• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The States Fight Back: Virginia Rejects Obamacare's Individual Mandates

    Yesterday the U.S. Constitution and federalism won a key battle. The Virginia Senate, which has a Democrat Majority, passed a bill prohibiting a requirement for Virginians to purchase health-care insurance. Five Democrats from swing districts joined all of the Senate Republicans in voting in favor of the measure. And with a Republican State House and Governor, this bill is expected to make it into law.

    Some would argue that the legislative implications are negligible as the federal government, if it wants, can override state law and that an individual mandate could be authored in such a way to not run afoul of this Virginian measure. However, the practical implications of this effort are widespread. What are these?

    The Constitution is Back in Vogue. Many of the elite politicians and media insiders ridicule anybody who questions health care federalism and the Constitution. The liberal leaders in Congress could not believe that the American people would value our nation’s Founding principles over their precious health care reforms. However, the fact of the matter is that these are serious issues that deserve deep thought and discussion.

    Obamacare Setback. Passage of the Virginia measure will further stymie efforts in the House and Senate to get Obamacare to the President’s desk. Even if the federal government can supersede State authority, members from those states that pass these initiatives will have a hard time voting for something that is clearly against the will of their constituencies. For example Sens. Jim Webb (D-VA) and John Warner (D-VA) in particular will now have to justify why they have not considered the expressed will of the elected legislators from Virginia.

    States Fighting Back. With the health care debate in limbo, news outlets are highlighting state efforts to protect their residents from federal Government intrusion. In addition to Virginia, over 2/3rd’s of the States have introduced measures to stop individual mandates on health care. Many State Attorney Generals have threatened to sue if current federal reform proposals are passed into law. State legislators across the country are considering various bills that would allow their state to opt out of key provisions of Obamacare or provide state voters a chance at the ballot box to reject nationalized health care in their state.

    Regardless of legislative components of the Virginia action yesterday, Conservatives should cheer the resurgence of federalism and what it means for reigning in the rapidly increasing federal government. With most states starting their legislative sessions, this may be just the beginning of what could be the “Year for State Sovereignty.”

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    22 Responses to The States Fight Back: Virginia Rejects Obamacare's Individual Mandates

    1. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      Virginia's "thus always to tyrants" is certainly fitting given today's federal transgression into state affairs like healthcare reform.

    2. Todd says:

      This is a vicotry not only for Virginians but for all States and Commonwealths in the same battle. However this was perhaps a ploy by the Democrats in Virginia to win favor with the voters in order to somehow keep their jobs come November. Either way I applaud the win and vote and hope we'll see many more like it in the coming months.

      Just A Point of View

    3. Pingback: State legislatures revolt against ObamaCare mandates « Public Secrets

    4. Pingback: Federalism back? Virginia fights against Obamacare

    5. Bruce, VA says:

      I do not like the "personal mandate". And, I, too, am concerned that Congress is over-stepping its Constitutional constraints. But, alas, that is nothing new; been going on for years.

      But let's look at why the personal mandate was put into this gosh-awful bill.

      The Us government is not the provider of medical benefits; the insurance companies are. The insurance companies are for-profit corporations. Nothing wrong with that — as long as they do not get avaricious and arbitrary.

      So, since one of the key requirements Obama and others put on the Health Care bill is that it must cover pre-existing conditions. So, if a young, apparently healthy person does not buy insurance until he/she develops a serious illness, the insurance company is being cheated because that person did not contribute towards his medical care.

      Insurance is run on a statistical basis. So, let's say that for a person of 30 that the chances are 1 in 1,000 that he will develop a serious illness before age 60 and that the medical costs for that person will be $150,000. The insurance company says: OK, for every 1,000 people of age 30, I need to have $150,000 in my bank to pay for one of them getting sick by age 60. So, I will sell them an insurance policy that costs $150,00 / (1000 * 30) = $5/yr. Actually, the cost will be a bit higher to cover publicity, administration, etc., etc, and don't forget profit.

      If only a couple of those people do not buy insurance, the company does not make as much profit, but it is not serious. However, if most of them decline to buy insurance, then, not only does the company not make a profit, it actually takes a huge loss. That is not a sustainable business model.

      So, the reasonable options are these:

      1. Force everyone to buy insurance at a fair price for their age and condition.

      2. Allow people not to buy insurance but do not require insurance companies to accept them without a very substantial penalty to compensate for missed payments.

      Another option is unreasonable:

      3. Allow people not to buy insurance but have the government pay for their care when they get sick. This is unreasonable for several reasons:

      a. The individual has no incentive to buy insurance because there is no penalty for doing so and great rewards for not doing so.

      b. The individual makes a conscious decision to become a burden on the taxpayers who have no influence on his decision or their requirement to foot the bills.

      If you pay little or no taxes, then option 3 has no horrors for you. If you have a good job and pay one-quarter or more of your earnings to the federal government, this option gives you serious heartburn because it is so unfair.

      So, which option do like the best?

    6. Bill beach Gaffne4y, says:

      Now the states must do the same to any "Cap & Trade" bill. That is another big fight we must have with the Federal government & the Democrat Progressive Exective and the same Congress Majority.

    7. Jenn, Birmingham, AL says:

      I'm starting to feel better – we're winning, one by one. The ones we don't win, we'll at the least make a strong statement. We just have to keep it up! Remember all the way to November!!!

    8. John B. San Diego says:

      Start trimming this federal spending monster now. The Tenth Amendment is being threatened by nearly every move Obama and his hoard in congress makes daily. Unbelievable is the amount that one tax payer dollar has lost in value by the time the small portion of his or her dollar returns back to their home state. And that does not even address the right of that state citizen to choose or not choose to participate in the program(s) proposed by the huge US Gov intolerant one size fits all domination over our "Free Will"??

      $####$ JB

    9. Paul Terry Stone, Su says:

      This is bringing the question to the fore as to whether state's rights exist any more

      or whether a strong central government is over all.

    10. Jeanne Stotler,Woodb says:

      Sens. Webb and Warner DO NOT listen to their constituints, Sen Warner, who rarely answers just answered with a "I know better than you" letter. I responded asking him "Why should I get worse or less care than his mother got?" I have yet to recieve an answer and really don't expect one. I believe health care should be up to states, federal gov't needs to stay out of our personal lives, better to bring jobs back to this country increase indepepndent businesses and decrease not increase (heard last nght largest increase) federal gov't and spending.

    11. Sandy in Philly says:

      Thrilled to see State Governments beginning to forward our message to Washington…New Jersey, electing Gov Chris Christie; VA, electing Gov. Bob McDonnell; Massachusetts sending Scott Brown to upset the apple cart in the Senate… now Democrats & Republicans with one voice have spoken in Virginia…'Hands off!'

    12. Chip, Colorado Sprin says:

      Article V of the Constitution allows the States to call a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments:

      1. Repeal the 16th (Income Tax) and 17th (direct election of Senators) amendments.

      2. Insert a term limit amendment, including Supreme Court appointees.

      3. Insert an amendment amplifying the 10th amendment and specifically listing Congressional powers.

      4. Insert an amendment staing no law, save the Constitution itself and its amendments, may stand for more than 50 years without reauthorization.

    13. Drew Page, IL says:

      I only hope that the other states will follow the example set by Virginia.

    14. Walter, Indiana says:

      The States need to force a Constitutional Convention to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments. Repealing the 16th will force the Federal government to steal from the State legislatures. Repealing the 17th will make Senators beholden to the State legislatures and will be less likely to vote to steal money from the States. Without the necessary funds, the Federal government will have less power to steal our liberties. Not to mention there won't be any need for an IRS anymore.

    15. Lebo, Melbourne, Flo says:

      Always keep in mind the states created the Federal Government, not the other way around.

      The power is with the states, and the people…we just need to have the balls to exercise this power.

      Throw all the bums out ASAP.

    16. Pingback: Virginia's Democrat-Controlled Senate Rejects Obamacare | The Freedom Medium

    17. Lynn Bryant DeSpain says:

      When the Federal Government goes beyond its limited powers granted to it under the Constitution, it is the States duty to place the Federal Government back into its proper position as described by the Laws ristricting and limiting its powers under the Contitution of the United States of America.

      We are fifty Independent Nations joined under a Common Charter, the Constitution. The Federal Government is but our Agent, hired by us to do specific things, deal in foriegn matters, maintain a strong military defense, and assure open and free trade among the States. That's it.

    18. Robert, Wausau Wisco says:

      The Constitutions tenth amendment stops the Federal Government from mandating anything. The Constitution does not give this power to the Federal Government. The following two Supreme Court cases are fine examples:

      The First Case, “New York v. United States,” the State of New York sued the United States because of the Federal Governments attempt to control the state’s disposal of radioactive waste. Justice O’Connor writing for the court held that the states could not be compelled to “enact or administer a federal regulatory program.” And, using the Tenth Amendment, further stated, “States are not mere political subdivisions of the United States. State governments are neither regional offices nor administrative agencies of the Federal Government.”

      The Second Case, “Prints v. United States,” the Supreme court rendered an opinion stopping the federal government from compelling State and Local executive branch members to follow a federal regulation. In this case the Brady Bill attempted to make State and Local police authorities conduct background checks on people wanting to purchase firearms. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, stated “He found no support for this in the Federalist Papers or in early congressional records.” And “He held that the part of the Brady Bill that directs state and local officers to follow a federal regulation in conducting background checks violated the Tenth Amendment.”

    19. joe woika, Baltimore says:

      What a better place for the "Next Civil War" to begin than in the Heartland of the South, Virginia. I am Very proud that a stand was taken against this president's idiotic policies.

    20. Gary,Peoples Republi says:

      It's about time the States grew a pair. The federal gov. is way overstepping it's authority. Impeach the Pres.

    21. Ric, Lawton OK says:

      Bruce in VA – you present false choices and ape DNC talking points….

      I suspect you are a "Mitt" conservative who feels its ok to use government force to impose your personal biases….

      First, its clear that the U.S. Constitution DOES NOT give the federal government the right us force to make a citizen buy a product or service as a condition of residence.

      Second, you logic is faulty in that it assumes that SOMEONE OTHER THEN THE PERSON seeking medical assistance must pay their bill! False, the obligation is first and foremost to that person to pay for their care. There are numerous ways to do this starting with their personal funds, loans, installment payments etc. Most of the uninsured (85%) pay their own medical costs.

      Third, your answer is to STOP GOVT intrusion into medical services in insurance. Why must we argree that insurance firms must take on known losses via guranteed issue and preexisisting conditions? One bad govt intervention does not justify a worse one!

      Forth, since you know so much about insurance, then you also must know that there is no such thing as an "uninsureable" person. Everyone is insureable at a particular price based on their age and health status, etc. They may not want to pay these costs personnally, but that doesnt mean that insurance is not available to them. Insurance is supposed to cover your finicial liability against an unforeseen and unknown risk – its not medical welfare. If a free market ie one without govt mandated coverages were truly allowed to exsist, then costs would be forced down due to a wider range of products attracting a larger customary base.

      In other words, the practical problem of the "preexsisting" condition issue can be solved in much better ways ie freedom and free markets then govt fiat!

    22. nancy whitt says:

      Thank God that we have a voice,The people in the white house fails to turn a ear to what the American People want and it seemed like we had no one to stop this mad man that has been choosen to be our president.I personally wont even give him the recognition of calling him president he is an embarrassment.He didn,t know that we are strong Americans and we wont stand by and have him steal our freedom from under our nose,He has a sick agenda and the people that are behind him are just as SICK AS HE IS he is another hitler.American,s stand up and be strong good always win over evil

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×