Posted on 02/04/2018 11:17:14 AM PST by Enlightened1
Nine states are considering laws that would require their residents to purchase health insurance, the The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.
The proposals come less than two months after Republicans, as part of a sweeping tax code overhaul, voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) mandate requiring individuals to have health insurance.
Lawmakers in Maryland are considering a law requiring residents to buy health insurance. California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia, are also considering similar proposals, according to the Journal report.
The ACA's individual mandate was implemented as a way to keep premiums low by requiring everyone to have insurance. Proponents of the mandate say that, without it, healthy people are less inclined to buy insurance, causing premiums to rise for those who need it the most.
But Republicans have long argued against the idea that people should be forced to purchase health coverage.
The decision to repeal the mandate as part of the GOP tax bill was touted as a victory in Republicans' effort to repeal the ACA. While the provision did not do away with the entire law, it was a blow.
The proposals to impose health coverage mandates in some states marks a shift of authority over health care from the federal government to the states, possibly leading to significant coverage differences between red states and blue states.
"The federal government has just stalled. They don’t accomplish the basics, and that leaves states with a great opportunity to step up and craft policy," Connecticut state Rep. Sean Scanlon (D), who sits on a health-care working group, told the Journal.
And the exodus begins in 5,4,3,2,1....
Worst part, when they leave for points South or West, they bring all the liberal crap with them for at least a generation, if not longer.
Hmmm all blue states on the election map usually.
Soon as I retire, I’m outta California.
when challenged, the lower courts will likely find it to be unconstitutional and SCOTUS will refuse to hear it again.
Just one more reason not to live in these states.
Democrats doubling-down on suicide.
Good! Let them go all out for it BEFORE the November elections.
Why stop there?
With floods, fires, and earthquakes, require them to buy homeowner ir renters insurance for their personal items.
Maryland, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, the District of Columbia ... I wonder what these states have in common?
There must be something really important to want to oppress and remove freedom of choice from their residents or are they thinking of the future when they can demand the purchase of something else or forbid the use of the other thing?
Maryland, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and District of Columbia.
Wacko leftist centers of democrat insanity.
It’s 75. And sunny today in Marin co ca
Can’t complain about the weather here or that I can get a nice ride in before the EAGLES DESTROY THE DEFLATRIOTS ONCE AND FOR ALL !
Hmmm...Reads like a list of the former Soviet Union's socialist republics...USSR...
The Federal mandate, despite the Supreme Court’s tortured reading turning it into a tax, blatantly violates the U.S. Constitution.
However a state mandate, despite being very bad policy, does not violate the U.S. Constitution. Our federal constitution is silent on health care, which makes it a state matter.
A state legislature, unless constrained by that state’s own constitution, can impose whatever degree of socialized medicine it wants, until voted out of office. This includes mandating people purchase health insurance.
The citizens of all the states first need to work with their state lawmakers in supporting Pres. Trump to lead the states to put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes by repealing the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments (16 & 17A).
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."—Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Once unconstitutional federal taxes are stopped, the states and their citizens will likely experience a tsunami of new revenues and higher incomes that they probably won’t know what to do with.
In fact, consider that the congressional records shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified the following about the fed’s constitutionally limited powers.
”... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
Also consider that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices had reflected on Bingham’s words with the following clarification of Congress’s very limited domestic policy powers.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Citizens and their respective state lawmakers will be able to consider new options regarding healthcare after unconstitutional federal interference in state affairs is stopped, a given state’s healthcare policy ultimately depending on what the legal majority voters of a given state want.
And to make sure that state social spending programs and Pres. Trump’s vision for MAGA last as long as possible, we really need to repeal 16 & 17A.
In the meanwhile, patriots now need to finish the job that they started by electing Trump president in 2016.
Patriots need to do this by now making sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting, state sovereignty-respecting patriot candidates on the 2018 primary ballots, and pink-slip incumbents by seeing patriot candidate lawmakers to DC on election day.
But until the states wake up and repeal the 17A, as evidenced by concerns about the integrity of Alabama's special Senate election, patriot candidates need to win elections by a large enough margin to compensate for possible deep state ballot box fraud and associated MSM scare tactics.
Hacking Democracy - The Hack
High tax blue-states.
Yay even more liberals fleeing to Virginia!
States are the laboratories of democracy.
Its not Washington’s business to tell them what rules to set.
I personally think the individual mandate is a bad idea but a state should have the freedom to adopt it if wants.
Whether people living in those states like being forced to buy a health insurance policy is something for them to take up with their own lawmakers.
This should be interesting. Because of the Roberts opinion, such an individual mandate could be challenged unless it was done as a tax. And if it was done as a tax, because of the new SALT rule, which means their citizens would not be able to deduct a dime of that money from their federal income taxes.
Putting this in real dollar terms, say someone pays $100,000 in annual income taxes, and $30,000 in state taxes, that before would reduce their federal taxes to $70,000, but because of the end of the SALT rule, their taxes are now up to $130,000.
ADD TO THAT the state mandate tax for health insurance, again *not* federally deductible. In New York, for a family of four, this could be $20,000 a year (or more.)
So, in just two years, their total taxes go from $100,000 to $150,000.
Ouch.
Don’t forget people that own pets!
What about dental and vision insurance.
Hey! What about crop insurance
And where would we be without life insurance
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.