Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Va. Senate bans health insurance mandate
Stateline.org Staff Reports
The Democratic-led Virginia Senate sent a strong message about health care reform efforts in Washington, D.C., on Monday (Feb. 1), passing a bill that makes it illegal for Virginians to be required to buy health insurance.
With Republicans in control of the state’s House of Delegates and governor’s mansion, the bill could become law, The Washington Post reported. The effort would throw another wrench into congressional Democrats’ plans to revamp the nation’s health care system in the wake of a special election in Massachusetts that stripped the party of its 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate.
An “individual mandate” that requires Americans to buy health insurance is a centerpiece of federal health care legislation. Virginia’s move could suggest that President Obama — who reiterated his support for reform during his State of the Union address last week — “is failing to reassure members of his own party that current reform efforts remain worthwhile,” The Post said.
A groundswell of opposition to the federal effort is emerging in statehouses around the country, The Associated Press reported today. Bills similar to the legislation cleared by the Virginia Senate are being considered in 35 states, with some lawmakers seeking cons utional amendments to prohibit mandatory health insurance. An Idaho legislative committee has approved a bill similar to Virginia’s, and in Missouri, an overflow crowd showed up at a hearing room when that state’s cons utional amendment was being debated, the AP reported.
What is notable about Monday’s action in the Virginia Senate, however, is that Democrats joined the effort, which has been led by conservatives in most states. Five Democrats joined all 18 Republicans in opposition to a health care mandate. The votes “suggest that Democrats on the state level fear that supporting health care reform could be politically damaging,” The Post said.
While I wholeheartedly endorse attempts to kill the craptastic Obamacare venture, how exactly is something like this cons utional? How can a state make it illegal to follow a federal law? Or whatever legal mechanism it is that would give the state the ability to regulate what the federal government can or can't tell it's citizenss to do?
Last edited by coyotes_geek; 02-03-2010 at 02:33 PM.
Without having the proposed law in front of us, it's pretty hard to say. It's a hard question to start with. If the Civil War didn't settle the issue of nullification by the states, federal purse strings are the effective levers now.
I'll see if I can find the law.
Maybe someone else can address the the legal ins and outs of how state/federal conflicts can and are supposed to play out. I'd just be shooting in the dark.
Seems to me like if the states could get away with something like this that we'd have 50 states with 50 laws making it illegal to require a state's citizens to pay federal income taxes.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/finan.../D9DJJV500.htmOpponents also question whether the state has the power to block the federal government's requirement. Even if the bill passes, the issue would have to be decided in the courts, which traditionally have ruled that federal law trumps state law.
Virginia's new Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli said he is ready to challenge any mandate in court.
"I most assuredly would, but I would more welcome them not passing a bill that is cons utionally unfirm," Cuccinelli said.
So at the end of the day, it sure looks like to me that there's no way something like this would stand up in court. That would make this pretty much just a symbolic gesture. That being said, if 30 something states make the same gesture, that would certainly garner a lot of attention from members of congress.
They're just sending a message... It's all they can really do, so why not? plus Pelosi and Co are so scared less of any potential electoral loss that it will probably work.
If Obamacare were to pass, then it would trump this thing... the thing is, they can make all sort of noise while it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, so it's a win-win for them.
They're setting themselves up to challenge the soon-to-be federally passed health insurance reform in court. I suspect they'll lose that case in the Supreme Court, but I am no legal expert.
What fascinates me is how disgusting this is from an ethical standpoint. We object to citizens having health care so strongly that we're going to resist the government's efforts to try and protect citizens' right to it. From a moral standpoint, the comparison to slavery is quite apt.
Well thats one silly-ass way of characterizing it.
How bout this?
The Federal government forcing its citizens by law to pay for healthcare out of their own pockets. BTW, it isnt like theyre mandating everyone gets a raise from the employer who provides it now. No, no, no. You still make the same amount of money, but now you have a new car payment every month.
By Federal law.
Its ing bull .
I dont want to assume anything about you, but I pay for my employee's healthcare. Its $1000+ per family and $750+ per single.
I imagine a Federal program would bring about some discount in price. But even being optimistic at say, a 30% reduction in cost, youre looking at a single individual getting a new $525 monthly bill mandated by law (in Michigan, anyway). All this with no raise, 15-20% unemployment, businesses shuttering left and right and people losing their homes.
Oh yeah, I am suuuuuuure this is going to work swimmingly.
Score one for insurance companies, yeah! How unethical, right? So we keep privatized insurance companies, but mandate everyone pay for insurance. This sint like car insurance because owning a car is optional.
This isnt a choice. There is no option. You will be fined or go to jail if you do not have (or provide) health insurance.
What about the millions of people who cant ing afford it?
Are the rest of us supposed to support them in this , too?
Tell me, does the cost decrease per policy get offset by the number of people who cant afford it?
So, the Federal government has basically kept the profit and cost of health insurance private, but socialized the expense on the rest of us?
I hope this administration crashes and ing burns on this. I hope it is Obama's Epic Fail moment.
Not that I dont want healthcare reform, I just dont want THIS healthcare reform. Because this is a ing abortion, direct evidence that our government is bought and sold by corporatists who twist the system. The insurance companies are probably jealous of the bankers who have/had private profit and socialized risk. They want in on that deal.
If this (yes, horse , bull , fly , your , my ) passes, thats what it is. Another win for big business and another means for big business to get all the more wealthy and create dependance from a populace.
WTF!!!!!! Who cant see this?!!?!
Last edited by DarkReign; 02-03-2010 at 03:38 PM.
Denying someone a government freebie which can only be provided at someone else's expense is NOTHING like the basic denial of liberty that the slaves endured. You are an idiot for thinking that it is.
Federal preemption, boys. This is all nice, but ObamaCare's individual mandate would trump. (If it's found to be cons utional.)
This Cons ution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Cons ution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
What's novel about this is the federal government forcing people to pay non-government en ies. What's novel about it, unlike car insurance in some states, is that there doesn't seem to be any action you can take to avoid having to pay for it.
That said, there's nothing to preempt it yet.
+10000
I almost spit out my drink lmao at her ridiculous comments.
It's as if bleeding libs lack the intellectual curiosity to actually look things up like the US cons ution, and take a few minutes to read what our founding fathers wrote. Trying to understand the difference between rights and privileges is too hard a concept to grasp because their emotions take over and they just speak out of their ass.
"If it's found to be cons utional."
mandate is "promoting the general welfare", so it's Cons utional.
The individual mandate is probably cons utional, but you're a ing moron.
Therein lies part of the problem.
10th Amendment to the Cons ution.... States Rights.
The sad part in all this is that Virginia is having to author a bill specifically to assert its sovereign rights in light of Obamacare....the powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the cons ution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.
You will be seeing more bills like this directed at Obamacare, Crap & Trade, and some of the other craptastic hyper-liberal ideas of Obama and his crew, as long as they are in power.
No citizen is currently denied health care, but you're too busy on here tossing Obama's salad all the time to understand that.
So take your ethical and moral bull and shove it.
LOL. So dumb...
The problem with citing the 10th Amendment is that it doesn't really mean anything here. It merely guides how we interpret the Cons ution. If the Cons ution grants the power to the federal government, then the power is not reserved to the states.
If the individual mandate falls within Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, then the 10th Amendment cannot be an independent grounds for challenge.
There's a reason the 10th Amendment does not contain the word "expressly."
There is the 16th amendment allowing taxation. There is the tenth amendment on the side of the states rights. The way they are written, the federal government can impose taxes, but health care is not in the cons ution.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Cons ution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I suspect they will win. This is a no brainier, but then democrats seem not to have brains.
You are completely spinning that.
It is not against anyone rights. Quite the opposite. When you mandate someone to buy health insurance, that is the violation of rights.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
