Lawmakers in Some States Press to Outlaw Mandatory Health Insurance

New York Times ^ | September 28, 2009 | Monica Davey

[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)

[o_zarkman44]

First. We don’t have to buy our auto insurance from the government.
Second. States have their own insurance laws regarding competition and premiums are based on demographics.

And when we drive, we assume a public risk with other drivers. But Safe drivers are rewarded with lower premiums. Why should a safe driver share the risk of someone with 3 DWI’s by paying an equal premium as the bad driver?

And what about the people who don’t drive or own a car?
They have no need for insurance.

[April Lexington]

This could be the beginning of a resurgence in state power. The federal government needs to be dismantled. It started as a protector of liberty and has become an oppressive dictatorial force that is crushing freedom and advancing socialism. The states can destroy the federal government and replace it with a subservient system. Like the Swiss.

[April Lexington]

If you don’t drive a car, you are not forced to get car insurance. I don’t understand why anyone thinks mandatory health insurance is appropriate.

Likewise, if you don't own a house, you don't need house insurance. If you don't own a boat, you don't need boat insurance. How about this... Freedom insurance! It protects you against LOSS OF FREEDOM. Actually, the text of that policy is contained in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution!