Thread: Missouri Health Care Freedom Act

I love my state of Missouri because I'll have a chance to vote on a Constitutional Amendment that will nullify the federal health care nationalization within the state of Missouri.

Missouri Health Care Freedom Act

More on the proposed amendment here.

Um... can you please show me where nationalization took place?

Originally Posted by Jetboogieman

Um... can you please show me where nationalization took place?

It's under the part of the health care take over act where the government mandates what doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies can charge. It's also under the part where the government will levy fines and jail time to anyone that doesn't buy 'private' or government health insurance. That's nationalization just like the government nationalized GM and Ford.

Nationalization, also spelled nationalisation, is the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state. Nationalization usually refers to private assets, but may also mean assets owned by lower levels of government, such as municipalities, being transferred to the public sector to be operated by or owned by the state. The opposite of nationalization is usually privatization or de-nationalisation, but may also be municipalization.

If you have an argument to make, at least argue the right thing. You have legitimate grievances against the Health Care Bill. But it is under no definition Nationalization. No HMO's were bought up by the Gov.

Originally Posted by Jetboogieman

If you have an argument to make, at least argue the right thing. You have legitimate grievances against the Health Care Bill. But it is under no definition Nationalization. No HMO's were bought up by the Gov.

I find it humorous that you took exception to one part of my statement, while ignoring the point of the thread entirely. If and when you want to discuss the topic of the thread let me know. For all intents and purposes, the federal health care bill nationalizes the health care system.

Originally Posted by The_Patriot

I find it humorous that you took exception to one part of my statement, while ignoring the point of the thread entirely. If and when you want to discuss the topic of the thread let me know. For all intents and purposes, the federal health care bill nationalizes the health care system.

right back at you. And thanks for ignoring the definition of Nationalization Wow some of you conservatives are now re-writing definitions to suit your arguments... Genuis.

Originally Posted by Jetboogieman

right back at you. And thanks for ignoring the definition of Nationalization Wow some of you conservatives are now re-writing definitions to suit your arguments... Genuis.

Except that I didn't posit the argument to begin with. I followed what has already been established by the US government and posted Missouri's reply to the federal health care bill. Also, there have been nationalization of industries before without the government actually owning it. I can think of four industries that were nationalized via federal law during WWII, which was automobile manufacturing, ship building, aircraft manufacturing, and agriculture. Not a single share was traded to the government nor did the government spend any money to buy the industries in question. They passed a law that made the companies engaged in those activities to be part of the government to ensure that wartime production could be met. Thus, the precedent has always been a part of the US political landscape before the health care bill was passed. If you have a problem with the definition as used by the US government, I suggest you take it up with all the politicians that were alive during WWII for them changing what nationalization means.

Originally Posted by The_Patriot

Except that I didn't posit the argument to begin with. I followed what has already been established by the US government and posted Missouri's reply to the federal health care bill. Also, there have been nationalization of industries before without the government actually owning it. I can think of four industries that were nationalized via federal law during WWII, which was automobile manufacturing, ship building, aircraft manufacturing, and agriculture. Not a single share was traded to the government nor did the government spend any money to buy the industries in question. They passed a law that made the companies engaged in those activities to be part of the government to ensure that wartime production could be met. Thus, the precedent has always been a part of the US political landscape before the health care bill was passed. If you have a problem with the definition as used by the US government, I suggest you take it up with all the politicians that were alive during WWII for them changing what nationalization means.

That makes sense. But please show me something in the health care bill that by your own underlined words happened that way? The Health Care Bill imposed regulations on the health care industry, no company was bought, or taken over.

Originally Posted by Jetboogieman

That makes sense. But please show me something in the health care bill that by your own underlined words happened that way? The Health Care Bill imposed regulations on the health care industry, no company was bought, or taken over.

The law tells hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies what they can and cannot do just like the laws passed during WWII that nationalized the automobile, aircraft, agriculture, and ship manufacturers. Just like the laws passed in WWII failure for those companies to comply will mean jail time for both the customers and the owners. It's nationalization without the purchasing of the industry in question, which is identical to what had occured in WWII. Essentialyl, the health care law makes the entire health care industry a part of the US government.