Paul Stam » Health Care

With bipartisan support, the House voted 73 – 46 to override the veto of Governor Bev Perdue. The House and Senate achieved this historic milestone on June 15, 2011.
This fulfills our first two promises to the people of North Carolina: A balanced budget and a budget that does not raise tax rates. Our budget contains the largest tax rate cut in the history of North Carolina. It makes our state more competitive with our neighbors again. It puts almost $1.5 billion back in to the hands of hard working North Carolinians. It is balanced. The business school at UNC Chapel Hill estimates that the Republican budget will create up to 14,900 new private sector jobs in North Carolina.

2. Protect Health Care Freedom Act

HB 2, protects North Carolinians from the “individual mandate” in the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), passed the House and Senate and was sent to the Governor. She Vetoed the bill. Republican leaders filed an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) brief on May 11, 2011 to the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia. The Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in favor of the states.

3. North Carolina is a Right-to-Work state. Republicans will continue to support laws that secure the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join a union. We will stop any legislation that allows collective bargaining.

4. Reducing regulatory burden on small business.

Both House and Senate members have proposed legislation to limit the financial burden of regulation on businesses.

Senate Bill 22 – An act to limit new agency regulatory requirements that result in substantial additional costs. SB 22 passed both chambers and was signed into law by the Governor on March 25, 2011.
House Bill 162 – An act to exempt certain activities related to small-scale processing of agricultural products from wastewater permit requirements. The bill passed the House and Senate and was signed by the Governor on April 19, 2011.
House Bill 200 – The Appropriations Act of 2011 limits the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Labor and Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services from imposing standards or limitations that are more restrictive than the Federal government. The Act became law on June 15, 2011.
House Bill 542 – An act to provide tort reform for North Carolina citizens and businesses was signed by the Governor and became law on June 24, 2011.
House Bill 619 – An act to specify the Secretary of Revenue’s authority to adjust net income of a corporation or to require a corporation to file a combined return was signed by the Governor and became law on June 30, 2011.
House Bill 709 – An act to Protect and Put NC Back to Work by reforming the Workers’ Compensation Act passed the House and Senate and was signed by the Governor on June 24, 2011.
Senate Bill 781 – An act to increase regulatory efficiency in order to balance job creation and environmental protection was vetoed by the Governor. The House and Senate overrode the Governor’s veto on July 25, 2011 and the bill became law.

5. The balanced budget passed by the House and Senate fully funds the teachers in the classroom, not the bureaucracy.

6. Senate Bill 8 entitled, “No Cap on Number of Charter Schools” passed the House and Senate with bipartisan support and has been signed by the Governor. The bill became law on June 17, 2011.

7. HB 351, titled “Restore Confidence in Government” requires voters to provide photo ID before voting and allows more flexibility when applying for absentee ballots. HB 351 was ratified by the House and Senate but vetoed by the Governor on June 23, 2011. The House was unable to override the Governor’s veto but because of a parliamentary procedure it is eligible for reconsideration.

8. The House and Senate have each introduced bills proposing a Constitutional Amendment that will protect private property rights. House Bill 8 titled, “Eminent Domain” passed the full House on a vote of 98 to 18 and now moves to the Senate.

9. HB 139 entitled, “Limit Contributions by State Vendors” discourages pay-to-play politics in North Carolina. The bill seeks to limit the campaign contributions of state vendors to Council of State offices with which they hold contracts. HB 139 passed the House on May 24^th and has been sent to the Senate.

2011 Republican Legislative Accomplishments

Paul Stam, NC House Republican Leader — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:44:21 +0000

Notable Republican Bills Signed Into Law

House Bill 36 – An act to require counties, cities and employers to use the Federal E-Verify program to verify the work authorization of newly hired employees was signed by the Governor on June 23, 2011.

House Bill 92 – An act to repeal the land transfer tax was signed into law by the Governor on March 31, 2011.

House Bill 112 – An act to realign the Districts for Wake County Superior Court Judge seats to provide for single member districts and equal representation in those districts was signed into law by the Governor on June 23, 2011.

House Bill 542 – An act to provide tort reform for North Carolina citizens and businesses was signed into law by the Governor on June 24, 2011.

House Bill 588 – An act requiring local boards of education to teach a semester long course in high school entitled, “American History I – The Founding Principles.” The course will include a study on The Creator – endowed inalienable rights of the people, rule of law, equal justice under law, private property rights, federalism, due process, individual responsibility, etc. The Governor made this act law on June 23, 2011.

House Bill 596 – An act to require that proceeds of certain dispositions of state-owned real property be used in part to support the general fund, in part to support the teachers’ and state employees’ retirement system of North Carolina, and in part to support the agencies to which the property was allocated; and to appropriate funds for these purposes. The bill became law by the Governor’s hand on June 27, 2011.

House Bill 642 – The Justice Reinvestment Act was signed into law on June 23, 2011 by the Governor. The act is a major reform of the North Carolina Justice system.

House Bill 650 – An act to provide when a person may use defensive force and to amend various gun laws regarding the right to own, possess, or carry a firearm in North Carolina was signed into law by the Governor on June 23, 2011.

House Bill 762 – An act to protect landowner’s rights was signed into law by the Governor on June 23, 2011.

House Bill 927 – An act to make changes to the statutes governing the teachers’ and state employees’ retirement system and the consolidated judicial retirement system to ensure the future solvency of those systems was signed into law by the Governor on June 23, 2011.

House Bill 289 – An act to authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue various special registration plates including North Carolina Zoological Society, ARTS NC, North Carolina State Flag and Donate Life was signed by the Governor and became law on June 30, 2011.

House Bill 619 – An act to specify the Secretary of Revenue’s authority to adjust net income of a corporation or to require a corporation to file a combined return was signed by the Governor and became law on June 30, 2011.

Notable Republican Bills That Became Law without the Governor’s Signature

House Bill 48 – An act to reduce spending by eliminating statewide standardized testing in the public schools, except as required by Federal law or as a condition of a Federal grant. The bill became law on March 21, 2011.

House Bill 119 – An act to amend certain environmental and natural resources laws was presented to the Governor on June 20, 2011 and became law without her signature on July 1, 2011.

House Bill 744 – The “Safe Schools Act” states that a principal of any public school may shall require the parent or guardian of any child presented for admission for the first time to that school to furnish (i) a certified copy of the child’s birth certificate, which shall be furnished by the register of deeds of the county having on file the record of the birth of the child, or other satisfactory evidence of date of birth, as provided in Article 4 of Chapter 130A. The act became law on June 28, 2011.

House Bill 344 – An act to allow individual income tax credit for children with disabilities who require special education and to create a fund for special education and related services became law on July 1, 2011.

House Bill 845 – An act to reform the involuntary annexation laws of North Carolina became law on July 1, 2011.

Veto Overrides

Senate Bill 33 – An act to reform the laws relating to money judgment appeal bonds, bifurcation of trials in civil cases and medical liability became law on July 25, 2011 after the House and Senate voted to override the Governor’s veto.

Senate Bill 496 – An act to provide requirements of Medicaid and health choice providers became law on July 25, 2011 after the House and Senate voted to override the Governor’s veto.

Senate Bill 532 (HB 813) – An act to reform employment security laws by creating the Division of Employment Security within the Department of Commerce became law on July 26, 2011 after the House and Senate voted to override the Governor’s veto.

Senate Bill 781 – An act to increase regulatory efficiency in order to balance job creation and environmental protection was vetoed by the Governor. The House and Senate overrode the Governor’s veto on July 25, 2011 and the bill became law.

House Bill 200 – The Appropriations Act of 2011, otherwise known as the state budget, which was balanced and did not raise tax rates.

House Bill 854 – An act to require a 24-hour waiting period and the informed consent of a pregnant woman before an abortion may be performed became law on July 28, 2011 after the House and Senate voted to override the Governor’s veto.

100 Day Plan Legislative Update

Paul Stam, NC House Republican Leader — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:32:34 +0000

100 Day Legislative Update

August 15, 2011

1. Balanced Budget and Reduced Tax Rates

With bipartisan support, the House voted 73 – 46 to override the veto of Governor Bev Perdue. The House and Senate achieved this historic milestone on June 15, 2011.

This fulfills our first two promises to the people of North Carolina: A balanced budget and a budget that does not raise tax rates. Our budget contains the largest tax rate cut in the history of North Carolina. It makes our state more competitive with our neighbors again. It puts almost $1.5 billion back in to the hands of hard working North Carolinians. It is balanced. The business school at UNC Chapel Hill estimates that the Republican budget will create up to 14,900 new private sector jobs in North Carolina.

2. Protect Health Care Freedom Act

HB 2, protects North Carolinians from the “individual mandate” in the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), passed the House and Senate and was sent to the Governor. She Vetoed the bill. Republican leaders filed an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) brief on May 11, 2011 to the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia. The Court of Appeals is now in deliberations.

3. North Carolina is a Right-to-Work state. Republicans will continue to support laws that secure the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join a union. We will stop any legislation that allows collective bargaining.

4. Reducing regulatory burden on small business.

Both House and Senate members have proposed legislation to limit the financial burden of regulation on businesses.

Senate Bill 22 – An act to limit new agency regulatory requirements that result in substantial additional costs. SB 22 passed both chambers and was signed into law by the Governor on March 25, 2011.
House Bill 162 – An act to exempt certain activities related to small-scale processing of agricultural products from wastewater permit requirements. The bill passed the House and Senate and was signed by the Governoron April 19, 2011.
House Bill 200 – The Appropriations Act of 2011 limits the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Labor and Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services from imposing standards or limitations that are more restrictive than the Federal government. The Act became law on June 15, 2011.
House Bill 542 – An act to provide tort reform for North Carolina citizens and businesses was signed by the Governor and became law on June 24, 2011.
House Bill 619 – An act to specify the Secretary of Revenue’s authority to adjust net income of a corporation or to require a corporation to file a combined return was signed by the Governor and became law on June 30, 2011.
House Bill 709 – An act to Protect and Put NC Back to Work by reforming the Workers’ Compensation Act passed the House and Senate and was signed by the Governor on June 24, 2011.
Senate Bill 781 – An act to increase regulatory efficiency in order to balance job creation and environmental protection was vetoed by the Governor. The House and Senate overrode the Governor’s vetoon July 25, 2011 and the bill became law.

5. The balanced budget passed by the House and Senate fully funds the teachers in the classroom, not the bureaucracy.

7. HB 351, titled “Restore Confidence in Government” requires voters to provide photo ID before voting and allows more flexibility when applying for absentee ballots. HB 351 was ratified by the House and Senate but vetoedby the Governoron June 23, 2011. The House was unable to override the Governor’s veto but because of a parliamentary procedure it is eligible for reconsideration.

100 Day Plan Legislative Update

Paul Stam, NC House Republican Leader — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 16:02:49 +0000

North Carolina House of Representatives

100 Day Legislative Update

April 25, 2011

Budget Priorities

On April 14, 2011 the House and Senate passed HB 383, a continuing resolution budget, without raising tax rates. The measure allows the Governor to allocate funds for spending by State departments at a level that basically does not exceed expected revenues for the 2011-2012 fiscal years in case the House, Senate and Governor do not agree on a formal budget. On Saturday April 16, 2011, the Governor VETOED this measure so that she can demand tax rate increases.

Protect Health Care Freedom Act

HB 2, protects North Carolinians from the “individual mandate” in the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), passed the House and Senate and was sent to the Governor. She Vetoed the bill. Republican leaders will submit an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) brief to the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals.

North Carolina is a Right-to-Work state. Republicans will continue to support laws that secure the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join a union. We will stop SB 386.

Reducing regulatory burden on small business.

Both House and Senate members have proposed legislation to limit the financial burden of regulation on businesses.

Senate Bill 22 – An act to limit new agency regulatory requirements that result in substantial additional costs. SB 22 passed both the Senate and House and was signed into law by the Governor on March 25, 2011.

House Bill 162 – An act to exempt certain activities related to small-scale processing of agricultural products from wastewater permit requirements. The bill passed the House and Senate and was ratified by the House on April 14, 2011.

House Bill 237 – An act to require economic impact statements on all bills that propose regulatory changes. The bill passed first reading of the House and is before the Committee on Commerce and Job Development.

House Bill 323 – An act to reduce the corporate income tax rate in North Carolina from 6.9% to 4.75%. HB 323 will be considered as part of the budget.

House Bill 800 – An act to create the North Carolina Jobs and Commerce Corporation Task Force to study the implementation of the transferring of economic development activities into a single entity is now before the House Committee on Commerce and Job Development.

The Joint Select Committee on Regulatory Reform held six meetings across the state beginning in Wilmington on March 11th. They heard suggestions from the public concerning burdensome regulations on individuals and business. The last meeting was held on Thursday, April 21^st in Raleigh, NC.

Senate Bill 8 entitled, “No Cap on Number of Charter Schools” passed the House on Monday evening, by a vote of 68 – 51. SB 8 received unanimous support from House Republicans and one courageous Democrat. Charter school legislation now heads to conference with the Senate. Representatives Stam, Samuelson and Brandon are House conferees to work with Senators Stevens, Graham and Soucek.

House Election Law Committee has held several committee meetings on HB 351, titled “Restore Confidence in Government.” The bill would require voters to provide photo ID before voting and allow more flexibility when applying for absentee ballots. HB 351 passed the Election Law committee and is now before the House Appropriations Committee.

The House and Senate have each introduced bills proposing a Constitutional Amendment that will protect private property rights. House Bill 8 titled, “Eminent Domain” passed the full House Judiciary committee. Debate on House Bill 8 has been rescheduled for Tuesday, April 26^th around 2:00 pm. Come watch or listen.

House Republicans moved one step closer to good government by passing House Bill 61 titled, “Speaker/Pro Tem Term Limits.” This constitutional amendment seeks to cap the number of consecutive legislative terms the Speaker or President Pro Tem of the Senate serves to no more than two. It passed 72 – 46, the bare minimum and now moves to the Senate. The Governor cannot veto a constitutional amendment.

House Republicans introduced HB 139 entitled, “Limit Contributions by State Vendors” as a measure to discourage pay-to-play politics in North Carolina. The bill seeks to limit the campaign contributions of state vendors to Council of State offices with which they hold contracts. HB 139 passed through Elections Committee on Wednesday and is headed to the floor.

Attorney General Roy Cooper and Governor Bev Perdue Will Not Defend Health Care Freedom

Paul Stam, NC House Republican Leader — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:47:33 +0000

Raleigh - On March 9, 2011 the NC House of Representatives failed to override the Governor’s veto of HB 2, “An Act to Protect the Freedom to Choose Health Care and Health Insurance.” The vote was 68-51 (with a vote of 3/5 being required to pass).

In a February 23, 2011 letter to the Governor, sent after the Health Care Freedom Protection Act was enacted by the General Assembly, Attorney General Cooper made several claims. Only the highlights are mentioned here.

First he makes the obvious, but irrelevant point that the Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution provides that State Legislators cannot enact laws that directly violate Federal law. But he fails to note that the Supremacy Clause itself limits those Federal laws which have supremacy to those which are enacted “pursuant to the (U.S.) Constitution.” Twenty-seven states have already received declarations by Federal judges that the provision in question is not “pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.” If Attorney General Cooper had joined those states when we asked him to (last year) North Carolina would already have that declaration.

Attorney General Cooper was asked what the bill would cost by Fiscal Research before it was enacted. His response did not mention any of the fiscal horrors he now claims but suggested that the Department of Justice might have to represent 800,000 individual clients in North Carolina at a cost of 8 million hours of attorney staff time. Our Fiscal Research Division respectfully called these claims “excessive” and noted that North Carolina could join the Florida litigation (involving 26 other states – so far successful) by simply requesting to be included.

The individual mandate (which is the federal law that Attorney General Cooper claims the bill conflicts with) is not even effective until 2014 giving him plenty of time to join the challenge to this unconstitutional usurpation of federal power.

Here is a link to a February 28, 2011 memorandum from our nonpartisan Legislative Research Division which addresses all of the claims of the Attorney General. We hope that you will read it. It concludes, “Given the individual mandate found within the ACA does not take effect until 2014, any arguments that House Bill 2 is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause are pre-mature. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Attorney General pursue a defense of the General Assembly’s position if House Bill 2 becomes law.”

We are disappointed that the Attorney General, the Governor and 51 members of the House of Representatives have put themselves on the side of big government and against the citizens of this state.

###

Analysis of House Bill 2 in Response to Attorney General Roy Cooper

Paul Stam, NC House Republican Leader — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:19:08 +0000

NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Legislative Services Office

George R. Hall, Legislative Services Officer

To: The Honorable Paul Stam, Majority Leader, N.C. House of Representatives

From: Tim Hovis, Shawn Parker, Amy Jo Johnson, Staff Attorneys, Research Division, N.C. General Assembly

Date: February 28, 2011

Re: Analysis of House Bill 2 in response to Letter/Memo from the Office of the Attorney General

On February 23, 2011, House Bill 2- An Act to Protect the Freedom to Choose Health Care and Health Insurance was ratified by the General Assembly. On that same date Attorney General Roy Cooper sent a letter to Governor Beverly Perdue, copying the Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the House Majority Leader, indicating the law is unenforceable as to the provisions that directly contradict federal law and including a memorandum drafted by the Solicitor General identifying specific issues of concern. The Research Division has received a request to analyze the issues raised in the Attorney General’s letter. This memorandum examines (1) the General Assembly’s position, as provided in House Bill 2, that no law or rule shall compel a person to provide for their health care services or contract with a health care system or insurance plan, (2) the General Assembly’s direction to the Attorney General in House Bill 2 to bring or defend a suit in State or federal court to enforce its position, and (3) alternate interpretations of certain public policy concerns raised by the Solicitor General.

I. Application of Supremacy Clause to House Bill 2

House Bill 2 prohibits any law or rule from requiring a person to provide for health care services or medical treatments for that person. The Act also prohibits any law or rule from requiring a person to participate, contract with, or enroll in a public or private insurance plan or health care system. Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (March 23, 2010), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, Pub. L. No. 111-1152, 124 Stat. 1029 (March 30, 2010) (collectively “the ACA”) creates an affirmative obligation on individuals to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014 or face the payment of a penalty. As noted by the Congressional Budget Office, Congress has “never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.” Cong. Budget Office,The Budgetary Treatment of an Individual Mandate to Buy Health Insurance, at 1 (Aug. 1994). The non-partisan Congressional Research Service reached the same conclusion indicating that “it is a novel issue whether Congress may use the Commerce Clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service.” Congressional Research Service, Requiring Individuals to Obtain Health Insurance: A Constitutional Analysis, July 24, 2009, at 3.

As legitimate arguments exist on both sides of the issue, this Division cannot speak to whether the individual mandate is or is not constitutional. Nevertheless, strong arguments support the position of the General Assembly, as stated in House Bill 2, that Congress acted outside its Commerce Clause powers when creating the individual mandate. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution (the Commerce Clause) gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce and this includes the channels of interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (US v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S. Ct. 1624). The Supreme Court has recognized limits to Congress’s Commerce Clause authority by noting “[e]ven [our] modern-era of precedents which have expanded congressional power under the Commerce Clause confirm that this power is subject to outer limits.” (U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 at 608, 120 S. Ct. at 1740 at 1748-9) (quoting Lopez, 514 U.S. at 556-57, 115 S. Ct at 1628). In both Morrison and Lopez the bounds of the Commerce Clause were constrained. In Lopez, the Court found that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause authority. This Act made it a federal offense for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm in a school zone. The Court found that the statute itself had nothing to do with commerce and that it did not fall “under our cases upholding regulation of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.”Lopez, 514 U.S. at 561, 115 S. Ct. at 1631. Additionally, the Court rejected the notion that the Violence Against Women Act was a proper exercise of Commerce Clause powers despite finding by Congress that there is a serious impact of domestic violence on victims and their families. Congress was not found to possess the power to regulate noneconomic activities solely on the basis of its aggregated effect on interstate commerce. Morrison, 529 U.S. at 617, 120 S. Ct. at 1754.

The right of a state to challenge the constitutionality of a Congressional action is not denied simply because Congress chose to act. If this were true, no state could ever challenge an act of Congress. In fact, with regards to the ACA 3 specifically, several court cases are currently underway to challenge the Act’s constitutionality. Two federal district courts, one in Virginia and one in Florida, have found the individual mandate in the ACA to be an improper exercise of the Commerce Clause.See Virginia ex. rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius, 728 F.Supp.2d 768, 771 (E.D. Va., 2010) and Florida ex. rel Bondi v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2011 WL 285683, 40 (N.D. Fla., 2011). In the Florida case, 26 state plaintiffs are involved in challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision, as well as of the ACA itself. As the position of 27 states is clear regarding the constitutionality of the individual mandate, House Bill 2 clarifies North Carolina’s position as well.

Moreover, House Bill 2 does not stand in contradiction to the ACA. House Bill 2 will be effective when it becomes law. The individual mandate within the ACA will not take effect until 2014. A Supremacy Clause argument against House Bill 2 is premature. At this time, House Bill 2 stands as good, constitutional law without current conflict for federal law. “Every presumption favors validity of statute, and it will not be declared invalid unless its unconstitutionality is determined beyond a reasonable doubt.” Baker v. Martin, 410 S.E.2d 887, NC 1991. Additionally, should House Bill 2 be examined by a state court, “[a] reviewing court confronting this question begins its analysis with a presumption against federal preemption”. State ex rel. Utilities Com’n v. Carolina Power & Light Co. 359 N.C. 516, 525, 614 S.E.2d 281, 287 (N.C.,2005) citing also to Hillsborough Cty. v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 715, 105 S.Ct. 2371, 85 L.Ed.2d 714, 722-23 (1985) (“Where … the field that Congress is said to have pre-empted has been traditionally occupied by the States we start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.) (alteration in original) (citations omitted). Therefore, the Supremacy Clause as an argument for federal preemption does not apply with regards to House Bill 2 at this time.

II. Attorney General Duties Under House Bill 2.

House Bill 2′s directive that the Attorney General of North Carolina “shall have to duty and standing to bring or defend a State or federal action” with regards to the matter of the individual mandate is a proper assertion of North Carolina’s legislative policy power and a proper defense of the State’s law that its citizens will not be compelled to purchase insurance nor be penalized for failure to do so. The North Carolina Constitution provides the policy power may be exercised in the form of state legislation and all legislative power in this State rests in the General Assembly. The Courts have noted “‘The legislative branch of government is without question the policy-making agency of our government….McCracken and Amick, Inc. v. Perdue, 687 S.E.2d 690, 694 (N.C.App.,2009) (quoting Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp, 358 N.C. 160, 169, 594 S.E.2d 1, 8 (2004) (quoting McMichael v. Proctor, 243 N.C. 479, 483, 91 S.E.2d 231, 234 (1956). The North Carolina General Assembly by enacting House Bill 2 on February 23, 2011, has established that it is the position of the General Assembly that no person shall be compelled to (i) provide for health care services or medical treatment for that person or (ii) contract with, or enroll in, a public or private health care system or health insurance plan; no law or rule shall interfere with a person’s right to pay directly for lawful health care services or medical treatment to preserve or enhance that person’s life or health; nor shall any law or rule impose a penalty, tax, fee or fine on a person for (i) providing for, or failing to provide for, health care services or medical treatment for that person or (ii) contracting with, or enrolling in, or failing to contract with or enroll in, a public or private health care system or health insurance plan.

Additionally the bill explicitly directs the Attorney General “to bring or defend a State or federal action or proceeding on behalf of the residents of this State to enforce the provisions” of the Act. The North Carolina Constitution provides that the duties of the Attorney General shall be prescribed by law. Article III §7(2). If House Bill 2 becomes law, the duties of the Attorney to enforce its provisions will be prescribed by law in subsection (c) of G.S. 58-49A-1. In addition, the general duties assigned to the Attorney General are set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. §114-2. It is the duty of the Attorney General “to appear for the State in any other court or tribunal in any cause or matter, civil or criminal, in which the State may be a party or interested. G.S. 114-2. The Attorney General also has a common law duty to prosecute all actions necessary for the protection and defense of property and revenue of the sovereign people of North Carolina. Martin v. Thornburg, 320 N.C. 533, 545, 359 S.E.2d 472, 479 (N.C., 1987). See also N.C. Gen. Stat. §114-1.1.

III. Solicitor General’s Concerns Regarding State Law Under House Bill 2

The Attorney General’s office has highlighted areas of concern with regards to the effects of House Bill 2 on existing State law. The contention that certain provisions of the act may have unintended financial or public policy consequences has little bearing on the legislative direction provided to the Attorney General; however there are alternative interpretations of the act and these will be addressed briefly:

Anti-fraud Provisions in Medicaid: House Bill 2 provides that no fee may be imposed on a person for “contracting with…a public or private health care system.” As referenced in the Solicitor General’s memo, the ACA directs states who participate in the federal Medicaid program to collect a fee to offset the cost of increased enrollment and verification requirements. The fee is imposed to fight fraud and abuse in the Medicaid system. It is collected from providers such as hospitals, nursing homes, etc. House Bill 2 is aimed at preventing fees charged to a person for “contracting with, or enrolling in, or failing to contract with or enroll in” some sort of private or public health care system/insurance plan. It can be argued that a fee for the purposes of combatting fraud and that is not placed upon a person with regards to the choice to obtain or not obtain health insurance/participate in a health care system is not within the scope of House Bill 2.

Over-the-counter Drugs: House Bill 2 states that “a law or rule shall not…[i]mpose a…tax…on a person for providing for…health care services or medical treatment for that person…” The Solicitor General expresses concern for sales taxes on over-the-counter drugs under House Bill 2. Such a tax is levied as a sales tax for purchasing a good (over-the-counter medication) that is not exempted through statute in the State of North Carolina. Again, in contrast to the Attorney General’s position, it can be argued that the tax is on the purchase of a good and is not found within the scope of providing health care services or medical treatment under House Bill 2. In his memo, the Solicitor General specifically cites the case of Robison v. Walser, as an interpretation of the term “medical treatment”. However an argument can be made that the interpretation is not analogous to the purchase of over the counter medications. In Robinson, the medical treatment involved medication that could be obtained over-the-counter but was administered to a prison inmate by a health care professional. 2009 WL 6669324, 2 (E.D.N.C.). First, House Bill 2 excludes this population in contemplation of circumstances that would require medical treatment without consent of the individual. Additionally, the administering of over-the-counter medication by a healthcare professional is an act that must be distinguished from purchasing over-the-counter medication for oneself. The terms “health care services” and “medical treatment” given their ordinary meaning would imply these services and treatments are either furnished by a health care provider or in a health care setting. “Where a literal reading of a statute will lead to absurd results, or contravene the manifest purpose of the Legislature, as otherwise expressed, the reason and purpose of the law shall control…Taylor v. Crisp, 286 N.C. 488, 496, 212 S.E.2d 381, 386 (N.C. 1975). (quoting Freeland v. Orange County, 273 N.C. 452, 456, 160 S.E.2d 282, 286 (1968)). The purchasing of an over-the-counter medication for oneself would not be construed as providing for health care services or medical treatments as regulated in House Bill 2.

Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP): Deductibles, copayment and various cost-sharing devices are not “fees…on a person for providing for…health care services or medical treatment for that person…” as outlined in House Bill 2. A deductible or copayment is a payment for services made to the provider based on a contractual agreement between the health care provider, insurer, and consumer. It can be argued that a deductible or a copayment is not a “penalty, tax, fee, or fine” paid to the government within the scope of House Bill 2.

Uninsured Motorist Coverage: House Bill 2 provides that “a law or rule shall not [c]ompel a person to…provide for health care services or medical treatment for that person.” Although State law requires drivers to carry uninsured motorist coverage, this requirement does not fall under the prohibitions of House Bill 2. The State does not compel someone to drive a motor vehicle. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege and if one choses to engage in the activity, the insurance must be purchased. Given the lack of a law or rule creating a compulsion upon an individual, uninsured motor coverage is outside of the scope of House Bill 2.

IV. Conclusion

House Bill 2 creates an affirmative duty for the Attorney General to defend the General Assembly’s position regarding individual insurance mandates. The General Assembly’s position as provided House Bill 2 is that the a law or rule shall not compel a person to provide for their health care services or contract with a health care system or insurance plan and that there shall be no penalty for failing to contract with a health care system or insurance plan. By enacting House Bill 2, the General Assembly believes that the federal law is unconstitutional and provides legislative direction to the Attorney General to challenge the ACA. Given the individual mandate found within the ACA does not take effect until 2014, any arguments that House Bill 2 is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause are pre-mature. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Attorney General pursue a defense of the General Assembly’s position if House Bill 2 becomes law.

Health Care Freedom Act Moves to Governor for Signature

Paul Stam, NC House Republican Leader — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:07:37 +0000

Raleigh – The North Carolina House approved final passage of House Bill 2, “Protect Health Care Freedom,” on Tuesday by a vote of 69-49. The bill previously passed the Senate and now moves to the Governor’s desk. She has announced her intention to allow the bill to become law without her signature.

This legislation protects North Carolinians from the unconstitutional “individual mandate” requiring citizens to provide for health care services or to enroll in a public or private insurance plan or health care system. House Bill 2 also makes North Carolina a plaintiff with twenty-eight other states also challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

“We are pleased that North Carolina stands with the majority of the other states in protecting the rights of citizens against unconstitutional usurpation by the federal government,” said House Majority Leader Paul Stam (R-Wake).

Rep. Mark Hollo (R- Alexander), a primary co-sponsor of the bill, said, “Passage of HB 2 is a victory for the people of North Carolina in that it protects the individual from a government mandate to purchase a product – health insurance – they may not want.”

Rep. Tom Murry, a primary co-sponsor said, “The individual mandate to buy health insurance stands out as an overreach by the Federal government in the Affordable Care Act, especially when compared to the common-sense provisions like the ban on denying coverage for patients with pre-existing conditions.”

Republican members emphasized the detrimental impact this federal legislation will have on the economy, especially job creation. The cost of providing health insurance to employees would severely hamper job creation for both small and large businesses.

The Governor has 10 days in which to sign the bill, allow it to become law without her signature or veto the bill.

House Passes Healthcare Freedom Act

Paul Stam, NC House Republican Leader — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 20:26:47 +0000

House Passes Healthcare Freedom Act

Raleigh – The North Carolina House of Representatives today approved House Bill 2, the “NC Healthcare Protection Act”, by a vote of 66 to 50 on final passage. This legislation protects North Carolina citizens from the unconstitutional mandate to enroll in health insurance or to buy medical care under the federal healthcare legislation passed last year. Enactment of HB 2 would also make North Carolina a plaintiff with twenty-eight other states in federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”.

The House vote came two days day after U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson ruled the entire federal health care bill unconstitutional. Judge Vinson’s ruling agrees with the assertions of the majority of the NC House that Congress cannot mandate individual citizens to purchase health insurance.

“The federal healthcare legislation is the first time Congress has imposed onerous requirements on citizens merely because they are alive and draw breath,” said House Majority Leader Paul Stam (R-Wake). “We believe today’s vote in the House defends our citizens against the clearly unconstitutional mandates in this overreaching federal statute.”

Representative Jeff Barnhart (R-Cabarrus) led the floor debate. “Enactment of HB 2 will release North Carolinians from the excessive taxes and fines imposed by the bill if they choose to exercise their right to pay for their own healthcare rather than one of the mandated insurance plans,” said Barnhart.

One of the primary points expressed by House Republicans opposed to the federal healthcare legislation was the detrimental effect its implementation will have on the economy. Job creation will be severely curtailed due to the huge costs placed on the backs of small businesses to provide mandated insurance coverage for their employees. Significant evidence from the private sector indicates the requirement will make it more difficult for businesses to expand and create jobs.

“Increased federal regulation and costly government mandates are wrong anytime, but are especially harmful during this time of severe recession,” said Rep. David Lewis. “The costs imposed on small businesses and pharmaceutical manufacturers will severely hamper efforts at job creation essential to an economic recovery in North Carolina and the country.”

Representative Tom Murry (R-Wake), a pharmacist by profession, pointed out that the bill would allow North Carolina to join other states in the litigation challenging the constitutionality of the federal legislation. ”While our bill does not require the NC Attorney General to file a separate lawsuit,” he said “it does provide that our state join the other 28 states in defending our citizens against this unconstitutional individual mandate in the federal healthcare law. It’s long overdue that North Carolina stand up in defense of our citizens’ rights in this important case,” said Murry.

During floor debate it was stressed that individuals must have the right to make their own health care decisions, including enrolling in insurance plans and must not be compelled by government to do so.

“It is everyone’s right and responsibility to consider which health care options are best for them and their families,” stated Representative Mark Hollo (R-Alexander). Rep. Hollo is a physician’s assistant. He continued: ”In some instances, it is more cost effective for people to pay their health care providers directly than to buy expensive insurance. Government must not inhibit people’s ability to do what is in their best interest concerning their own health care decisions.”

HB 2 will be sent to the Senate for its consideration.

A Historic Day Will Lead to a Better North Carolina

Paul Stam, NC House Republican Leader — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 15:58:37 +0000

On November 2, 2010, voters sent a clear message. The number one issue in North Carolina is the economy – jobs, jobs, jobs. Years of overspending by Democrats have given North Carolina the highest tax rates in the Southeast and an estimated budget deficit of at least $3 billion for next year. High tax rates inhibit hiring.

Republican members of the House and Senate have united against legislation which limited our freedoms and stifled small business growth. Republican candidates across the state campaigned against excessive spending, tax rate increases and the job-killing, liberty-restricting mandates of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama Care). And for the first time in 112 years, Republicans have gained majorities in both the state House and Senate.

The people of North Carolina have entrusted us with the responsibility to govern the State by reducing costs and regulation on business, large and small, so that they can create jobs and prosperity. Voters have spoken and Republicans are committed to:

Balancing the State budget without raising tax rates.

And within the first 100 days:

Passing The Healthcare Freedom Protection Act, exempting North Carolinians from the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama Care).
Fighting to protect jobs by keeping our Right to Work laws.
Reducing the regulatory burden on small business.
Funding education in the classroom, not the bureaucracy.
Eliminating the cap on charter schools.
Passing the Honest Election Act, requiring a valid photo ID to vote.
Passing the Eminent Domain constitutional amendment to protect private property rights.
Ending pay-to-play politics and restore honesty and integrity to state government.