@NCCapitol

NC House OKs challenge to health reform law

Posted February 2, 2011
Updated February 3, 2011

— The state House voted Wednesday to pass a bill that would exempt North Carolina residents from a key requirement of the year-old national health care reform law.

House Bill 2 is the first legislation to get a full vote in the 2011 legislative session. It passed two readings by identical 66-50 votes.

The bill, which now heads to the Senate, aims to block a provision requiring people to buy insurance beginning in 2014 or pay a penalty. It also aims to force Attorney General Roy Cooper to join a lawsuit filed by 26 other states to challenge the law.

NC House NC House OKs challenge to health reform law

Democrats say the measure could prevent hundreds of thousands of people from obtaining health insurance. The also argued that North Carolina doesn't need to participate in the lawsuit since it would have to abide by whatever ruling the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately hands down about its legality.

"I think it's clear to everyone that this is in some means a symbolic gesture," said Rep. Angela Bryant, D-Nash.

Republicans maintained that the so-called "individual mandate" in the reform law is intrusive and that the bill sends a message to Washington, D.C., that North Carolina won't let the federal government walk over its citizens.

"If he or she is alive, he or she has to buy health insurance (under the reform law). That's offensive to me and many people in North Carolina," said Rep. Leo Daughtry, R-Johnston.

"It further punishes our citizens if they don't purchase the health insurance our federal government says is OK," said Rep. Jeff Barnhart, R-Cabarrus.

As they did last week when a House committee passed the bill within a day of the legislative session's start, Democrats said the measure was being rushed through and needed more analysis.

Hackney debates health reform exemption bill House passes health reform exemption

"We're doing committee work on the House floor. We're coming up with one exception after another, and in this sausage factory, I have this feeling that, even if you like the bill, there are exclusions that should be in it, that we're leaving out," said Rep. Jennifer Weiss, D-Wake.

Second District Congresswoman Renee Ellmers, who was elected in November on a pledge to repeal the health reform law, said Wednesday that she supports the General Assembly's effort.

"We have state's rights in this issue," Ellmers said. "They're speaking out, saying it should not have to be a mandate to purchase health care insurance."

Gov. Beverly Perdue asked Wednesday why the House was taking up the health reform issue before addressing job growth and improving the state economy. She echoed Democratic lawmakers in saying the issue should be handled at the federal level, but she didn't indicate whether she would veto the bill if it passes the Senate.

285 Comments

This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • gunny462 Feb 4, 2011

    "Fact: PBOcare is deemed illegal under the constitution by 2 of 4 judges." "That means 2 out of four deem it legal. Ultimately, the Supreme Court has to decide"

    And all said that 'taxing' was illegal

    "Fact: illegals will keep using emergency care"

    "Yes, you're right. What's the solution to this problem?" I should ask you samething.

    "Fact: HC prems are RISING this year" They've been rising every year which is why our health care system is unsustainable. Actually this year it has risen more than the last 5 years.

    "Fact: 52-56% of americans in the newest polls DO NOT want pbocare." "A large number of that want Obamacare to go further and have the public option like every other industrialized country" Actually the poll your referring to is not the same one.

  • Plenty Coups Feb 3, 2011

    "How is passing a law that people won't have to pay a penalty if they don't purchase health insurance preventing anyone from obtaining health insurance that wants to obtain health insurance?"

    Because of cost and exclusion through pre-existing conditions.

  • Plenty Coups Feb 3, 2011

    "Original intent is they were equal."

    You keep referring to original intent by referencing one of Madison's essays. Ironically, Madison himself scoffs at the idea of nullification in numerous writings. Again, you have no legal, constitutional, or historical evidence to back up the idea of nullification other than your opinion and belief that the supreme court makes bad decisions.

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mjmtext:@field(DOCID+@lit(jm090163))

  • hihuwatlu Feb 3, 2011

    "Democrats say the measure could prevent hundreds of thousands of people from obtaining health insurance"

    How is passing a law that people won't have to pay a penalty if they don't purchase health insurance preventing anyone from obtaining health insurance that wants to obtain health insurance?

  • usnret Feb 3, 2011

    I am continually amazed at those who can't tell the difference between the articles of confederation and the constitution.

  • dlk13ster Feb 3, 2011

    That's also why the reverse ISN'T true:

    State law enforcement doesn't have jurisdiction in federally-administered areas like National Parks, Forests, Monuments, Forts, Dockyards, Armories, Magazines, etc., even if these areas are located within their state limits. Which is why the National Park Service, National Park Rangers, Capitol Police, and Secret Service (all Federal law enforcement agencies) have EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over these areas--although many will, from time to time, independently negotiate memoranda of understanding and mutual-assistance agreements with state & local agencies for the purposes of expedience, professional courtesy, and pragmatic convenience.

  • dlk13ster Feb 3, 2011

    Also, with respect, your "in pursuance thereof" argument is (as near as I can tell) just quibbling over semantics.

    Literally...semantics in the GRAMMATICAL sense.

    The Constitution states that IT, all federal laws that are in accordance WITH it, and all international treaties negotiated and ratified UNDER it, shall be the supreme law of the land, and will be interpreted, judged, & ruled upon by the Supreme Court of the US accordingly.

    IF a federal law (or treaty, or whatever) is later found by the judiciary to be NOT in accordance with (or negotiated under) the Const., & the SCOTUS deems that it is so, that federal law (or treaty, or whatever) is considered null and void.

    And, it is null & void EVERYWHERE, not just in the state that argued the case.

    That's b/c the REVERSE is true, and federal law has jurisdiction over the ENTIRE US.

    That's why US Marshals, ICE, the IRS, & the FBI can investigate, enforce, & execute federal law in ANY state, even if a fugitive flees from NC to ND.

  • nighttrain2010 Feb 3, 2011

    >>But, if for whatever reason you CAN'T expect the judicial branch to make free and independent rulings on laws enacted by the legislature and enforced by the executive branch

    These would be the same justices that owe their jobs to the executive branch for nominating them and the legislative branch for confirming them? Right...

    Perhaps before the 20th century perhaps that may have worked but as democracy has continued to fail (which it will according to Hoppe and I agree) judges are nominated more to push a political view than to rule impartially on cases

    >>THAT is the "system of checks and balances" and the principle of "separation of powers" you learned about in Civics class.

    Putting ABC's Classroom Rock aside, the checks and balances along with separation of powers were also between the separate and sovereign states and the federal government as outlined by the writings of the Framers themselves

  • dlk13ster Feb 3, 2011

    "You cannot reasonably expect a part of the government that passed the law to rule that the law doesn't apply within a specific state"-nighttrain2010

    With respect, you CAN. And you SHOULD. At least, in a free and democratic country with an established and independent judiciary. And, at least in THIS free and democratic country w/ an established and independent judiciary, it HAS.

    And, in fact, it has DONE SO several times in the past.

    But, if for whatever reason you CAN'T expect the judicial branch to make free and independent rulings on laws enacted by the legislature and enforced by the executive branch, OR if you can't trust the executive branch to enforce the rulings of said judicial branch, then it's time to re-evaluate your nation's judicial branch, as well as the legislative and executive branches that check their power and are checked in return.

    THAT is the "system of checks and balances" and the principle of "separation of powers" you learned about in Civics class.

  • nighttrain2010 Feb 3, 2011

    >>Congress=makes laws, Supreme Court=interprets laws, Executive branch=enforces laws

    Let's just wrap this up then shall we? I tire of rehashing old arguments with Establishment groupies.The Supremacy Clause has a limitation neither of you will admit. 'In pursuant thereof'. The Constitution is the supreme law ONLY in laws pursuant thereof to the Constitution. Your argument invalidates the 10th Amendment before it was even written.

    >> Secondly, the supreme court doesn't "pass" any laws,

    My point was SCOTUS is PART of the government that passed the law. You cannot reasonably expect a part of the government that passed the law to rule that the law doesn't apply within a specific state. It is up to the SEPARATE AND SOVEREIGN states to protect their interests. The federal government was not supreme, nor were the states. Original intent is they were equal.

More...