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.
This includes mandating people purchase health insurance.
A government that starts ordering people to buy things doesnt end well.
Blue states self-gerrymandering themselves out of Electoral College votes as those who can flee, do flee.
I hope the ultra-liberal portions flee to the deep red states where there is conservative surplus either to absorb them or convert them.
Exactly ... well said.
The individual States were to be the (you might say) petri dishes for liberty. If people did not like what their state was doing, they could leave for another state if they could not bring about change in their current state.
Mandate liberals buy my own Global Warming insurance.
Only $50 per month.
I got the hell out of California about 40 years ago, 38 years before I retired.
Frigging morons all...
IF IT IS NOT RISK-BASED, IT IN NOT %$#d^&%)*&!! INSURANCE!!
JUST A MONUMENTALLY MASSIVE WELFARE PROGRAM BY ANOTHER NAME...
Guess what 9 states you can’t find a u-haul in.
Akin to CAs total disregard for its citizens Second Amendment rights, they consistently pass laws that are the antithesis of the liberty guaranteed by the US Constitutions Bill of Rights. Generally, many of CAs anti-gun laws that are challenged on a Constitutional basis are over turned. When they arent, the cases are customarily appealed and sent to the SCOTUS. And there in lies the problem, for whatever reason the SCOTUS has refused to hear many of those cases which leaves the States ant-Constitutional anti-gun laws in effect. In the commerce clause (paraphrasing) the government (state or federal) can not compel a citizen of the US to purchase a service from a private organization nor from a government agency if a citizen
opts to not use the service. You are correct that the state can levy a tax on its citizens but the tax must be upon only those who use the service. The question still remains: For those who opt out, are they being taxed illegally or are they paying a fine for opting out? I surmise if this goes back to the SCOTUS, they will refuse to hear it but if they do, it will be found to be unconditional.
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.