses and make safe haven cities for illegal immigrants. They have to stop the environmentalists silly notiions about no "pre-burnings" for the forests.

Most of what is brought in is brought on by themselves.

How about we cut off the funds that go into all those red States that pay in far less taxes then they receive ( yet cry about taxes) and watch them fail. Lets watch the Great States of Alabama and Miss, get by with no federal help...I am Sure MN could enjoy its extra tax money back since we pay in more then we get back as a state.

Of course that just means more of those dumb hicks moving here for jobs, then we have to deal with them.
 
How about we cut off the funds that go into all those red States that pay in far less taxes then they receive ( yet cry about taxes) and watch them fail. Lets watch the Great States of Alabama and Miss, get by with no federal help...I am Sure MN could enjoy its extra tax money back since we pay in more then we get back as a state.

Of course that just means more of those dumb hicks moving here for jobs, then we have to deal with them.

Well, if you cut off the funds, and saddle all these states will unfunded liabilities it would be a violation of the law.

However, if you cut the programs that needed to be funded, and then cut the funds, that would be fine, since people would need to pay far less in taxes to the federal government.

I also find your generalization of people in the South as somewhat ignorant.
 
Well, if you cut off the funds, and saddle all these states will unfunded liabilities it would be a violation of the law.

However, if you cut the programs that needed to be funded, and then cut the funds, that would be fine, since people would need to pay far less in taxes to the federal government.

I also find your generalization of people in the South as somewhat ignorant.

Then tell them to stop proving me right. But at least you said Somewhat, so you there is some truth behind what I said. Those 2 states you will find at the bottom of just about any list talking about Education...I can only guess how well they would do without federal funds.

And as stated before, Bush, no Child Left behind.. need I say more? as always, the right was pretty silent on that one....
 
Werbung:
Then tell them to stop proving me right. But at least you said Somewhat, so you there is some truth behind what I said. Those 2 states you will find at the bottom of just about any list talking about Education...I can only guess how well they would do without federal funds.

And as stated before, Bush, no Child Left behind.. need I say more? as always, the right was pretty silent on that one....

I know that education in Louisiana is terrible, however I grew up there, and I feel like I managed to get a decent one. ;)

As for NCLB, I am with you, it has its problems, however I think there are some positives that it produced that ought to be considered as well.
 
Back
Top