Can South Carolina stop the ACA (Obamacare)

found on Facebook

I'm sure by now you have seen the following image on Facebook, followed by the call to like and share and some other crap. For all the anti-Obama stuff that gets posted on Facebook, this one appears to be true. I took to Google and searched "south carolina aca." A video from Huffington Post blowing a lot of smoke, a story from Fox News spinning things for their masters, the GOP; and finally this. I've never heard of that site/blog (but neither am I all-knowing), but it seems legitimate, and is well written besides, which is always nice.

South Carolina, like any state, is actually not in a position to ban any federal law, however. Neither are they the first state to oppose federal law. Washington (state, not DC) and Colorado legalized the personal use of marijuana, though it is still illegal at the federal level. About a third of U.S. states have legalized same-sex marriage (and North Carolina has banned it), although the federal government does not formally recognize same-sex couples. So states do have the power to override federal law within their borders. But ban it outright? Not a chance. Here's what they will do:

The big thing for a lot of people who oppose the Affordable Care Act (and actually know what they're talking about) is the penalty for not carrying any insurance at all. That penalty is currently $95 per person (with children counting for half that) who does not carry insurance—or 1% of income, whichever is higher. South Carolina will provide a state tax credit equal to the penalty, so a citizen would pay the penalty in addition to their federal taxes (or out of their tax refund), but they would, at the same time, save the amount of the penalty from their state taxes (or have it added to their tax refund). I have no idea how many South Carolinians both oppose the ACA and also have no plans of carrying insurance in 2014, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it's 5% of SC's 4.7 million population, or about 235,000 people. And let's assume they're all poor, so their penalty is $95. And we'll assume none of them have kids to make the numbers nice and even. Okay, that's $22,325,000 ($22.3 million) that South Carolina is going to pay (more or less) to bail its citizens out of this penalty. Chump change for a state government, but possibly chump change that would be better spent on education (even if it's only a few bucks per kid).

You can read what all else the bill does at the link above, but it's outside the scope of my concern. My concern goes back to the one question that virtually no ACA opponent will answer directly. And that is, "If someone who does not have insurance needs to go to the hospital and cannot pay, who foots the bill? And would you support the right for hospitals to turn away people without insurance?" Currently, it's the taxpayers. Hospitals cannot turn you away based on your inability to pay or lack of insurance. By forcing everyone to carry insurance, we tie emergency room visits to the personal accountability so many conservatives claim (but shy away from when this question is put to them).

I don't support the ACA myself, and my answer to the above is simply, "taxes." I believe all health care costs should be covered. Health care is not something people should have to worry about. The wealthy and those in government don't worry about it because they have full coverage. Health care is not a luxury that should be kept from the poor, the young, the elderly, and the working class. With the UN declaring Internet access to be a basic human right, shouldn't access to health care be a little more important than posting selfies on Facebook? I have no idea how we're going to pay for it, though. That's way above my pay grade. I think we should start by diverting taxes on cigarettes, and other substances known to be harmful, to health care access for everyone. The biggest problem isn't funding it, though, it's the opposition. Insurance companies make a killing on premiums and deductibles, and would all be put out of business, or would have to insure only optional treatments. Pharmaceutical companies make a killing on the repeat customer business, treating symptoms but not curing illnesses or diseases. It isn't in their best interests to cure anything; they would lose too much money.

In any case, the healthcare system in the United States needs a lot of work. Obamacare might have had some good ideas, but generally, it's not the right solution, and to call it Affordable is a joke. The most inexpensive plans at Healthcare.gov for North Carolina alienate most working people. The penalty is affordable, but why should poor people have to pay for the government's failures? The problem, as it is with so many other things, is that laws are written to solve problems that the people writing them will never experience. Let's put politicians on the cheapest Obamacare plan, pay them minimum wage, take the guns away from the Secret Service agents protecting them, etc., and see what they think about that. In short, they would be horrified to live by the rules they impose on their constituents... and maybe that might make them change things for the better. But probably not.