View Poll Results: Is an amendment necessary for these changes?

15. You may not vote on this poll
  • Prohibition yes and Healtch Care yes

    9 60.00%
  • Prohibition yes and Healtch Care no

    1 6.67%
  • Prohibition no and Healtch Care yes

    2 13.33%
  • Prohibition no and Healtch Care no

    3 20.00%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: Was an amendment needed to pass prohibition?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 02:54 PM

    Re: Was an amendment needed to pass prohibition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mickey Shane View Post
    True, not having HC will be a no-no. Of course I can't escape having auto insurance either. Don't say "don't drive". It's not yet an option in this town.
    Ugh - the auto insurance "argument" - a few points (and I swear, this is the LAST time I am going to point out the glaring flaws in this argument): 1) Auto coverage is enforced and laws written at the STATE level. Not the federal level. Per the 10th amendment of the constitution, this is within the states' rights as it is not otherwise prohibited to them by the constitution nor granted to the federal government. 2) This only applies to people driving on public roads. If you endanger the public on the public's property, it is the right of the public to protect themselves from you. You do not need auto insurance when driving on your land. The point isn't that 'you can choose not to drive' but rather that the public has the right to protect themselves and their property from drivers 3) it's not an auto-insurance law! It doesn't require you to spend money, but rather have proof of financial responsibility. You can't risk $40k of other people's property if you don't have $40k to cover the damage you can inflict! You can save $40k and keep it in a CD and that will suffice from a legal standpoint. Even the states aren't requiring you to buy insurance (though they could if they wanted to, per the 10th amendment). 4) Auto Insurance, as per point 2, is to protect the public from your negligence. To make you responsible at the state level for your actions if they should happen to infringe on the rights of another. If I don't have health insurance, I am not taking a risk of infringing on the inalienable rights of another.

    In short, you're talking about oranges when I'm talking about apples.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mickey Shane View Post
    The "afford-ability" is what is supposed to make it appealing, or more appealing than not having HC insurance. Young people are the most likely to not want to buy an insurance that they don't need. Of course they do fun stuff like riding the half pipe on a motorcycle.
    Mickey - you don't seem to understand. I don't care what is financially attractive and what isn't attractive about this bill. I'm not arguing about it's cost effectiveness and I haven't done a bit of research as to whether the GOP is right that it will cause a deficit or if the Dem's are right and in 3 years, my HC insurance will be significantly cheaper. What I care about is the government following the constitution. What you really should be arguing about is the commerce clause. This is the closest thing you have in your favor, though this law is still is clearly FAR beyond the commerce clause (which is why I assume the dem's aren't bringing it up). How far can we stretch that clause? not this far. An amendment is necessary for the HC insurance law. Then we can argue about it's cost effectiveness or ineffectiveness. But before we jump the gun, let's first discuss the legality of the law.
    Last edited by fredmertz; 02-09-11 at 09:57 AM.

  2. #12
    Tavern Bartender
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:11 PM

    Re: Was an amendment needed to pass prohibition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mickey Shane View Post
    Prohibition was for all citizenry. The new HC is an option. People are free to keep the HC plan that they currently have. So no, it's not a mandate.
    It's not an option, that's why some judges have gotten involved. Even as an option it's unconstitutional in my book.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts