FierceHealthcare FierceHealthIT FierceMobileHealthcare FierceHealthPayer
FierceHealthFinance FierceEMR FiercePracticeManagemtn Hospital Impact

National healthcare nullification law on the books in Virginia

Virginia has beaten Missouri to the punch, becoming the first state in the nation to approve legislation (aka: a national healthcare nullification law) that will allow its citizens to avoid any federal mandate to buy health insurance or participate in a particular healthcare system, assuming the law holds up in court. But Missouri, as well as Idaho and Tennessee, may not be far behind. At least one legislative house has already passed a related bill in each of these states.

According to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in Washington, D.C., 37 states besides Missouri have similar bills pending or have announced plans to introduce legislation based on ALEC's model Freedom of Choice in Healthcare Act. Further, the act actually has been filed or pre-filed in a total of 33 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

To learn more about healthcare nullification laws:
- read the Healthcare Finance News article
- check out the ALEC press release

Related Articles:
Proposed state constitutional amendment would block insurance mandate
Individual mandate push resurfaces in wake of WellPoint rate hikes
Conservatives on Hill say individual mandate is unconstitutional

SHARE WITH:
Email Twitter Facebook LinkedIn StumbleUpon
Get Your FREE FierceHealthcare Email Newsletter:
Comments (21) | Post a comment

Comments

So the states can't afford the Medicaid bill they have now (and they pay less than 50% of that often) but they don't want anything done that would actually decrease taht bill and move the costs to the feds? Did someone discover a way of having your cake and eating it too?

AHEM-- there's a difference between "not wanting anything done," and "not wanting anything done THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION."

Maybe you don't know the difference-- CLEARLY you don't, in fact; perhaps you should run for Congress, you'd have plenty of company there.
Obama-voters obviously believe in benevolent dictatorship, where an all-powerful "Godfather" can wave his hand and "do a favor" for anyone that needs doing-- and they see this Health-Care law as simply "an offer we can't refuse."
And in their little world, that's how it SHOULD be... the problem with their idealistic fantasy, is that those of us who live in the REAL world have to pay for it.

I taught American Government for 28 years, and cannot believe that states are still trying the old "nullification" tactic. The Virginia law and those proposed by other states to reject a federal law is in clear violation of Article VI, par.2 of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. To wit:
"The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof. . .shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound threby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
DO ANY LEGISLATORS READ THE CONSTITUTION?--JEV

Well, I've taught American gov't for 32 years and I cannot believe you are so lock-step ignorant about the ENTIRE Constitution. Probably you forgot all about the 10th amendment. You'll notice that your Art. IV, Sec. 2 speaks of "the laws of the United States (federal gov't) IN PURSUANCE THEREOF..." Ahhhh, so health care is not one of the 17 federal powers found in Art. I, Sec. 8! Get it? Therefore, it is not "in pursuance thereof". And while you're at it, read Madison's Federalist #45, where it says the fed's powers shall be "few and defined". Then try the Preamble to the BILL OF RIGHTS, something few gov't texts include. When you get done, you might want to recall your students of the last 28 years and told them you gave it to them WRONG.

You are so full of crap. No government or history teacher would make that claim. You have a second grader's understanding of constitutional law.

So, Anonymous, where DOES the Constitution delegate the federal power expressed in the Health-Care law?

If you taught American Government for more than 32 minutes, you'd know that the question of "nullification" was settled by a little thing called "The Civil War" (look it up).

I mean, if you folks want to refight the Civil War, okay, but remember, your side lost. And that was before the modern military...

"nullification" was settled by a little thing called "The Civil War"?

So in other words, federal sovereignty over the people of each state, was DICTATED by force and federal killing of hundreds of thousands of state-citizens who disagreed-- NOT by original intent of the LAW.

And therefore, nullification was suppressed by brutal DICTATORSHIP.

Thanks for being so honest.

Yeah, James?

The key words there, are "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof".

In other words, those laws which AREN'T made in pursuance of the Constitution, are NOT the law of the land.

So WHO DECIDES whether a law is pursuant? The federal government? They'll say EVERY law they pass is pursuant! Otherwise they wouldn't have passed it in the first place; as Jefferson said, this would make the federal government supreme judge of its own powers.
The "American People," by who they choose to VOTE for? As Franklin said, that's two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

The only alternative, is the People of the individual STATE; if they decide that a federal law violates the Constitution, then they have NO CHOICE but to refuse its enforcement in their state.

Likewise, you're missing the whole point; the federal government has NO POWER of its own, but only that power which the people of each state GIVE it-- you know, "government by consent of the governed?"

In short, each state ratified the Constitution as a sovereign nation-- the Constittion did NOT create the states. And so the people of every state are STILL the sovereign rulers of their state; they are not subordinate states to a single nation, as with some other federal republics.

Now, some people think that various words in the Constitution IMPLY that the states subordinated themselves to a single nation (like "Supreme Law of the Land" or "We the People of the United States," or other popular misconceptions); however with sovereign nations, ONLY express language can confer a termination of sovereignty-- and there ISN'T any express statement that the states relinquished their respective sovereignty and formed a single nation.
So you can argue, but you can't win.

Smashing comment, Anonymous ... that's giving it to him right in the face!

Awesome post anonymous - why is it that this administration keeps trying to force this upon all of us -- even when polls clearly show the majority doesn't want it?

Majority hell, the CONSTITUTION doesn't want it.
Congress ONLY has the power to lay taxes to raise revenue-- NOT to usurp unconstitutional powers!

And now, Obama has openly ADMITTED that this new tax is a FINE, imposed against people who dosn't purchase health-care!

Obama has basically wiped his butt with the Constitution, and rubbed it in everyone's face!

That sure is funny Mr. VanDelly, I am sure you didn't make a similar comment when Chicago ruled that the supreme court decision Heller vs, Washington DC ruled that the second amendment applied to not only to the states but also to the District.

Talking about having your cake and eating it too...

Barack Obama and Al Capone-- two shining examples of Chicago's finest law-abiding statesmen.

Mr. James Vandelly should read the Amendments to the Constitution. Amendment X nullifies Article VI, par.2 and reads: "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 the the people!"

Calling Lincoln's war "unfortunate" is like calling the Holocaust an "accident."
Both were 100% intentional abominations of law and justice.
Lincoln claimed that the Declaration of Indepedence gave the Union national authority over the states; today, even his biggest defenders don't claim that, but say it was the Constitution. However the states created the Constitution, not the other way around-- and so clearly it's a "he said, she said" situation where the Unionists can't even agree on HOW the fed got its supreme power over the states, but only that it's in SOME law; and failing this, they flip out the old "it was settled by the war" argument.
Again, that's like Hitler's line that the Holocaust was "the final solution to the Jewish Problem."

I have to point out that the "nullification" issue was not "settled" by the Civil War...another lie the liberals have tried to force as part of our history lesson. And succession was not "settled" by that unfortunate war as well. Keep pushing us and we will walk away.

>>"I have to point out that the "nullification" issue was not "settled" by the Civil War."

And the Jewish Problem wasn't solved by the Holocaust. But in both cases, they sure did try... using the same means, no less.

Oddly enough it seems like every American will need health care since we will all soon be shooting each other once again in the 2nd Civil War (2011 - 2019).

There won't be a "2nd Civil War," since there was never a FIRST one; rather, it will be a bloodless revelation that every state was ALWAYS a sovereign nation, ever since 1776, and therefore the federal government won't be able to prove any legal authority; and unlike in 1861, it won't be able to suppress dissension by suspending habeas corpus, imprisoning truth-tellers without trial, closing down opposition-presses and torturing people for daring to question the almighty fed.

No, silencing the oppposition went out with the internet and the cell-phone, and has gone the way of the buggywhip.

How many people know that the Health Care Law was passed as a TAX? Not many-- partly because Obama says it ISN'T a tax!

That's right: he SAID that the law "isn't a tax, but a 'fine' for not buying healch-insurance" even though the loaw doesn't make it an OFFENSE not to purchase health-insurance!

That's right: your federal goverment is now using TAX-LAWS to dictate behavior it wants!

Can you say "UNCONSTITUTIONAL?" Clearly, Obama can't, since the word "constitution" isn't even in his vocabulary; in his mind, he's a benevolent supreme philosopher-king and dictator; and the media and people applaud like SEALS!
They're playing with fire... and this is just the first spark.

People who say that this law fits with the Constitution, don't UNDERSTAND the Constitution.

TWO QUESTIONS:

WHERE does the Constitution delegate Congressional with this power?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.