[Vision2020] House Bill 117 - State Sovereignty - FederalHealth Care . . .

Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
Fri Feb 18 17:53:29 PST 2011


The following presentation, that is 2 hour 40 minutes long, that can be
experienced from the C-Span website at the website below, offers an in-depth
discussion/debate of the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act by
scholars who are capable of arguing the law on this question in detail.  It
is rather legally technical at times:

http://www.cspan.org/Events/Constitutionality-of-the-Health-Care-Law-Called-Into-Question/10737419334-1/
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:

>  Regardless of what one thinks of effectiveness or noneffectiveness
> mandatory health coverage with a required purchase of insurance and/or the
> present Obamacare, that's not the issue I raised, and I haven't the time or
> the patience to write about such except maybe sometime very generally.
>
> The legal issue which will eventual rise to the level of the U.S. Supreme
> Court is whether mandatory purchase of insurance is constitutional.  On one
> hand there is the state's rights position which says that if the
> constitution doesn't specifically address a subject, then that issue is to
> be left to the states.  On the other side are those that espouse a broader
> interpretation of the constitution based on, among other things, the
> "promote the general welfare" clause.
>
> w.
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
>   *To:* Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> ; Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:44 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] House Bill 117 - State Sovereignty -
> FederalHealth Care . . .
>
>   "The state government can compel you to buy automobile liability
> insurance if you chose to own and to operate a motor vehicle. "--Art Deco
>
> This is a completely different situation on several levels;
>
> First, there is a difference between a state requiring you to demonstrate
> while operating a heavy piece of equipment you have the means to pay for any
> damage to property, versus that of the federal government requiring you with
> buy a particular product.
>
> I can escape the insurance requirement in Idaho by either moving out of
> state, choosing not to drive, or I can save up enough money to demonstrate I
> can pay for damages i may incur while operating a piece of heavy equipment
> on public highways and roadways.
>
> Federal Mandated Health Insurance I cannot do the same thing. I cannot move
> out of state.  I cannot disown or park my body (I am stuck with).  And I can
> never demonstrate that I have enough money to pay for reasonable health
> problems, and that could be in the millions very easily.
>
> And of course there is the Constitutional issue that it reserves all rights
> not listed in it to the states. I don't see anything in the constitution
> giving the Federal Government the authority to require people to buy a
> particular product. Although I think the government can get around this
> issue in the same way as it did in 80s by changing the drinking age to 21,
> forcing the states to comply by withholding federal dollars.
>
> I personally think it is a bad idea to have the federal government be able
> to make you buy something. Especially when its goal of providing health care
> to everyone will not succeed this way. The only way to get everyone to have
> access to health care is to tax people and provide it, just like every other
> service the government provides.
>
> Donovan Arnold
>
> --- On *Wed, 2/16/11, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] House Bill 117 - State Sovereignty -
> FederalHealth Care . . .
> To: "Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 3:36 PM
>
>  The state government can compel you to buy automobile liability insurance
> if you chose to own and to operate a motor vehicle.  The courts have ruled
> that this is a legitimate power of the government.  It will be interesting
> to see how this issue as it relates to health insurance is argued in the
> courts.
>
> w.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Donovan Arnold<http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com>
> *To:* Moscow Vision 2020<http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vision2020@moscow.com>; Tom
> Hansen <http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=thansen@moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 16, 2011 3:07 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] House Bill 117 - State Sovereignty -
> FederalHealth Care . . .
>
>   I have to agree that the government does not have the authority
> to compel you to participate in buying health Insurance or any product or
> service from a private company.  Especially when it is such a rip-off and
> there is no regulation on what these insurance companies can collectively
> decide they want you to pay once you are required by to purchase it from
> them. They could charge $500-$1500 a month and you would have to pay it. If
> they wanted to tax you and provide access to health care that would
> be within their legal authority because that is what the government does.
>
>  However, I don't agree with the wording of the bill that employers should
> be allowed to get away with not offering any health insurance without
> raising their minimum paid wages. You cannot afford health insurance on
> $7.25 an hour.   Hell, you cannot even afford quality health insurance at
> $12.50 an hour working 50 hours a week when the government is skimming 40
> cents on every dollar you sweat blood and tears to make. Employers should
> have some basic responsibility for the welfare of their employers especially
> when many employers put their employees at risk for lots of health problems.
> Working conditions need to be beyond third world standards here in Idaho.
> Idahoan workers deserve at least this much. Too bad the Governor of Idaho
> and the majority of the current legislature doesn't agree.
>
> Donovan Arnold
>
> --- On *Wed, 2/16/11, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
> Subject: [Vision2020] House Bill 117 - State Sovereignty - Federal Health
> Care . . .
> To: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 11:43 AM
>
> Has passed the Idaho House by a vote of 49-20.
>
> http://moscowcares.com/idaho/2011/HB0117_020911.htm
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
>
>
> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change
> and the Realist adjusts his sails."
>
> - Unknown
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com<http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Vision2020@moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com<http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Vision2020@moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110218/3bc034e5/attachment.html 


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list