"States push back on mandatory health insurance; Conservatives lead resistance; Most measures target Nov. ballot" by David A. Lieb, Associated Press | February 2, 2010
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - About half the states are forging ahead with constitutional amendments to ban government health insurance mandates.
The proposals would assert a state-based right for people to pay medical bills from their own pocketbooks and would prohibit penalties against those who refuse to carry health insurance.
Yes, NOWHERE is HEALTH INSURANCE mentioned in the Constitution.
It is a STATE and LOCAL ISSUE.
In many states, the proposals began as a backlash to Democratic health care plans pending in Congress. But instead of backing away after a Massachusetts election gave Senate Republicans the filibuster power to halt health care legislation, many state lawmakers are ramping up their efforts with new enthusiasm....
Not taking any chances.
Lawmakers in 34 states have filed or proposed amendments to their state constitutions or statutes rejecting health insurance mandates, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a nonprofit group that promotes limited government and is helping coordinate the efforts....
That is two-thirds of the nation!
Supporters of the state measures portray them as a way of defending individual rights and state sovereignty, asserting that the federal government has no authority to tell states and their citizens to buy health insurance....
Separate bills passed by the US House and Senate would impose a penalty on people who do not have health insurance, except in cases of financial hardship. Subsidies would be provided to low-income and middle-income households.
The intent of the mandate is to expand the pool of people who are insured and paying premiums and thus offset the increased costs of insuring those with preexisting conditions or other risks.
The MSM dresses up that PoS health tax nicely, don't they?
The federal bills also would require many businesses to pay a penalty if they fail to provide employees health insurance that meets certain standards, though details and exemptions vary between the House and Senate versions....
If you have been following the debate(?) you know that is a LIE!
A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted the day after the Massachusetts vote found that about 55 percent of respondents - including a majority of self-described independents - favored putting the brakes on the current health care legislation. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Yeah, everyone knows we don't want what they are going to give us.
State laws or constitutional amendments clearly could bar lawmakers in those states from requiring individuals to purchase health insurance, such as Massachusetts has done.
But it’s questionable that such measures could shield state residents from a federal health insurance requirement.
“They are merely symbolic gestures,’’ said Michael Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell University. “If this Congress were to pass an individual mandate, and if it is constitutional - which I believe it is - the express rule under the supremacy clause [of the US Constitution] is that the federal law prevails.’’
Sig Heil, AmeriKa.
Many Democratic lawmakers are skeptical of both the intent and the effect of the state measures. Some see it as “political theater’’ or an attempt to merely shape the public debate.
Yeah, but when DemocraPs or newspapers do it, it's okay!
--more--"
