Missouri Health Care Freedom Act

[Deuce]

Decided to be more helpful and break this down for you.

It takes over the insurance companies and forms state run insurance exchanges.

Incorrect. Insurance companies get some extra regulation, ending certain practices. (like rescission and pre-existing conditions exclusions) Regulation is not takeover. There will be no government employees in the Aetna Headquarters. The government will not own any insurance companies. Edit: And the insurance exchange isn't mandatory. A company can elect not to participate. The exchange is basically an Amazon.com of health insurance. Its goal is to let people compare prices on a more standardized set of health insurance plans so they can have an "apples to apples" comparison and not have to read hundreds of pages of lawyer-speak to get the fine details of company A vs. company B.

This in turn will tell doctors and hospitals what they can and cannot do. Under the health care takeover bill, no doctor or hospital can refuse to accept the government and 'private' insurance.

Also incorrect. Since there's no takeover, insurance companies will still be more-or-less in charge of hospitals like they are now. Also, any doctor can still elect not to take Medicare patients. There is no "government insurance" created by this bill. Only the already existing Medicare and Medicaid programs.

It also mandates that everyone must purchase insurance in order to receive medical care.

Outright false. You can choose not to have insurance. You can still go to the doctor and pay out of your own pocket, just like now. You'll have to pay a $750 penalty assessed on your tax return if you do this.

Failure to have insurance will result in jail time and fines.

False. You'll have $750 worth of your tax refund withheld, or if you aren't receiving a refund you might (eventually) have wages garnished until the penalty is paid. Short of outright tax evasion, it is impossible to go to jail for not having insurance, but tax evasion is already a felony. Failing to pay $750 worth of penalties does not constitute tax evasion, so you're going to have to separate commit crimes to go to jail.

Insurance companies that refuse to adhere to health care takeover bill will be fined heavily and/or be absorbed by the government. I'd say that's a takeover.

There are no provisions in this bill that allow for absorption of insurance companies. An insurance company could be fined for breaking the law. (for example, if they continue to exclude anyone with a pre-existing condition) But that is most definitely not a takeover.

You wrote a paragraph about the health care reform law, and literally every sentence you wrote was wrong. You should probably think about what that means. Maybe you have other impressions of the bill based on faulty information? Perhaps you should read the bill yourself instead of letting right wing talking heads translate it into crazy person speak for you.

 

[The_Patriot]

Decided to be more helpful and break this down for you.

Let me follow suit with actual facts taken from the summary of the bill.

Incorrect. Insurance companies get some extra regulation, ending certain practices. (like rescission and pre-existing conditions exclusions) Regulation is not takeover. There will be no government employees in the Aetna Headquarters. The government will not own any insurance companies. Edit: And the insurance exchange isn't mandatory. A company can elect not to participate. The exchange is basically an Amazon.com of health insurance. Its goal is to let people compare prices on a more standardized set of health insurance plans so they can have an "apples to apples" comparison and not have to read hundreds of pages of lawyer-speak to get the fine details of company A vs. company B.

On page 4 of the summary it states, "Create state-based American Health Benefit Exchanges and Small Business Options Program [Shop] Exchanges, administered by a governmental agency..." If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck.

As for there not being a government takeover of insurance companies I present page 4's description of Consumer Operated and Orientated Plan [CO-OP], "Create the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan [CO-OP] program to foster the creation of non-profit, member-run health insurance companies in all 50 states and District of Columbia to offer qualified health plans." These co-ops are the Fanny and Freddie Macs of health insurance run by the government under the non-profit statutes. The bullet point above the CO-OP is titled Public Plan Option, "Require the Office of Personnel Management to contract with insurers to offer at least two multi-state plans in each Exchange." On page 7 under Health Insurance Administration it says, "Establish the Health Insurance Reform Implementation Fund within the Department of Health and Human Services..." Gee another government agency overseeing all of the insurance companies... not a takeover huh?

Also incorrect. Since there's no takeover, insurance companies will still be more-or-less in charge of hospitals like they are now. Also, any doctor can still elect not to take Medicare patients. There is no "government insurance" created by this bill. Only the already existing Medicare and Medicaid programs.

See above since this is disproven.

Outright false. You can choose not to have insurance. You can still go to the doctor and pay out of your own pocket, just like now. You'll have to pay a $750 penalty assessed on your tax return if you do this.

You admitted that you have to pay a fine of $750 dollars. What you failed to mention was that you can go to jail for failure to have insurance.

False. You'll have $750 worth of your tax refund withheld, or if you aren't receiving a refund you might (eventually) have wages garnished until the penalty is paid. Short of outright tax evasion, it is impossible to go to jail for not having insurance, but tax evasion is already a felony. Failing to pay $750 worth of penalties does not constitute tax evasion, so you're going to have to separate commit crimes to go to jail.

Thank you for agreeing with me since if you fail to have insurance you are fined $750 and failure to pay the fine will result in criminal jail time. All for failing to purchase a government run product.

There are no provisions in this bill that allow for absorption of insurance companies. An insurance company could be fined for breaking the law. (for example, if they continue to exclude anyone with a pre-existing condition) But that is most definitely not a takeover.

Under the (SHOP) and Health Insurance Administration it does allow the government to takeover existing insurance companies for breaking the law.

You wrote a paragraph about the health care reform law, and literally every sentence you wrote was wrong. You should probably think about what that means. Maybe you have other impressions of the bill based on faulty information? Perhaps you should read the bill yourself instead of letting right wing talking heads translate it into crazy person speak for you.

Funny, but I used a summary of the bill to defeat your argument and it says the complete opposite. I have read the bill and the summaries of said bill and it does do exactly as I described. I don't listen to the talking heads, because they're a bunch of flipping morons that don't have a clue.

 

[Deuce]

On page 4 of the summary it states, "Create state-based American Health Benefit Exchanges and Small Business Options Program [Shop] Exchanges, administered by a governmental agency..." If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck.

You are failing miserably to understand what it is that the exchange does. You're also missing the glaring issue that companies are not required to participate. The exchange is not a health insurance company. It doesn't sell health insurance. It's a marketplace. Yes, the marketplace is "administered" by the government but they aren't the ones selling the products there.

As for there not being a government takeover of insurance companies I present page 4's description of Consumer Operated and Orientated Plan [CO-OP], "Create the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan [CO-OP] program to foster the creation of non-profit, member-run health insurance companies in all 50 states and District of Columbia to offer qualified health plans." These co-ops are the Fanny and Freddie Macs of health insurance run by the government under the non-profit statutes. The bullet point above the CO-OP is titled Public Plan Option, "Require the Office of Personnel Management to contract with insurers to offer at least two multi-state plans in each Exchange." On page 7 under Health Insurance Administration it says, "Establish the Health Insurance Reform Implementation Fund within the Department of Health and Human Services..." Gee another government agency overseeing all of the insurance companies... not a takeover huh?

More failing to understand what these things do. "Foster the creation of non-profits." These non-profits wont be run by the government. The PPO you mentioned contracts with insurers. Private businesses are creating these multi-state plans. The idea is to put some extra competition in the exchange. The Department of Health and Human Services is not "another government agency." They exist already. They're going to be in charge of the funds used to set the exchange up. To re-iterate: You are missing the point on the exchanges. You don't appear to understand what they are. Also, once again, exchange participation is not mandatory.

You admitted that you have to pay a fine of $750 dollars. What you failed to mention was that you can go to jail for failure to have insurance.
Thank you for agreeing with me since if you fail to have insurance you are fined $750 and failure to pay the fine will result in criminal jail time. All for failing to purchase a government run product.

The fine cannot possibly send you to jail. Tax evasion laws do not work that way. If your only "crime" is failure to have health insurance, you literally cannot go to jail for it. Failure to pay the fine will not cause you to go to jail. Tax law does not work that way.

Under the (SHOP) and Health Insurance Administration it does allow the government to takeover existing insurance companies for breaking the law.

Show me where in the bill it says this, then, if you're so confident.

Funny, but I used a summary of the bill to defeat your argument and it says the complete opposite. I have read the bill and the summaries of said bill and it does do exactly as I described. I don't listen to the talking heads, because they're a bunch of flipping morons that don't have a clue.

You're a liar. You haven't read the bill. Prove me wrong by showing me where in the bill the government is allowed to seize control of an insurance company. Here's a hint: It's not there.

In summary: Your health insurance will be provided by a private company. There is no new government agency or program that you can send money to for health insurance. The government will not sell you health insurance, period. Regulation is not a takeover. The words mean different things. Is a law against indecent exposure "government takeover of your body?"

 

[The_Patriot]

You're a liar.

At this point you've lost the debate. All you have is rhetoric and nothing to back it up. I provided the proof from the summary of what the law does. Until you can bring facts to back up your position then I will no longer reply to someone that has to hurl an insult.

 

[Deuce]

At this point you've lost the debate. All you have is rhetoric and nothing to back it up. I provided the proof from the summary of what the law does. Until you can bring facts to back up your position then I will no longer reply to someone that has to hurl an insult.

Fine by me. See ya. But for other people reading:
Caution: Links to opencongress will open HR3590, which is a huge document. Your computer may hate you for it.
Your "proof" consisted of linking the summary and then grossly misunderstanding what it says. You put out a quote about non-profits, but miss the term "member-run. That means the people are running it. That's literally the opposite of a government takeover. You talk about the insurance exchanges but entirely missed the part where participation isn't mandatory and the government doesn't actually provide a product on the exchange. You quoted the part about the PPO contracting with insurers. Do you know what that means? It means private companies are providing those insurance plans. I don't need to show proof, you already did that for me. It's all right there in that very summary you posted. It just means about the opposite of what you think it means.

You made the assertion that the bill allows for the government to "take over" an insurance company that breaks the law. It's up so you to prove that. Quote it from the bill. I don't think you read the bill, but you have a chance. Go through it, find me the section. If I had to guess, I'd say you skimmed that summary, looked for a few key words, and decided it was proof of government takeover. It's not. If you can show me a provision that allows government to seize a private company for "breaking the law," I'll eat my proverbial hat. If such a section existed in the bill, the GOP would have been pasting its text all over the airwaves. They didn't, they stayed as vague as possible because it's harder to be called a liar that way.

I'll make one retraction: The tax penalty for not having insurance dropped to $695 instead of $750. Amendments! *shakes fist*

Want some more proof? Straight from the bill, Text of H.R.3590 as Enrolled Bill: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

SEC. 1251. PRESERVATION OF RIGHT TO MAINTAIN EXISTING COVERAGE
-You can keep your current plan
-You can add family members to your current plan

SEC. 1311. AFFORDABLE CHOICES OF HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS.
(b) American Health Benefit Exchanges-

(1) IN GENERAL- Each State shall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange (referred to in this title as an ‘Exchange’) for the State that--

(A) facilitates the purchase of qualified health plans;

(B) provides for the establishment of a Small Business Health Options Program (in this title referred to as a ‘SHOP Exchange’) that is designed to assist qualified employers in the State who are small employers in facilitating the enrollment of their employees in qualified health plans offered in the small group market in the State;

(C) meets the requirements of subsection (d).

The exchange makes it easier to search for and purchase insurance. It does not provide insurance.

Text of H.R.3590 as Enrolled Bill: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress
Here's a list of the exchange's functions.

A bit later: Text of H.R.3590 as Enrolled Bill: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

3) AUTHORITY TO CONTRACT-

(A) IN GENERAL- A State may elect to authorize an Exchange established by the State under this section to enter into an agreement with an eligible entity to carry out 1 or more responsibilities of the Exchange.

States are even allowed to contract out the exchange to private companies. SOCIALISM! Oh wait.

Here's a good one: Text of H.R.3590 as Enrolled Bill: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

(d) Empowering Consumer Choice-

(1) CONTINUED OPERATION OF MARKET OUTSIDE EXCHANGES- Nothing in this title shall be construed to prohibit--

(A) a health insurance issuer from offering outside of an Exchange a health plan to a qualified individual or qualified employer; and

(B) a qualified individual from enrolling in, or a qualified employer from selecting for its employees, a health plan offered outside of an Exchange.

3) VOLUNTARY NATURE OF AN EXCHANGE-

(A) CHOICE TO ENROLL OR NOT TO ENROLL- Nothing in this title shall be construed to restrict the choice of a qualified individual to enroll or not to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in an Exchange.
(B) PROHIBITION AGAINST COMPELLED ENROLLMENT- Nothing in this title shall be construed to compel an individual to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in an Exchange.

(C) INDIVIDUALS ALLOWED TO ENROLL IN ANY PLAN- A qualified individual may enroll in any qualified health plan, except that in the case of a catastrophic plan described in section 1302(e), a qualified individual may enroll in the plan only if the individual is eligible to enroll in the plan under section 1302(e)(2).

Text of H.R.3590 as Enrolled Bill: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

‘(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN- Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month

Tax penalties for lack of insurance are applied to the tax return.
By the way, there's a religious exemption for that tax penalty too.

Also, on that jail time thing: Text of H.R.3590 as Enrolled Bill: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

(g) Administration and Procedure-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The penalty provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.

‘(2) SPECIAL RULES- Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
2
‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES- In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES- The Secretary shall not-

‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or

‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.’.

It is literally impossible to go to jail or have a lien filed against your property for not paying this tax penalty.

Your turn.

 

[The_Patriot]

You linked to the House version of the bill and not the actual law. Try again with the real law this time.

 

[Deuce]

You linked to the House version of the bill and not the actual law. Try again with the real law this time.

Click the first link I posted: Text of H.R.3590 as Enrolled Bill: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

On the right hand side you will see a button labeled "Overview." This link leads you here: Health Care Bill - H.R.3590: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

On that page you will see this:


So your post makes me do this:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Edit: and here's the reconciliation amendments.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4872/show

Edit2: And I'm still waiting on that "government seizing private companies" section to be quoted.

 

[The_Patriot]

snip

Sorry, but the bill does contain those provisions. I'm glad that I actually get to vote on this constitutional amendment instead of being forced to purchase a government owned good. Insulting me isn't winning any awards nor the debate.

 

[Deuce]

Sorry, but the bill does contain those provisions. I'm glad that I actually get to vote on this constitutional amendment instead of being forced to purchase a government owned good. Insulting me isn't winning any awards nor the debate.

At this point it is probably obvious to anyone reading that you don't actually have any proof of your assertion. I've asked you several times to back up what you said about government seizing an insurance company for "breaking the law." Quote those provisions here (with a source) or link the section number. It's only fair, you demanded I do the same. Look, you have a view of the bill that has obviously been clouded by false information. I've shown you several places where that's apparent. It's ok, that happens. After all, we only can know what we've been exposed to. But now you're playing games and trying to take the moral high ground by acting insulted when what you should be doing is debating facts.

And for the last time, the government will not own that health insurance policy you're paying for (Unless you're on Medicare). There simply is no provision in this bill for the government to act as a health insurance provider. What you're talking about was called a Public Option, but that was axed from the bill ages ago. Apparently, giving people the option of buying health insurance from the government instead of a private company was somehow a violation of our freedom. (in the earlier bill, HR3200, the public option was completely... well, optional. No person had to take it, no employer had to offer it, even people getting premium subsidies didn't have to take it)

 

[The_Patriot]

At this point it is probably obvious to anyone reading that you don't actually have any proof of your assertion. I've asked you several times to back up what you said about government seizing an insurance company for "breaking the law." Quote those provisions here (with a source) or link the section number. It's only fair, you demanded I do the same. Look, you have a view of the bill that has obviously been clouded by false information. I've shown you several places where that's apparent. It's ok, that happens. After all, we only can know what we've been exposed to. But now you're playing games and trying to take the moral high ground by acting insulted when what you should be doing is debating facts.

And for the last time, the government will not own that health insurance policy you're paying for (Unless you're on Medicare). There simply is no provision in this bill for the government to act as a health insurance provider. What you're talking about was called a Public Option, but that was axed from the bill ages ago. Apparently, giving people the option of buying health insurance from the government instead of a private company was somehow a violation of our freedom. (in the earlier bill, HR3200, the public option was completely... well, optional. No person had to take it, no employer had to offer it, even people getting premium subsidies didn't have to take it)

I already backed up my assertations with facts by posting up the summary of the law and pointing out where the changes are taking place. You're still lacking in that department.

 

[Deuce]

I already backed up my assertations with facts by posting up the summary of the law and pointing out where the changes are taking place. You're still lacking in that department.

There's nothing in that summary that says the government will sell health insurance or take over a health insurance company.

 

[Wiseone]

Um, why does Missouri think it can override the federal government?

Ya here's the problem with this law, and all other laws like it, is that its a huge waste of time and money for your state because NO court is going to say that a state trumps the federal gov't. If it were possible for a state to tell the Federal gov't they weren't going to follow a federal law, then what power would the Federal gov't have as their enforcement capability would be gone. If the states could overturn Federal law then why even have a federal gov't, you'd have 50 countries not 50 states.

Its called the Supremacy Clause and its found in Article 6 of the Constitution and reads as thus:
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.

Basically it means the Congress trumps the states.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Ya here's the problem with this law, and all other laws like it, is that its a huge waste of time and money for your state because NO court is going to say that a state trumps the federal gov't. If it were possible for a state to tell the Federal gov't they weren't going to follow a federal law, then what power would the Federal gov't have as their enforcement capability would be gone. If the states could overturn Federal law then why even have a federal gov't, you'd have 50 countries not 50 states.

Its called the Supremacy Clause and its found in Article 6 of the Constitution and reads as thus:
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.

Basically it means the Congress trumps the states.

I don't want to derail another thread about what is and what is not constitutional but this law isn't constitutional.
The supremacy doctrine does not apply to laws that are not valid.

 

[Deuce]

I don't want to derail another thread about what is and what is not constitutional but this law isn't constitutional.
The supremacy doctrine does not apply to laws that are not valid.

That is for SCOTUS to decide. One could easily argue that health insurance affects interstate commerce or general welfare. I know, you guys think those two provisions are stretched way too far, but that's just your personal opinion. Anyone intellectually honest would agree that the wording of the constitution allows more than one interpretation. Interpretation is the responsibility of the courts, and the courts say that the federal government can regulate health insurance. (and please, the next person who says this is a "government takeover" gets smacked in the face with a trout)

 

[Wiseone]

I don't want to derail another thread about what is and what is not constitutional but this law isn't constitutional.
The supremacy doctrine does not apply to laws that are not valid.

Thats true but until the SCOTUS declares a law unconstitutional it must be followed, the SCOTUS doesn't have to and obviously wouldnt have the time to place its stamp of approval on every new law before it becomes valid. So until the SCOTUS overturns all or part of the healthcare bill, and good luck with that, Missouri is **** outta luck.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

That is for SCOTUS to decide. One could easily argue that health insurance affects interstate commerce or general welfare. I know, you guys think those two provisions are stretched way too far, but that's just your personal opinion. Anyone intellectually honest would agree that the wording of the constitution allows more than one interpretation. Interpretation is the responsibility of the courts, and the courts say that the federal government can regulate health insurance. (and please, the next person who says this is a "government takeover" gets smacked in the face with a trout)

Err no, Missouri can declare a law unconstitutional and not follow it if it wants.

Yea you could easily those things.
Of course, you'd show that you don't understand how medical insurance works and you're reading comprehension is severely lacking or you're being dishonest.

A law is a fixed rule, otherwise they would call them guidelines.
The Constitution is a set of laws that the government must follow, it is a limitation of government.
Now how in the world would The Constitution limit government by allowing it to do whatever it wanted to?
What would be the purpose of a constitution that lets government do whatever it wanted?

It's not a traditional government takeover of seizing the industry and administering the use of medical care.
It is an economic fascist approach, the state direction of private industry.
Which is a quasi take over.

The role of the supreme court is not to interpret The Constitution.
Their role is to make sure that federal laws fall into the prescribed limitations set by The Constitution.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Thats true but until the SCOTUS declares a law unconstitutional it must be followed, the SCOTUS doesn't have to and obviously wouldnt have the time to place its stamp of approval on every new law before it becomes valid. So until the SCOTUS overturns all or part of the healthcare bill, and good luck with that, Missouri is **** outta luck.

Not true.
They can just, not follow the law.
No luck necessary.

 

[The_Patriot]

There's nothing in that summary that says the government will sell health insurance or take over a health insurance company.

Already disproven within the actual summary. Nice try though with using rhetoric to trump facts.

 

[The_Patriot]

Ya here's the problem with this law, and all other laws like it, is that its a huge waste of time and money for your state because NO court is going to say that a state trumps the federal gov't. If it were possible for a state to tell the Federal gov't they weren't going to follow a federal law, then what power would the Federal gov't have as their enforcement capability would be gone. If the states could overturn Federal law then why even have a federal gov't, you'd have 50 countries not 50 states.

Its called the Supremacy Clause and its found in Article 6 of the Constitution and reads as thus:
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.

Basically it means the Congress trumps the states.

You missed the final word in the sentence which says notwithstanding. Notwithstanding means to without being opposed to. Since the Constitution does not delegate to Congress of the United States the power to pass laws that are not enumerated the states do not have to follow it. The Tenth Amendment applies in this instance which says, "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."

 

[Wiseone]

Not true.
They can just, not follow the law.
No luck necessary.

Thats true in a way, legally they cannot but practically they may be able to. However the Congress, President, and the court system can make things painful for a state. Segregation was declared unconstitutional in the 50s but many southern states simply ignored it until they were forced in the 70s for example.

 

[The_Patriot]

Thats true in a way, legally they cannot but practically they may be able to. However the Congress, President, and the court system can make things painful for a state. Segregation was declared unconstitutional in the 50s but many southern states simply ignored it until they were forced in the 70s for example.

Incorrect since it just wasn't southern states that ignored desegregation until they were forced to in the 1970s.

 

[Wiseone]

You missed the final word in the sentence which says notwithstanding. Notwithstanding means to without being opposed to. Since the Constitution does not delegate to Congress of the United States the power to pass laws that are not enumerated the states do not have to follow it. The Tenth Amendment applies in this instance which says, "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."

That would depend one interpretation of the Constitution, there is room in modern interpretation for the health care bill, if not all at least parts of it. However until the SCOTUS decides its constitutionality, it must be considered to be so. After all, the SCOTUS hasn't shot welfare or medicare or any other health care legislation, so from a purely legal perspective I doubt the SCOTUS will rule this bill unconstitutional.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Thats true in a way, legally they cannot but practically they may be able to. However the Congress, President, and the court system can make things painful for a state. Segregation was declared unconstitutional in the 50s but many southern states simply ignored it until they were forced in the 70s for example.

This isn't segregation though, this is a moronically drafted medical care bill.
One which is highly questionable in it's constitutionality.

In such a scenario states are obliged not to follow it.

 

[The_Patriot]

That would depend one interpretation of the Constitution, there is room in modern interpretation for the health care bill, if not all at least parts of it. However until the SCOTUS decides its constitutionality, it must be considered to be so. After all, the SCOTUS hasn't shot welfare or medicare or any other health care legislation, so from a purely legal perspective I doubt the SCOTUS will rule this bill unconstitutional.

SCOTUS is only one party that can determine constitutionality. States, since they signed the Constitution, also have the power. See Mr. James Madison in the Virginia Resolution of 1798 and Mr. Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798.

 

[Wiseone]

Incorrect since it just wasn't southern states that ignored desegregation until they were forced to in the 1970s.

Thats certainly true, I was refering to the majority of segregation lawsuits after Brown vs. Board, all the major one were directed in the south and thats generally how history is remembered. So since I haven't researched individual city records or state records for example but just done this through law, I'm assuming that since the majority of the lawsuits following Brown vs Board were in the south, they were the slowest at changing. But yes there was segregation throughout the country, both north at south.