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 ...
I don’t understand the outcry against mandatory health insurance, most states have that in place for car insurance.
I think this is admirable, but absolutely has no fangs. Remember the ATF says federal laws trump TN gun and sovereignty rights. Suddenly after many years of growing government interference, folks are speaking up? Well, with nothing to back it up, it’s simply feel good blather.
I hope Texas can pass one but they probably won’t. They only hold session every other year.
car insurance is CATASTROPHIC....you don’t get insurance for oil changes and tires, etc. It’s very different.
You mean laboratories of democracy AREN’T the stomping grounds for socialists? Sheesh, who’da thunkit?
Thanks for posting. Interesting.
You can always opt-out of having to pay for car insurance by not having a car. You have no such choice with mandatory health insurance.
The only mandatory part generally is liability insurance, for the case where your negligence causes damage/injury to some other party, or to passengers in your car. Collision insurance is optional (except when your car loan issuer makes it a condition of the loan).
Car insurance is designed to protect others from loss due to your being at fault. Liability insurance is just that, for your liabilities. If you were required to have auto insurance cover your oilchanges, maintenance, and repairs...THEN that would be more like what is going on.
And in most states, the only insurance required is that to cover damage done by you (your car) to OTHERS. Comprehensive insurance is usually not required.
Do they list the states some where in the article?
Three Million People
Who live in New York City -
No Car Insurance...
Late Teens and Twenties
Can't afford high premiums -
No Car Insurance...
Even if you don't drive? And car insurance is mandatory to protect you from third party liability costs, not your own, which is optional. Like most analogies, this one falls flat when you carry it out to its extreme.
Sen. Randy Brogden in OK is supposed to be introducing a bill sometime this week I believe. Brogden is also running for Governor and I hope he wins. He’s a good man IMHO.
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.
In Ohio, I don't have to have even liability insurace. Instead I can post a cash bond to prove that I can pay for any liability I incur. Can I do that with Obamacare? Nope.
“I don’t understand the outcry against mandatory health insurance, most states have that in place for car insurance.”
As others have stated, requirements for auto insurance are for liability - that is to cover damage to another party.
Additionally;
-those laws are made by each individual State, and are not part of a Federal mandate - for which their is no constitutional authority.
-One can always choose to not drive. One cannot choose to not “be”. Except of course in Oregon where one has a “right” to suicide.
-Health insurance is a prudent choice; but that doesn’t mean it should be a crime to be imprudent.
-The Government intrusiveness of mandating “health care” insurance is only 1 step away from mandating “certain health care procedures”. This level of totalitarian control is completely unacceptable to those who place even a moderate value on “individual liberty.”
I can explain it to you . . .
but I can’t understand it for you.
The analogy of mandatory health insurance to auto liability insurance falls apart when you barely scratch the surface.
agreed, and you can’t go buy car insurance after the accident and then have the insurance company fix your car...can we say pre-existing condition?
The only analogy might be that if you do not carry insurance and then require healthcare you have created a liability. If you cannot satisfy that liability then it can be handled in several ways: (1) through bankruptcy; (2) through voluntary dismissal by the creditor (doctor, hospital); or (3) through payment by the government, i.e. through all taxpayers.
Options 1 & 2 are available today. Under the proposed takeover of healthcare only option 3 is available.
To carry the analogy over to the auto insurance case, you have caused financial “damage” to the taxpayers by not being able to pay your bills.
That’s the logical conclusion of a government takeover (that I oppose)
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.