| Author | Message | ||
     Ft_bstrd |
Health Care - As introduced, enacts "Tennessee Health Freedom Act." - Amends TCA Title 8; Title 56; Title 63; Title 68 and Title 71. Fiscal Summary Increase State Expenditures - Not Significant Bill Summary This bill provides that it is the public policy of this state that every person within this state is and will be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty, and this bill provides that with this bill the state is exercising its sovereign power to declare this public policy. This bill provides the following in regard to this state public policy: (1) The policy stated in this bill will not be applied to impair any right of contract related to the provision of health care services to any person or group; (2) No public official, employee, or agent of this state or any of its political subdivisions may act to impose, collect, enforce, or effectuate any penalty in this state that violates the public policy set forth in this bill; and (3) It is the duty of the attorney general and reporter to seek injunctive and any other appropriate relief as expeditiously as possible to preserve the rights and property of the residents of this state, and to defend as necessary this state, its officials, employees and agents in the event that any law or regulation violating the public policy set forth in this bill is enacted by any government, subdivision or agency thereof. ON FEBRUARY 17, 2010, THE SENATE ADOPTED AMENDMENT #1 AND PASSED SENATE BILL 3498, AS AMENDED. AMENDMENT #1 specifies that it will be the public policy of this state for Tennesseans to be able to choose their mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty by the federal government. Tennessee joins the 30 plus states enacting health care sovereignty legislation. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/HB3433.pd f "(1) The power to require or regulate a person’s choice in the mode of securing health care services, or to impose a penalty related thereto, is not found in the Constitution of the United States of America, and is therefore a power reserved to the people pursuant to the Ninth Amendment, and to the several states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. This state hereby exercises its sovereign power to declare the public policy of this state regarding the right of all persons residing in this state in choosing the mode of securing health care services." | ||
| Xb12xmike |
This is gonna be good! | ||
| Too_tall_ss |
Gotta tip your hat to the south haha, love it. | ||
| Buellkowski |
I can appreciate TN's legislative position. WA is in a similar spot, only our governor and attorney general are from two different parties and are squabbling about who best represents the state's interests regarding the new healthcare reform legislation. Not trying to pick a fight, but do you suppose the Feds have a stick they can use on states that don't play ball? Could they withhold Medicaid funds or other federal funding to the states, like they did during the highway speed limit debate? Similar proposition back then: the Fed determined it was in the country's best interest to reduce fuel consumption and therefore worked to "persuade" states to post 55 mph, even though they had no right to "mandate" it. | ||
| Drkside79 |
but do you suppose the Feds have a stick they can use on states that don't play ball? Yup technically Federal Law supersedes state law on almost everything. | ||
| Aeholton |
but do you suppose the Feds have a stick they can use on states that don't play ball? Yup technically Federal Law supersedes state law on almost everything. Technically, better yet Constitutionally the federal government had no business messing around with health care! | ||
| Doerman |
The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people The 55MPH speed limit issue was not big enough to warrant a challenge. Obamacare definitely is. Especially since it requires that states provide funding, whereas the HWY funds went in the other direction; from Fed to the state. | ||
| Court |
>>>Yup technically Federal Law supersedes state law on almost everything. That's precisely the opposite of what I understand the Constitution of the United States to say. One of the goals of the Founding Father was to prevent, in perpetuity, an all-powerful central government. To the end . . . and someone will surely cite it . . the Feds have (I'm flying from memory here, correct me where need be) "only those powers specifically enumerated" with all other powers vesting within the states. There are some practical deviations . . . highways and so forth. The bill that has been passed is so off the wall in contrast with the Constitution . . . well, I'll just say I am going to go ahead and keep my health insurance paid up to date. | ||
| Aeholton |
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. - Tenth Amendment. | ||
| Pso |
Seems like if folks opt not to get health insurance that should be there choice. Simultaniously we must empower the health care providers (hospital, clinics, rescue squads etc) to deny service to folks without insurance or cash payment up front. That seems to me to be the American way. You can make choices but with each choice comes the responsability of living with the outcome. If your kid needs an appendectomy, but you purchased a plasma tv instead to bad for the kid. | ||
| Court |
>>>Yup technically Federal Law supersedes state law on almost everything. That's precisely the opposite of what I understand the Constitution of the United States to say. One of the goals of the Founding Father was to prevent, in perpetuity, an all-powerful central government. I know that none of the folks who voted for this have likely read this obscure document . . . .but, frankly, it;s the one I enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and swore to defend.  I'm embarrassed by those we've allowed to lead us. | ||
| Drkside79 |
Article VI Clause II of the Constitution reads: 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 Law of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Usually referred to as the supremacy clause, loosely translated it declares that federal law takes precedence over all form of state law. | ||
| Drkside79 |
So there | ||
| Court |
>>>>it declares that federal law takes precedence over all form of state law. Absolutely . . . in ALL areas where the federal government HAS the power to make such laws. In the realm of health care (or student loan revision package . . whichever you decide is the majority of the 2,000+ pages) they're not even close to having the authority. | ||
| Drkside79 |
I simply said that Fed Law supersedes state law. If it didn't the state supreme courts would be the end all be all. Other than opinion i have nothing to offer to whether or not this insurance plan falls under that clause. I would wager until the supreme court eventually rules on it it will. | ||
| Xb12xmike |
Hey, how come this isn't all over the news? | ||
| Drkside79 |
Oh by the way i believe the Elastic Clause gave congress the right to make this a law. However that one i am unsure of. (Message edited by drkside79 on March 23, 2010) | ||
| Reindog |
There is some precedence. The National Recovery Act (NRA) was found to be unconstitutional after it was signed in to law by another imperial president. I am not holding out much hope that the Judicial Branch is strong or wise enough to overturn this monster signed into law this morning. Republicans must take back Congress and the Presidency in 2012 for there to be a fighting chance for repeal. The Republicans will be unified as the repeal will be on the party plank. If the Republican candidate promises to repeal this piece of offal, then (s)he will be elected. Republicans running for Congress must promise to repeal this thing and then pass a true health care bill. This is a recipe for success. PS: Voting Libertarian is voting for the Democrats whether you like it or not. | ||
| Court |
>>>I simply said that Fed Law supersedes state law. If it didn't the state supreme courts would be the end all be all. They are in many cases . . . but in many states, New York as an example, the Supreme Court is the lower level in the Court system.  Don't feel bad about not being familiar with this stuff . . . but I warn you . . . use caution . . . as you may be mistaken for a legislator.  | ||
| Reindog |
Text of Benjamin Franklin's speech Monday, September 17, 1787, was the last day of the Constitutional Convention. Pennsylvania delegate Benjamin Franklin, one of the few Americans of the time with international repute, wanted to give a short speech to the Convention prior to the signing of the final draft of the Constitution. Too weak to actually give the speech himself, he had fellow Pennsylvanian James Wilson deliver the speech. It is considered a masterpiece. Benjamin Franklin: "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other". ------------- Where are men like Benjamin Franklin? Tyranny is the new face of government. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Yup technically Federal Law supersedes state law on almost everything" Absolutely true, as long as said federal law is not unconstitutional, as it appears to be. The commerce clause can only regulate commerce. Choosing not to conduct commerce with an insurance company is NOT commerce, and therefore can not be regulated under the commerce clause. | ||
| Drkside79 |
And what is the only court that can decide that. Yes that's right Ding Ding Ding its the Supreme court. By the way Court VERY nice flow chart. (However you knew wat I meant) | ||
| Buellkowski |
Other examples of the Feds using fiscal carrots & sticks on the states: public education guidelines, .08 blood alcohol limit, and the 21-year-old legal drinking age. I read this: if states choose to opt out of a federal law, they may be "required" to implement their own state law that meets a similar federal standard in order to receive federal funds. If a state refuses, its residents will continue to pay the same federal income tax but their state may not receive as many federal $$$ benefits in return. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Ding Ding Ding its the Supreme court" Not the case. A lower court can find a law unconstitutional. It only goes to the federal Supreme Court if the ruling is challenged in every lower court that rules it unconstitutional and the Supreme Court choose to hear the case. They don't have to pick it up. The can let a lower court ruling stand, or return it to a lower court for reconsideration. | ||
| Court |
>>>However you knew wat I meant I did. You were precisely backward. The SUPREME COURT (in most states) is one of the "lower" courts . . . well, just as the flow chart depicts. Folks often mistake the word "Supreme" to mean the highest Court. That's true ONLY at the national level and the United States Supreme Court had jurisdiction (you're pressing me back to Civil PRocedure now) ONLY in Federal matters . . . which, the very substance of this discussion, it appears "health care" (really a •••••• name for this bill since so little of it concerns anything related to health)is not. For a great example (I use it with my students) think of the SMALLEST coffee Starbucks will sell you . . . . . guess what it's called? Nooooooow . . . you are with me. If you are in the NYC area and are around a week from tomorrow night I'll be giving my class on NYS Construction Law. We won't spend much time on the Courts but, largely due to this discussion, you can bet that flow chart will appear. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
In as much as the first Civil war was about slavery, the next one will be about Health Care. | ||
| Milt |
Actually, the smallest coffee Starbucks will sell you is 'short', but it's not on the menu and you have to ask for it. If you don't specifically ask for a 'short' and order a small coffee, you'll get a 'tall'. The use of the word 'supreme' varies from state to state. 'Supreme' is lowly in New York, but just what you'd expect in Illinois. Still, it's a good example. Caveat emptor. | ||
| Ourdee |
Health Care/spit | ||
| Drkside79 |
As a former barista Milt is correct Short, Tall, grande, and Venti |
