Health insurance mandates and state sovereignty

myp · Mar 19, 2010

With the next vote on the pending healthcare bill right around the corner, once more the issue of state sovereignty has come up. For those who may not know, several state legislatures have expressed discontent with the bill since it was first talked about, especially in regards to their sovereignty as per the Constitution. Because of that, there have been movements in some legislatures to perhaps enact bills within their states that might be able to bypass the Federal mandate. There are also discussions of talking it to court.

As someone who does not believe this bill is Constitutional, I have been lightly following this movement over the past few months just in case this bill does go through. Reuters did an interesting "fact box" piece on it today that I wanted to share: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62I3S020100319

According to that article, 36 state legislatures are considering legislation to bypass some or all of the mandate. It really is an interesting move and in an era when the Federal government has grown drastically and intruded on states' rights repeatedly, I am happy to see them push back.

David · Mar 19, 2010

myp said:
With the next vote on the pending healthcare bill right around the corner, once more the issue of state sovereignty has come up. For those who may not know, several state legislatures have expressed discontent with the bill since it was first talked about, especially in regards to their sovereignty as per the Constitution. Because of that, there have been movements in some legislatures to perhaps enact bills within their states that might be able to bypass the Federal mandate. There are also discussions of talking it to court.

As someone who does not believe this bill is Constitutional, I have been lightly following this movement over the past few months just in case this bill does go through. Reuters did an interesting "fact box" piece on it today that I wanted to share: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62I3S020100319

According to that article, 36 state legislatures are considering legislation to bypass some or all of the mandate. It really is an interesting move and in an era when the Federal government has grown drastically and intruded on states' rights repeatedly, I am happy to see them push back.

Indeed. The Feds and their allies are trying to brand the state gov'ts involved as rightest extremists on the lunatic fringe like they did last time but with leftist states debating/passing nullification legislation and with 37 (last count I heard) states out of a total of 50 doing the same, it clear this is a bi-partisan mainstream rebellion by the states.

Throw in our failing alliance with Israel and I'd say we live in interesting times indeed.

deanhills · Mar 20, 2010

36 States!!!! I'm totally bowled over by this. That is almost four fifths of the total states. And Obama still does not want to stop pushing? On the other hand, maybe this is going to turn out good if Obama continues to push. This may be just the Bill to help States contest the power of the Federal Government to interfere in the management of their affairs.

David · Mar 20, 2010

deanhills said:
36 States!!!! I'm totally bowled over by this. That is almost four fifths of the total states. And Obama still does not want to stop pushing? On the other hand, maybe this is going to turn out good if Obama continues to push. This may be just the Bill to help States contest the power of the Federal Government to interfere in the management of their affairs.

Normally the Feds would have the upper hand legally, but Obama recognizes state superiority over the Fed in the matter of weed legalization. Having established a president of allowing nullification to go thru, i don't see how the Fed can really do anything about this without throwing legal logic out the window.

deanhills · Mar 20, 2010

David said:
Normally the Feds would have the upper hand legally, but Obama recognizes state superiority over the Fed in the matter of weed legalization. Having established a president of allowing nullification to go thru, i don't see how the Fed can really do anything about this without throwing legal logic out the window.

No wonder Clinton and Obama are talking about the political process having to be modified for approving legislation like the Health Care Reform Bill. The discussion in this thread may have something to do with it.

One thing that is a relief, is that there could not be a possibility of a Civil War about this. If the content of the original posting is correct, the States who seem to be in favour of the Bill are in the minority. The people who are against it, in the majority. And the Dems are working on "votes" rather than assessing whether people are for or against the legislation or improving the quality of the legislation.

David · Mar 20, 2010

deanhills said:
No wonder Clinton and Obama are talking about the political process having to be modified for approving legislation like the Health Care Reform Bill. The discussion in this thread may have something to do with it.

One thing that is a relief, is that there could not be a possibility of a Civil War about this. If the content of the original posting is correct, the States who seem to be in favour of the Bill are in the minority. The people who are against it, in the majority. And the Dems are working on "votes" rather than assessing whether people are for or against the legislation or improving the quality of the legislation.

It'd be a sad day indeed if a civil war started over how much someone's insurance bill was. :giggle:

deanhills · Mar 21, 2010

David said:
It'd be a sad day indeed if a civil war started over how much someone's insurance bill was. :giggle:

Right. Luckily people don't sound as emotional about health care reform as they did about racism in those days.

Dirk · Mar 21, 2010

deanhills said:
Right. Luckily people don't sound as emotional about health care reform as they did about racism in those days.

The Civil War was not over racism or slavery.

It occurred because of secession and because the Confederation initiated hostilities against the United States.

The only reason you think it's about racism/slavery is because after the war started, Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation, which made abolishing slavery an official war aim, to discourage Britain and France from intervention.

David · Mar 21, 2010

Dirk said:
The Civil War was not over racism or slavery.

It occurred because of secession and because the Confederation initiated hostilities against the United States.

The only reason you think it's about racism/slavery is because after the war started, Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation, which made abolishing slavery an official war aim, to discourage Britain and France from intervention.

Damn, a European knows more about the reasons for the Civil War then most Americans. :giggle:

mikhail · Mar 21, 2010

deanhills said:
Right. Luckily people don't sound as emotional about health care reform as they did about racism in those days.

The civil war was not about slavery, it was about States Rights.

deanhills · Mar 22, 2010

mikhail said:
The civil war was not about slavery, it was about States Rights.

Thanks for correcting me, I understood that too. Perhaps slavery was the underlying issue then?

myp · Mar 23, 2010

An update on this: 13 Attorney Generals have already filed lawsuits against the Federal government over this issue, only seven minutes after President Obama signed the bill into law. Legal experts are saying it has little chance, but it is nice to see states standing up for their rights. More are expected to follow suit and some are also pondering legislation to block mandates within their respective states.

SpayAndNeuterLibs · Mar 27, 2010

David said:
It'd be a sad day indeed if a civil war started over how much someone's insurance bill was. :giggle:

If there was a civil war it wouldn't be because of the cost of HC insurance. It would be because the federal government is superseding its responsibility. I personally hope a civil war will never be necessary.

This November the American people have the power to show those arrogant politicians, that "WE THE PEOPLE" are their boss. We hired them, and we can fire them.

Dirk · Mar 27, 2010

SpayAndNeuterLibs said:
This November the American people have the power to show those arrogant politicians, that "WE THE PEOPLE" are their boss. We hired them, and we can fire them.

Idealism can be so endearing, sometimes.

David · Mar 27, 2010

SpayAndNeuterLibs said:
If there was a civil war it wouldn't be because of the cost of HC insurance. It would be because the federal government is superseding its responsibility. I personally hope a civil war will never be necessary.

This November the American people have the power to show those arrogant politicians, that "WE THE PEOPLE" are their boss. We hired them, and we can fire them.

The elections are rigged. Not as obvious as in some backwater dictatorships, but still. Case in point, Prop 8 in CA. Passed with the support of Utah Mormons, not Californians. Look at gerrymandering. Look at lobbyists (Israel is my pet peeve not even being American). Look at corporate personhood (a corporation is running for senate).

SpayAndNeuterLibs · Mar 28, 2010

David said:
The elections are rigged. Not as obvious as in some backwater dictatorships, but still. Case in point, Prop 8 in CA. Passed with the support of Utah Mormons, not Californians. Look at gerrymandering. Look at lobbyists (Israel is my pet peeve not even being American). Look at corporate personhood (a corporation is running for senate).

"THE ELECTIONS ARE RIGGED." That is a pessimistic view. If you truely believed that, then why get involved in politics, even it's discussion. If nothing you said or did had any affect due to elections being rigged, what's the point? Now I'm not so naive to think that our election process is perfect. It's far from it, but how do WE THE PEOPLE ensure that our election process works?

David · Mar 28, 2010

SpayAndNeuterLibs said:
"THE ELECTIONS ARE RIGGED." That is a pessimistic view. If you truely believed that, then why get involved in politics, even it's discussion. If nothing you said or did had any affect due to elections being rigged, what's the point? Now I'm not so naive to think that our election process is perfect. It's far from it, but how do WE THE PEOPLE ensure that our election process works?

Because if people talk, the politicians get found out. If politicians get found out, people get angry. If people get angry ether the politicians bow to their will or the people rebel.

Dirk · Mar 28, 2010

SpayAndNeuterLibs said:
why get involved in politics, even it's discussion. If nothing you said or did had any affect due to elections being rigged, what's the point?

Politics is not limited to authoritative institutions.

SpayAndNeuterLibs · Mar 28, 2010

David said:
Because if people talk, the politicians get found out. If politicians get found out, people get angry. If people get angry ether the politicians bow to their will or the people rebel.

You made the accusation that the elections are rigged. If they are rigged then what power would we have to fix the problem? The current day polititions have already shown that they will not bow down to our anger, so that leaves rebellion. Are you advocating "REVOLUTIONARY ACTION," "REACTIONARY ACTION," or "CONSTITUTIONALITY ACTION?" Today's politicians on both sides, have tiptoed on the line of legality when it comes to the constitution.

deanhills · Mar 28, 2010

SpayAndNeuterLibs said:
"THE ELECTIONS ARE RIGGED." That is a pessimistic view. If you truely believed that, then why get involved in politics, even it's discussion. If nothing you said or did had any affect due to elections being rigged, what's the point? Now I'm not so naive to think that our election process is perfect. It's far from it, but how do WE THE PEOPLE ensure that our election process works?

I agree with David. The elections are rigged both "honestly" and "dishonestly". There is an enormous amount of self-delusion, making it very difficult for people to discover how rigged the elections really are. On an innocent level for example, how honest it is to drive the elderly and disabled to the voting polls? How honest is it to contribute financially to campaigns? How honest is it for ACORN to be involved in the election campaign?

The election system has become so entrenched, that possibly the only way to get rid of it, would be a revolution of a kind, either peaceful, or if the Government does not want to provide outlets of opinion and listen to the people, then violently.

Health insurance mandates and state sovereignty

Similar threads