Posted on 09/28/2009 8:29:31 AM PDT by reaganaut1
ST. PAUL — In more than a dozen statehouses across the country, a small but growing group of lawmakers are pressing for state constitutional amendments that would outlaw a crucial element of the health care plans under discussion in Washington: the requirement that everyone buy insurance or pay a penalty.
Approval of the measures, the lawmakers suggest, would set off a legal battle over the rights of states versus the reach of federal power — an issue that is, for some, central to the current health care debate but also one that has tentacles stretching into a broad range of other matters, including education and drug policy.
Opponents of the measures and some constitutional scholars say the proposals are mostly symbolic, intended to send a message of political protest, and have little chance of succeeding in court over the long run. But they acknowledge the measures could create legal collisions that would be both costly and cause delays to health care changes, and could be a rallying point for opponents in the increasingly tense debate.
“This does head us for a legal showdown,” said Christie Herrera, an official at the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group in Washington that advocates limited government and free markets, and which last week offered guidance to lawmakers in more than a dozen states during a conference call on the state amendments.
So far, the notion has been presented in at least 10 states (though it has already been rejected or left behind in committees in some of them), and lawmakers in four other states have said they will soon offer similar measures in what has grown into a coordinated effort at resistance. (Arizona, which has placed the amendment on its ballot in 2010, seems the furthest along)
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
'Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.'
When did I get ordered about to do, be told to do, pay other parties, against my will?
http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=ALEC_s_Freedom_of_Choice_in_Health_Care_Act
Freedom, liberty; It’s my money! Are you a conservative (or libertarian)?
I believe it may have something to do with the fact that owning a car, and driving is not a NECESSARY thing... However, LIVING is...
Besides, mandatory car insurance isn’t all it’s cracked up to be either. If anyone wants to know what Health Insurance Premiums will be like in a few years, just compare the rates for similar car insurance in states with mandatory insurance vs. rates in states without... HUGE difference...
Granted, we moved from a city with a high illegal immigrant population (unlicensed & uninsured drivers) to a rural “city”, but our car insurance dropped from $600.00/mo. to $50.00! Surely the risk didn’t drop by THAT much (we’ve got TONS of unlicensed drivers here with more than a few DUIs getting arrested ALL the time here).
Driving an automobile is supposedly a privilege granted by the state government ... I disagree with this - but it is basically the law of the land ... another argument for another time....
Never the less - driving a car on public roads is an option granted under a granted privilege... One’s body is usually considered private property and as humans we are conferred the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... plus the inferred rights of privacy and self determination.
Adults usually have have the right to refuse medical services... Forcing the purchase of health insurance upon citizens is seen as violating free choice.
You can't have liability insurance for health unless you are a practitioner.
I don’t understand the outcry against mandatory health insurance, most states have that in place for car insurance.
But you only have to buy car insurance if you want to drive a car. If people don’t want to puchase health insurance because they prefer to pay out-of-pocket, they shouldn’t have to buy it...
You have a choice to drive a car or not.
You do not have a choice about breathing.
Yours is an apples and oranges comparison.
Are you sure you’re on the right website?
My son does not have auto insurance...he does not drive. That law only applies to people that choose to use the road ways.
Timothy Stolzfus Jost is just wrong. He said:
“States can no more nullify a federal law like this than they could nullify the civil rights laws by adopting constitutional amendments,” said Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a health law expert at Washington & Lee University School of Law.
Civil Rights legislation was found valid based upon the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment.
“No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
What a legal minded midget.
As a condition of driving your car on public roads.
You have to right to force me into association with a company or person while I’m just sitting on my own property, minding my own business.
“I don’t understand the outcry against mandatory health insurance, most states have that in place for car insurance.”
Apples v Oranges.
You have car *liability* insurance, to make sure you can pay for damages to *others* that you might create.
Health insurance is for yourself. It violates your personal freedom to be required/told how to take care of yourself.
No state requires collision auto insurance, which is the comparable insurance to health insurance.
The question is what power will the federal government use to achieve it’s goal...commerce clause or taxation power?
According to United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association (1944), the federal government can regulate INSURANCE COMPANIES under the commerce clause. Not the insured.
To deal with this ruling congress passed McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945) was passed and places states in charge of:
* regulation of insurance
* establish mandatory licensing requirements
* preserves certain state laws of insurance.
To regulate the insured, the federal government must use taxation to mandate citizens be insured. However, in the case of United States v. Butler (1936) it stipulates that Congress has power to tax and spend FOR the general welfare, but Congress has no power to regulate in order to PROVIDE for the general welfare.
That creates a sticky issue for Obama, because the centerpiece of the Obama-Baucus plan is a decree that everyone purchase heavily regulated insurance policies or else pay a penalty (think tax to regulate).
U.S. v. Butler is why Obama refused to call it a tax. That soundbite alone could derail Obama-Baucus plan.
Fun to watch the sausage being made...just don’t want to live it.
Can’t a STATE make Tort Reform Laws? Just asking.
I hope Texas can pass one but they probably won’t. They only hold session every other year.”
Governor can call for special session on any topic.
If Rick Perry wants to be re-elected its a good idea.
In most states you can also post a cash bond with the DMV in lieu of purchasing an insurance policy. That is not an option with Federal Health Insurance because it's all about control and income redistribution and they get to do neither when you post a bond.
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.