http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legi...10&pn=0173

Pennsylvania is proposed in accordance with Article XI:
That Article III be amended by adding a section to read:

Quote:§ 33. Health care services.
A person shall be entitled to the freedom of providing for
the person's own health care. With the exception of providing
indemnity and medical benefits to injured workers, no law shall
be enacted:

(1) requiring a person to obtain or maintain health insurance coverage, except as required by a court where the person is named as a party in a judicial proceeding;
(2) prohibiting a person from or penalizing a person for making direct payment to a health care provider for tendering health care services; or
(3) rendering a person liable for any penalty, tax, assessment, fee or fine as a result of the person's failure to obtain or maintain health insurance coverage.

Basically PA may amend their constitution to forbid their citizens from being compelled to buy health insurance.

If Obamacare survives and this passes then another case may make it into the supreme court.

One more effect of passing a bill to find out what is in the bill...

(04-02-2012 12:32 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legi...10&pn=0173

Pennsylvania is proposed in accordance with Article XI:
That Article III be amended by adding a section to read:

Quote:§ 33. Health care services.
A person shall be entitled to the freedom of providing for
the person's own health care. With the exception of providing
indemnity and medical benefits to injured workers, no law shall
be enacted:

(1) requiring a person to obtain or maintain health insurance coverage, except as required by a court where the person is named as a party in a judicial proceeding;
(2) prohibiting a person from or penalizing a person for making direct payment to a health care provider for tendering health care services; or
(3) rendering a person liable for any penalty, tax, assessment, fee or fine as a result of the person's failure to obtain or maintain health insurance coverage.

Basically PA may amend their constitution to forbid their citizens from being compelled to buy health insurance.

If Obamacare survives and this passes then another case may make it into the supreme court.

One more effect of passing a bill to find out what is in the bill...

I'll fly to Pennsylvania and vote for this....voter fraud doesn't exist so they won't catch me.

(04-02-2012 04:08 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(04-02-2012 12:32 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legi...10&pn=0173

Pennsylvania is proposed in accordance with Article XI:
That Article III be amended by adding a section to read:

Quote:§ 33. Health care services.
A person shall be entitled to the freedom of providing for
the person's own health care. With the exception of providing
indemnity and medical benefits to injured workers, no law shall
be enacted:

(1) requiring a person to obtain or maintain health insurance coverage, except as required by a court where the person is named as a party in a judicial proceeding;
(2) prohibiting a person from or penalizing a person for making direct payment to a health care provider for tendering health care services; or
(3) rendering a person liable for any penalty, tax, assessment, fee or fine as a result of the person's failure to obtain or maintain health insurance coverage.

Basically PA may amend their constitution to forbid their citizens from being compelled to buy health insurance.

If Obamacare survives and this passes then another case may make it into the supreme court.

One more effect of passing a bill to find out what is in the bill...

I'll fly to Pennsylvania and vote for this....voter fraud doesn't exist so they won't catch me.

Vote often.

The federal government already allows for states to opt out of Obamacare. Why are they going through all this trouble. Why don't they simply come up with a better plan and opt out?

(04-03-2012 04:55 PM)Fitbuddy Wrote:  The federal government already allows for states to opt out of Obamacare. Why are they going through all this trouble. Why don't they simply come up with a better plan and opt out?

If I'm not mistaken if a state leverages the opt out afforded them the Feds take away all their Medicare funding.

So really they don't have an opt out.

O Hai I'm the Supremacy Clause!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause#Text

(04-03-2012 09:48 PM)Max Power Wrote:  O Hai I'm the Supremacy Clause!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause#Text

O Hai I'm City v Milan!

"But we do not place our opinion on this ground. We choose rather to plant ourselves on what we consider impregnable positions. They are these: That a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things, within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States." -- Supreme Court Justice Barbour

Which is why the federal government set the drinking age in all the states... Oh wait they bribed states to do that! Yea thats what this republic is supposed to look like.

Except this time the federal government is not playing with highway funds, it's playing with the poor who need medicare.

Like I said all this means is more court headaches *if* Obamacare survives this case..

(04-04-2012 10:28 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 09:48 PM)Max Power Wrote:  O Hai I'm the Supremacy Clause!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause#Text

O Hai I'm City v Milan!

"But we do not place our opinion on this ground. We choose rather to plant ourselves on what we consider impregnable positions. They are these: That a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things, within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States." -- Supreme Court Justice Barbour

Which is why the federal government set the drinking age in all the states... Oh wait they bribed states to do that! Yea thats what this republic is supposed to look like.

Except this time the federal government is not playing with highway funds, it's playing with the poor who need medicare.

Like I said all this means is more court headaches *if* Obamacare survives this case..

Yeah, that quote by Justice Barbour is exactly right. The Constitution's supremacy clause says any state law to the contrary of any federal law is void.

What a state bill that conflicts with a federal statute within the federal government's commerce powers has to do with the feds attaching conditions to spending receipts by the state (which is a legit exercise of its spending power, see South Dakota v. Dole) is beyond me.

Are you in Hambone's opium den?