• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

States Seeking to Ban Mandatory Health Insurance

Councilman

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,657
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
http://http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/01/states-seeking-ban-mandatory-health-insurance/

And I thought this was going to be a bad news day. I hope they succeed.

AP

Conservative lawmakers in many states are forging ahead with constitutional amendments to ban government health insurance mandates.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Although President Barack Obama's push for a health care overhaul has stalled, conservative lawmakers in 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 prohibit penalties against those who refuse to carry health insurance.

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 the health care legislation, many state lawmakers are ramping up their efforts with a new enthusiasm.

The moves reflect the continued political potency of the issue for conservatives, who have used it extensively for fundraising and attracting new supportersThe legal impact of any state measures may be questionable because courts generally have held that federal laws trump those in states.

Lawmakers in 34 states now 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 that is helping coordinate the efforts. Many of those proposals are targeted for the November ballot, assuring that health care remains a hot topic as hundreds of federal and state lawmakers face reelection.
Click to expand...
 
And when the state once again suffers under a socialist majority, the state's constitution is re-amended to make compulsory health insurance the law.

What's needed is for the voters who send conservatives to majorities in their state houses to send conservatives to their delegations in Washington, and then we could start fixing the problems in this country.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
What's needed is for the voters who send conservatives to majorities in their state houses to send conservatives to their delegations in Washington, and then we could start fixing the problems in this country.
Click to expand...

That's as stupid as having liberal majorities. As long as conservatives and liberals exist, the best government is one of gridlock. Neither group able to get their programs through without severe interference from the other side.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
And when the state once again suffers under a socialist majority, the state's constitution is re-amended to make compulsory health insurance the law.

What's needed is for the voters who send conservatives to majorities in their state houses to send conservatives to their delegations in Washington, and then we could start fixing the problems in this country.
Click to expand...

And here I thought you folks were all for states' rights in this country.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
That's as stupid as having liberal majorities. As long as conservatives and liberals exist, the best government is one of gridlock. Neither group able to get their programs through without severe interference from the other side.
Click to expand...

Is it?

Conservatives aren't socialists, ergo, they can't possibly be anywhere near as stupid, by many orders of magnitude, as liberal majorities.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
That's as stupid as having liberal majorities. As long as conservatives and liberals exist, the best government is one of gridlock. Neither group able to get their programs through without severe interference from the other side.
Click to expand...

But our political spectrum will only consist of conservatives and liberals until we get rid of plurality elections and allow more proportional representation in our elected political bodies.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Is it?

Conservatives aren't socialists, ergo, they can't possibly be anywhere near as stupid, by many orders of magnitude, as liberal majorities.
Click to expand...

Not from where I sit as a libertarian.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Is it?

Conservatives aren't socialists, ergo, they can't possibly be anywhere near as stupid, by many orders of magnitude, as liberal majorities.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Allowing corporations to pay for politicians to get into office so the only lawmakers we get is whoever the corporations endorse sounds pretty stupid to me.
 
samsmart said:
And here I thought you folks were all for states' rights in this country.
Click to expand...

Gee, do I recall saying the States don't have the freedom under the Tenth Amendment to do something as stupid as passing amendments to there own Constititutions that can be overturned at the next election?

hmmmm...

no, I didn't say that.

I said it was pointless, when what their voters need to do is start sending Americans to Washington again, Americans who will restore the Constitution to it's proper place in American law, and end the evil socialist concept of Mandatory Health Care.
 
samsmart said:
I don't know. Allowing corporations to pay for politicians to get into office so the only lawmakers we get is whoever the corporations endorse sounds pretty stupid to me.
Click to expand...

I also support the First Amendment, got a problem with that?
 
samsmart said:
But our political spectrum will only consist of conservatives and liberals until we get rid of plurality elections and allow more proportional representation in our elected political bodies.
Click to expand...

I know. So until then, I favor gridlock.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I also support the First Amendment, got a problem with that?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with free speech. However, I do have a problem with corruption of government by our corporations.
 
samsmart said:
I have no problem with free speech. However, I do have a problem with corruption of government by our corporations.
Click to expand...
And this has what to do with the topic?
 
samsmart said:
I have no problem with free speech. However, I do have a problem with corruption of government by our corporations.
Click to expand...


You say you have a problem with corruption by corporations (when that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the ruling to start with) yet, you mention nothing when it comes to the corruption seen within the demo party right here and now when it comes to this health care debacle. Am I to assume that you turn a blind eye to that?


j-mac
 
Orion said:
Further proof that state constitutions aren't worth the paper they are written on, if they can be changed so easily.
Click to expand...
I've seen changed by referendum.
 
American said:
I've seen changed by referendum.
Click to expand...


That should be the case. If there is a fundamental change to be done to any Constitution, States, or Federal it should have to undergo a referendum. Put it to a vote by the people.

That is why IMHO Roe v Wade will never be allowed to go in that direction, because left to a popular vote to become an amendment Roe would go down so fast it would spin a liberals head.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
That should be the case. If there is a fundamental change to be done to any Constitution, States, or Federal it should have to undergo a referendum. Put it to a vote by the people.

That is why IMHO Roe v Wade will never be allowed to go in that direction, because left to a popular vote to become an amendment Roe would go down so fast it would spin a liberals head.


j-mac
Click to expand...

The process we have in place to amend the US Constitution is more than adequate. Referendums would be a stupid way to go.
 
States slashing back...about time.:2razz:
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
The process we have in place to amend the US Constitution is more than adequate. Referendums would be a stupid way to go.
Click to expand...


Can't the amendment be offered in a Constitutional Convention? That would be the people directly, no?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Can't the amendment be offered in a Constitutional Convention? That would be the people directly, no?


j-mac
Click to expand...

A constitutional convention would require the approval of the legislatures of 2/3 of the states. It's never been done before, so many questions arise as to how it would work.

If a proposed amendment made it through that process, Congress still has the power to determine which method of ratification it wants - either by state legislature or state convention. Only one amendment was approved by state convention - the 21st (repealed prohibition).
 
samsmart said:
I have no problem with free speech. However, I do have a problem with corruption of government by our corporations.
Click to expand...

No, you have no problem with that, your problem is that the goonions controlling the Democrat Party that pulls your strings has a problem with competition from a source that spends less than one tenth the amount the goonions spend.

Why have you never complained about the goonions and their corrupt control of government officials? Gee, if you had any history of that, your angst would be more sympathetic. Not believable, of course, but at least we could feel sorry for someone freaking out over people actually using the First Amendment. As it stands, you're just another hypocrite marionette.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, you have no problem with that, your problem is that the goonions controlling the Democrat Party that pulls your strings has a problem with competition from a source that spends less than one tenth the amount the goonions spend.

Why have you never complained about the goonions and their corrupt control of government officials? Gee, if you had any history of that, your angst would be more sympathetic. Not believable, of course, but at least we could feel sorry for someone freaking out over people actually using the First Amendment. As it stands, you're just another hypocrite marionette.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm a Republican. Figure that one out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom