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 ...
One wonders if they could do something else that would have an effect and still pass Constitutional muster. Say a 50% gross receipts tax on any Federal monies paid to health care providers.
Just a shout out to the group. Before I reached the end of this article “blood was shooting out of my eyes”! A nod to Glenn Beck for that perfect descriptor. These “journalists” just can not seem to help themselves. Other’s thoughts?
I dont understand the outcry against mandatory health insurance, most states have that in place for car insurance.
***
Lets see ...
I am forced to buy health insurance - but cannot afford a private plan, so the Feds dump me into the “pool” (co-op, exchange, public option, whatever) where it costs me little money ...
Then, I get sick with some REALLY BAD disease - and some Fed consults the Obama Bible of Health Care and deems me NOT ELIGIBLE for treatment because of my age, cost, etc. ...
SO, the Feds take my money and DO NOT give me treatment ...
The healthcare bill mandates that I CANNOT be denied coverage - but ONLY the coverage the Feds allow - meanwhile taking the money I HAVE to put into the pool ...
Why do I feel like I’m in that episode of M*A*S*H* when Hawkeye and Trapper John try to get an incubator ...
The Quarter Master checks the equipment inventory and agrees that an incubator request seems to be in order, but he then checks the BEL (Basic Equipment List) and decides that the 4077th ALREADY has ALL the equipment that is authorized ...
Hawkeye then says that “Its not like we’re asking for a pizza oven” ...
The Quarter Master replies “Oh, I can let you have that - just use the standard S stroke 1798 and write in ‘Pizza’ where it says ‘Machine Gun’” ...
You are not mandated to own a car or to even drive for that matter. Once you get out on the road, your actions have the potential to cause death on a public road.
Bring it on! Start fining people, then try to haul them off to jail for not paying it.
you’ll be required to get it or be fined $3800 plus the possibility of a year in jail. Ain’t that somethin?
***
And if you don’t pay the $3800 - it increases to $25K or a year in jail (Baucus bill) ...
I believe the local sheriff has a duty to prevent you from being hauled off by the feds in the event that state law contradicts federal law.
Most sheriffs don’t like that duty.
Damn! I under-fined everybody.
Here’s something interesting.
Because you don’t have to buy a car.
Because liability car insurance is only required against harm to others’ property or body.
The problem comes from the current government requirement that ERs bust provide emergency care to everybody who arrives in the ER, without taking into consideration ability to pay for the treatment.
Now, if we changed the law to make this optional on the hospitals' part, so that if you're brought in broken and bleeding from a traffic accident and they see that you have no insurance, then they can toss your butt out the back alley and let you die there, then that's fine.
Until that point, we have the situation where you may find yourself imposing a cost on a third party (the hospital) that may be beyond your ability to pay. Hospitals in "inner city" areas are closing due to too much uncompensated expense for treating uninsured people.
“ERs bust” should have read “ERs MUST”
Blue Dogs are only slightly less liberal for the most part since Pelosi took over as speaker and started cracking her whip in 2008. Even the more conservative Blue Dogs went left after she took over.
You are so right in your assessment of Dems.
You also aren’t forced to have a car, so you aren’t being forced to buy the insurance — it’s a condition of driving a car on publicly-owned, publicly-funded roads. You can have a cr and drive it around your own property without insurance. Also, only liability insurance is required — you aren’t required to insure yourself or your car, only to insure for libaility to others for damage you may cause with your car. And if you’ve made a habit of driving safely and responsibly, basic liability insurance is very cheap. I pay about $280/year for liability insurance. If this mandatory health insurance crap goes into effect, I’ll be forced to pay rates for comprehensive health care based on the average cost of everyone’s care — face-stuffers, smokers, meth addicts, habitual drunk drivers, etc.
Poor guy. Talk about the stick in the hornet’s nest...
I wouldn’t be so harsh on him. There are a lot of people out there, including conservatives, who don’t understand this part of it.
Some of the responses here are excellent and educational...I think DonaldC was asking a valid question, and these responses are great for those of us who want to go out and anti-evangelize the mandatory health care promotion!
(don’t take it personally, DonaldC...)
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.
I have no doubt many such connections could be made with odinga's associates and associations. And if it weren't for the near complete and total blackout of his past, I suspect we would find odinga has a checkered history also. That is, MORE checkered than what we already know of, which is troubling enough.
I think the real connection is Indonesia. Obama and the Clintons both work for Soros and they all 3 have connections to Indonesia. He probably was born in Kenya; but the real connection is Indonesia.
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.