Liberty MavenVirginia Senate votes to nullify Obamacare mandate
February 1st, 2010 9:38 pm | by Marc Gallagher | Published in Activism, Big Government, Commentary, Health Care, Individual Responsibility, Liberty, states rights | 3 Responses
The Virginia State Senate voted today 23-17 to add a provision to the Virginia State Code that would exempt Virginians from being forced by the federal government to participate in any health care plan. Furthermore, the provision exempts Virginians from having to pay a fine or fee for not participating.
The text of the legislation sponsored by Jill Holtzman Vogel reads as follows:
No resident of this Commonwealth, regardless of whether he has or is eligible for health insurance coverage under any policy or program provided by or through his employer, or a plan sponsored by the Commonwealth or the federal government, shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage. No provision of this title shall render a resident of this Commonwealth liable for any penalty, assessment, fee, or fine as a result of his failure to procure or obtain health insurance coverage.
This is a big win for Virginians, the 10th Amendment, and liberty. The fight is not over though. I highlight the word “individual” above because it worries me. Does this mean the federal government can mandate family coverage?
Hopefully this ambiguity will be remedied as the bill moves further along in the legislative process.
Five Democrats voted for the bill. You can find the vote tally on the bill’s tracking page here and more information is available here.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:20 pm (#)
True, ambiguous. However, I would bet that argued in court, that language could be applied to an "individual" child or spouse, as they are, through their parent / spouse, eligible for coverage, albeit under an umbrella plan. If the case were win-able in the other direction, I'm afraid that the entire law could be nullified as the word "individual" could be used to argue that no insurance policy, at least not through an employer, is written from scratch for each participant. Rather, a set (generic) plan is written, with set rates to opt in to.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:20 pm (#)
True, ambiguous. However, I would bet that argued in court, that language could be applied to an "individual" child or spouse, as they are, through their parent / spouse, eligible for coverage, albeit under an umbrella plan. If the case were win-able in the other direction, I'm afraid that the entire law could be nullified as the word "individual" could be used to argue that no insurance policy, at least not through an employer, is written from scratch for each participant. Rather, a set (generic) plan is written, with set rates to opt in to.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:20 pm (#)
True, ambiguous. However, I would bet that argued in court, that language could be applied to an "individual" child or spouse, as they are, through their parent / spouse, eligible for coverage, albeit under an umbrella plan. If the case were win-able in the other direction, I'm afraid that the entire law could be nullified as the word "individual" could be used to argue that no insurance policy, at least not through an employer, is written from scratch for each participant. Rather, a set (generic) plan is written, with set rates to opt in to.