Nullifying National Health Care in Kansas
Written by:
Michael Boldin
This Tuesday, 10-27-09, Kansas State Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook and other state legislators will be announcing a “Kansas Health Care Freedom Amendment” – a proposal for a state constitutional amendment that would effectively nullify national health care in that state. (h/t Jeff Matthews)
Already, four states are considering similar amendments, and more than 15 may see them introduced in the 2010 legislative session.
Writes Senator Pilcher-Cook:
These last few months have made it abundantly clear to us — it is urgent to stand up now to protect our heath care in Kansas.
If federal legislation is passed, ordering government to give free health care (or perceived to be free), there will be an unlimited demand that even the government will not be able to meet. Rationing comes next — government-run health care cannot supply all citizens with the health care they desire, which results in the federal government making the decisions about when and where to deny individual requests for health care.
I am dedicated to:
- Preserving the freedom of Kansans to provide for their health care.
- Safeguarding the liberty of Kansans from any federal government action, which would coerce participation in a health care system.
- Defending the independence of Kansans to pay directly for health care services without penalty.
Here’s an excerpt of the proposed amendments’ text:
Article 16. — HEALTH CARE
1. Health care.
(a) To preserve the freedom of Kansans to provide for their health care:
- A law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system.
- A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services.A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services or shall not be disqualified or otherwise excluded from participation in any health care system.
(b) Subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person’s options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule.
(c) This section does not:
- Affect which health care services a health care provider or hospital is required to perform or provide.
- Affect which health care services are permitted by law.
- Prohibit care provided pursuant to the provisions relating to workers compensation.
- Prohibit care provided pursuant to the provisions relating to state employee benefit programs.
- Affect laws or rules in effect as of August 1, 2009.
- Affect the terms or conditions of any health care system to the extent that those terms and conditions do not have the effect of punishing or penalizing a person or employer for paying directly for lawful health care services or a health care provider or hospital for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.
(d) For the purposes of this section:
- “Compel” includes penalties or fines.
- “Direct payment or pay directly” means payment for lawful health care services without a public or private third party, not including an employer, paying for any portion of the service.
- “Health care system” means any public or private entity whose function or purpose is the management of, processing of, enrollment of individuals for or payment for, in full or in part, health care services or health care data or health care information for its participants.
- “Lawful health care services” means any health-related service or treatment to the extent that the service or treatment is permitted or not prohibited by law or regulation that may be provided by persons or businesses otherwise permitted to offer such services.
- “Penalties or fines” means any civil or criminal penalty or fine, tax, salary or wage withholding or surcharge or any named fee with a similar effect established by law or rule by a government established, created or controlled agency that is used to punish or discourage the exercise of rights protected under this section.
Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA.
This entry was posted on Monday, October 26th, 2009 at 12:31 pm. It is filed under Health Care, Nullification and tagged with Health Care Freedom, Kansas Sovereignty.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Tenth Amendment Center Main Feed
We expect to see upwards of 15+ states introducing some kind of state-level health care nullification legislation in the 2010 session. Going to be hard to make any national program stick if that many states end up saying no….
But how do we stop the IRS from charging us for it. We can't.
So now we pay twice and the Administration will be keeping all the money.
Those of us that have to support Nevada (Florida) will be paying three times. I will need a loan just to pay taxes.
how about stop paying taxes,,, or secession
We could do the Federal Tax escrow account thing(going to need to look into it eventually), and short of that the State could order its law enforcement officers to arrest any IRS agent that that tryst to arrest any state citizen for not paying the unconstitutional tax. Just be sure they get tried in State not federal court clam the federal court being in-appropriate due to the matter of punitive taxes on healthcare not being under the Federal Constitution.
When they act like “o of course it is cause we said it is, I’m a federal agent I can do what ever I want.” give em a weird look like you don’t know what their talking about or their nuts or something.
Ultimately, the plain would be to challenge it in federal court on both jurisdiction and constitutional grounds making as big an issue of it as possible. We want to paint them as what they are horrible usurpers of rights trying to grab unlimited power at the expense of the people and Constitutional law.
When looking over nullification disputes it seems clear that the States only win when the public is generally on their side as sympathetic, so we need to win that battle above all.
Play the oppressed victim of an out of control crazy central government respecting no limits on their dictates.
All that being said a State Constitutional Amendment will at the very least prevent the State government from trying to impose this abomination on us should the Feds hopefully fail. So I regard this as it time well spent either way.
us thirteenth amendment (INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE)
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendmentCenter and A Distant Vision, faith4freedom. faith4freedom said: RT: @TenthAmendment: Nullifying National Health Care in Kansas http://bit.ly/4kkfJA [...]
[...] Nullifying National Health Care in Kansas | Tenth Amendment Center … [...]
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by DistantVision: Nullifying National Health Care in Kansas – This Tuesday, 10-27-09, Kansas State Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook and othe… http://ow.ly/15XrYt...
[...] Nullifying National Health Care in Kansas | Tenth Amendment Center … Share and Enjoy: [...]
WHAT A WONDERFUL SOLUTION TO THIS FASCIST GOVERMENT. I HOPE EVERYONE EMAILS THEIR SENS AND REPS TO DEMAND THEIR STATE DO THE SAME THING. THIS IS A WAY TO PROVE THE STATES HAVE POWER.
Don't like pay pal, make a way to donate by credit card
Amending a state constitution is an interesting approach, but unfortunately the courts have not been shy in throwing out state constitutional provisions. The people of Colorado passed one several years ago and the Supreme Court threw it out (it was called Amendment 2).
If Congress does pass a mandatory medical program for all U.S. citizens I am planning on introducing a resolution in Colorado based on the authority of the Tenth Amendment. Resolutions have no direct force of law, but I see it as a first step to put the Federal Government on notice of their violation of the U.S. Constitution. Given the political mix in the Colorado legislature the passage of even a resolution is doubtful, but as a members of the Colorado State Senate I can do no less.
Important point, Kevin.
That, of course, leaves us with the essential question –
Shoudl a movement focused on limiting federal power be focusing strategy based on what the federal courts will approve of?
Or, should they focus their efforts on what they can do in their own state – with or without “permission” from the federal courts or federal politicians?
I choose the latter.
I agree, as I said before, sooner or later We are going to have to get serous about disregarding the Opinion of the U.S. Supreme court being unfair arbitrators of their own appointer/impeachers power.
This is going to be a hard sell for a lot of people, but this is why a lot of our efforts need to focuses on undermining the legitimacy of the Federal court in this regard. States can do nothing to uphold their oath and duty to protect the rights of their people if they allow the federal dictators on the court to dictate the extent of their own power.
We are going to have to find a way where people will: "Let the court enforce the courts ruling". There is just no way around that fact.
I feel the major thrust of a National Healthcare system is to exact heavy taxation upon the various states using the Federal tax system (IRS) as the collector and not to address the handful of real health issues. State legislation might be able to prevent actual health coverage under the government plan but would probably not be able to protect its citizens and business from the associated Federal taxation. If my assumptions are true, Congress would not care if states accepted the plan or not as witnessed by the latest Senate version of the bill that allows states to “opt out” of the national plan if they so desire.
I guess I just don’t see much of a gain with the Kansas position unless states can also curtail associated federal taxation. This might then raise the question if individuals and business should file tax returns directly to the IRS or should they be filed on our behalf by our state governments? Why do we currently need to file both a state and a federal tax return anyway?
I posted a similar comment in “Keep it Local!” on this site that depicts how the Federal government can sidestep a state’s authority and tax the daylights out of its population using, in this example, healthcare. But wait, Cap and Trade is next. See:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/27/keep-it-local/
[...] http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/nullifying-national-health-care-in-kansas/ [...]
i'm in the wrong state. should have moved to texas or kansas i guess.
[...] TAC Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)House Resolution 615: Congressmen Who Insist On Government-Run Health Care …Obama Criminal Skills: Obama Health Ration – Next Phase ‘THE BAIT AND S…Obama – Pelosi Above The Law: Pelosi Needs To Be Prosecuted For Violating T…Universal health care in the United States is desperately needed by those w… Tags: health rationing, kansas, nullifying, united states [...]
[...] Read more about Kansas Health Care Freedom here Mary Pilcher Cook is serving as State Senator for the 10th district in Kansas, and has served two terms as a State Representative. Mary never planned to run for office, but became concerned when she saw the direction government was taking our state and our country. Visit her website at http://www.PilcherCook.com If you enjoyed this post: [...]
States have the right to ignore any law passed by the federal government that pertains to any "right" not specifically granted in the constitution. State governments are co-equal to the federal government. Only when a "right" granted to the federal government ( the post office for example ) in the constitution, does the federal government have "supremacy" otherwise the states and the people retain all other rights.
Cory,
States should be able to do exactly what you say but over time the Federal government has leveraged itself into state business in such a was as to make it impractical to do any thing but go along. It is treated more like “business” among the states and not the rule of law. The biggest problem, other than the 17th Amendment, is that states, over time, have allowed the Federal government to collect tax money from their citizens with the expectation that that collected money will be returned and spent within their states. A recipe for disaster because the Federal government can simply withhold or refuse payment to any state that does not go along with “any” deal they cook up. Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government must return collected tax money to a state that balks?
Regaining state sovereignty is going to take a new or self reinvented breed of state legislatures willing to tackle direct Federal taxation of their people. An easy case can be made today that Federal spending is irresponsible, unsustainable, and detrimental to state prosperity which therefore represents criminal misuse of the collective resources of the citizens of the various states.
[...] Arizona Health Care Freedom Act , the Health Care Freedom for Alaska, as well as Kansas with their Kansas Health Care Freedom Amendment. The health care vote yesterday is far from the end of things – and even when it passes the [...]
[...] Nullifying National Health Care in Kansas http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/nullifying-national-health-care-in-kansas/ [...]