A bill proposed in the Kentucky House would essentially bar any state cooperation with implementation of Obamacare.
Rep. Tim Moore and Rep Kim King introduced House Bill 302 on Jan. 31. Several provisions of the bill utilize language from Health Care Freedom Acts already passed in several states.
No law or administrative regulation shall compel, through imposition of a penalty or fine, directly or indirectly, any individual, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.
The legislation also states that an employer or individual may pay directly for health care services without any penalty and fee, and exempts health care providers from penalties or fines for taking direct payment for services. HB302 empowers the state attorney genera to “undertake and initiate all necessary legal proceedings to protect the rights of citizens of the Commonwealth.”
But the bill’s teeth lie in its provision to refuse state cooperation with any law interfering with an individuals freedom of healthcare choice.
The Governor, the Personnel Cabinet, and Commonwealth agencies shall not participate in or comply with any federal law, regulation, or policy that would compromise the freedom of choice in the health care decisions of any citizen of this Commonwealth.
Since the entire PPACA system with its mandates and taxes stymies healthcare freedom, this provision would block the state from lifting a finger to implement Obamacare. That would means the state would have to shut down its state-run exchange, forcing the federal government to administer Obamacare in the Bluegrass State.
Gov. Steve Beshear authorized creation of the state exchange by executive order. Beshear cited KRS 12.028 as his authority for creating the exchange. This statute permits the governor to create “new government entities” by proposing them to the General Assembly “for its approval.” Political activist David Adams sued Beshear, contending his action without legislative input violates the state constitution.
Passage of HB302 would take it out of the hands of the courts and effectively shut down the state-run system.
Refusing cooperation would strike a serious blow to Obamacare. The federal government simply doesn’t have the resources to implement the program by itself. The entire system was predicated on state cooperation. If enough states yank away that rug, it would nullify the ACA, effectively doing what Congress won’t – repeal the health care act.State refusal to cooperate stands on a firm legal foundation. That the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce a federal act or program is well-established in the law. It is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, based primarily on four SCOTUS cases. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia called commandeering incompatible with our constitutional system.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”
HB302 was referred to the House Banking and Insurance Committee.
If you live in Kentucky: Click HERE to find the steps necessary to support HB302.
if you live outside of Kentucky: Contact your state representatives and respectfully demand they introduce similar legislation. You can find contact information for your representatives by clicking HERE.
Latest posts by John Lambert (see all)
- We Are All Jeffersonians Now - June 6, 2016
- What is Originalism? - May 31, 2016
- A Vote For Florida Medical Marijuana is a Vote for the Constitution - October 7, 2014