A Note Of Praise To The House Health Insurance Committee
Word came yesterday afternoon that the Missouri House Health Insurance Committee has finally voted to send a key piece of legislation to the full House for consideration before the close of this year’s legislative session, which ends Friday. This is the same legislation — which the Missouri Senate already passed — that Christie Herrara and I wrote about in March which, if implemented, would block the unilateral implementation of the ObamaCare exchange in the state. I expect the referendum to pass swiftly through the lower chamber and for voters to approve the measure when the question is posed to them later this year.
The process was not without its share of drama, of course. The hearing for the bill before the House Committee was held at the end of March, leaving the bill with little margin for error to get the required votes done before the legislature adjourns. But whatever the reason for the delay, the committee deserves credit for getting the job done. On to the full House.
Or, another take, from the leftist rag, the Wall Street Journal, online right now–
Governors also know that if the ACA survives Supreme Court scrutiny and if Mr. Obama is re-elected, then Washington will, by law, impose exchanges of its design on states that haven’t created their own before Jan. 1, 2014.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304543904577393620096446352.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth
Republican governors are all over the map on this issue. Some in favor, some not. Governors would rather create their own exchanges, of their own design, than having something, again, forced down their throat from Washington. Missouri wouldn’t be able to do that, having no flexibility. Why tie your hands? To ’send a message to Washington’? Use Morse code for that.
Obamacare may be unconstitutional [probably, to me, though maybe just the mandate], and Mr. Obama may or may not be re-elected. However, the House’s action is just a waste of time, as it will be meaningless if Obamacare is unconstitutional and meaningless if it is constitutional.
Comment by Papillon — May 9, 2012 @ 1:40 p.m.
The proposed law would explicitly prevent the governor from unilaterally implementing the insurance exchange if the legislature hasn’t consented to it. I’m not sure how that ties the governor’s hands any more than the separation of powers does, except that it explicitly tells the executive that there is no insurance exchange law or equivalent for him or her to execute at this time. Not wild stuff, and certainly not meaningless.
Comment by Patrick Ishmael — May 9, 2012 @ 1:49 p.m.
I just see this as another attempt to nullify the law. It’s unconstitutional because we, the house, say so, and, we already said the feds can’t implement it in HB 1534. We won’t fund it, won’t allow the executive to implement it, we won’t pass it, so, in the event that it becomes the law of the land [via the US Congress and affirmed by the Supreme Court], we will just come up with barrier after barrier to prevent it from happening, because we don’t like it, regardless of its constitutionality.
Can you tell I hold the House in disdain and I don’t treat them as a serious body?
Comment by Papillon — May 9, 2012 @ 3:01 p.m.
We agree that nullification laws are a non-starter. But, this isn’t a nullification law.
Comment by Patrick Ishmael — May 9, 2012 @ 7:35 p.m.