Last Updated on March 2, 2020
Ever since 1860, when South Carolina became the first state to secede from the Union, there has been a subtle undertone speaking to its politicians, reminding them of our “rebel”  history. If we don’t like something, well, shucks, ma’am, we’ll just bow out again.
You aren’t going to push us around up there in Washington.
South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, who also happens to be a Republican candidate for governor, has announced that will sue the federal government if the House passes the health care reform package this weekend.
McMaster says he expects other attorneys general to join the suit. Florida’s, who is also a Republican candidate for governor of his state, will likely be one of the first.
There are two major points he feels are enough to cripple the legislation: the first is a deal that allows Nebraska to stop paying into Medicaid.
While I have nothing against Nebraska, if the state isn’t going to pay a dime into Medicaid, it shouldn’t deserve to take a penny out of the program, either. Somehow, I doubt its citizens will be cut off, so I agree that all 50 states ought to have to pay into the same system if they’re going to be using it.
This single state got a break because of a deal made to win the support of Sen. Ben Nelson. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has no problem with the federal government fully funding Medicaid for residents of that one state:
“You’ll find a number of states that are treated differently than other states. That’s what legislating is all about. It’s compromise.”
But compromise is usually a deal that is good for all sides, not just one: if the legislation has enough problems that a senator has to receive such a costly provision just to get him to vote for it, that should speak volumes about the plan itself.
But it’s the second gripe that I’ve really been concerned about for some time now: it centers on the requirement that everyone would have to purchase health care insurance. McMaster says that requirement is unconstitutional.
Today at work, an office mate said he’d heard Rush Limbaugh say that he hasn’t had health insurance for years because he can afford to pay for whatever he needs. Good for him. But that’s not my concern about that requirement.
Suppose that you’re a hard worker in a job you love, making enough money to pay the mortgage, the credit cards, the utilities, and your insurance. Then you walk into work one day and out of the blue, your boss calls you down the hall into the human resources office and tells you that despite your exemplary work, your services are no longer needed.
Suddenly, you’re out of a job, and your ability to pay your bills is out the window. If you can’t produce enough money to pay your mortgage, how are you supposed to buy health care? Insurance might well be thought of, at such a time, as a “luxury”  you’ll just have to do without.
So if you can’t afford to keep your home, how can you afford to pay for health coverage?
What if your religious persuasion prevents you from visiting a doctor or taking medication? Do you get to “opt-out” then? And if so, how does the government plan to keep tabs on everyone who claims that their beliefs would justify not buying health coverage to make sure that they aren’t sneaking down to the neighborhood “doc in a box?”
It’s going to be a long weekend.
