Oh, boy. If you didn’t think the back-and-forth in Washington of this exchange: “You think you know better than everyone! Keep your big government hands out of health care,” versus, “Oh, you mean, ‘Keep your socialist hands off my Medicare,’” was not coming to our state government, you picked wrong. Rep. Tim Scott, who is in the Republican primary for lieutenant governor, is certainly going to be grabbing himself some headlines come January.
Scott sponsored the following bills:
H. 4171: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-71-15 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IF PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL LAW MANDATE THAT ALL CITIZENS WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS PURCHASE OR SECURE HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE THROUGH A RANGE OF OPTIONS ONE OF WHICH IS TO PURCHASE OR SECURE HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE THROUGH A PUBLIC PLAN UNDERWRITTEN IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THE PUBLIC PLAN PERMITS STATES TO “OPT OUT” OF THIS PUBLIC OPTION, THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA HERBY “OPTS OUT” AND DECLINES TO HAVE THIS PUBLIC PLAN OPTION APPLY TO OR BE AVAILABLE TO THE CITIZENS OF THIS STATE.
Yes, that’s exactly what it looks like — it makes sure that the Palmetto State opts out of a health care bill that has yet to pass the U.S. Senate. We just love preemption in this state, from seceding under the thought President Abraham Lincoln would have eliminated slavery (which is doubtful, in retrospect), all the way to the last session when Rep. Eric Bedingfield went both barrels with a bill and a constitutional amendment to prevent South Carolina from being involved in a federal card-check law. Come to think of it, this bill has a constitutional amendment filed with it, too.
H. 4181: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, SO AS TO ADD A NEW SECTION PRESERVING THE FREEDOM OF SOUTH CAROLINIANS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROVIDING OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES, BY PROHIBITING ANY LAW, REGULATION, OR RULE TO COMPEL AN INDIVIDUAL, EMPLOYER, OR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER TO PARTICIPATE IN A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, BY ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYERS TO PAY DIRECTLY FOR LAWFUL HEALTH CARE SERVICES WITHOUT PENALTIES OR FINES FOR THESE DIRECT PAYMENTS, BY PROVIDING THAT THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF HEALTH INSURANCE IN PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS MUST NOT BE PROHIBITED BY LAW, REGULATION, OR RULE, BY PROVIDING THOSE INCENTIVES IN WHICH THE RIGHTS PROVIDED BY THIS SECTION DO NOT APPLY, AND TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE DEFINITIONS.
The bill probably has a better chance of passing than the constitutional amendment, but whether either make it to the Governor’s desk, eh, no guarantee on that one. There will be more than significant support among Republican members, but we suspect there will be intense Democratic opposition. Of course, a win for the Dems will probably add to up a delaying action just to make sure there are no final votes or conference committees or the like.
Speaking of Democrats, Rep. Boyd Brown has a bill in the hopper, to incentivise doctors to take their practice to rural areas.
H. 4195: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 8 TO CHAPTER 111, TITLE 59 TO ENACT THE “SOUTH CAROLINA RURAL PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM” SO AS TO CREATE A LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM FOR LICENSED PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS WHO PRACTICE IN RURAL AREAS WITHIN THE STATE, TO PROVIDE FOR A PROGRAM ADVISORY BOARD, TO PROVIDE CRITERIA BY WHICH PHYSICIANS MAY BE SELECTED, TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE PROGRAM, TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE PROGRAM, AND TO DEFINE CERTAIN TERMS.
As well, a number of legislators came to fashion a bipartisan bill to address a recent controversy coming out of Congressional votes on amendments to health care legislation.
H. 4198: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-57-115 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION FOR AN INSURER TO DENY, REFUSE TO ISSUE OR RENEW, CANCEL, RESTRICT OR EXCLUDE COVERAGE, DENY A CLAIM OR LIMIT PAYMENTS, OR ADD A PREMIUM DIFFERENTIAL TO A POLICY OR CERTIFICATE OF COVERAGE ON THE BASIS THAT AN APPLICANT OR INSURED HAS BEEN OR IS PERCEIVED TO HAVE BEEN ABUSED OR MAY BE A SUBJECT OF ABUSE AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES, INCLUDING FINES UP TO TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.
This bill’s primary sponsor is Rep. Shannon Erickson, and she’s joined by Reps. Joan Brady, Gilda Cobb-Hunter, Jenny Horne, Rita Allison, Anne Peterson Hutto, Bill Herbkersman and Murrell Smith. As of right now, it’s completely legal for an insurance company to deny you coverage because of previous or current domestic violence. There’s no national law governing this, because, as has been blatantly obvious for some time, insurance regulations are largely left up to the states. So, in case a bill such language in it doesn’t pass in Congress, this legislation is to make sure it happens here.
As the days wind toward the opening of the session, there will likely be more heath care related bills coming down the pike.
