At least 4 states seek to repeal ObamaCare

[Aaron]

Fortunately, a constitutional attorney was my political science instructor my junior year in college.

 

[Bob Alkire]

Just saw on Fox News that the 3M company is discontinuing retiree healthcare specifically because of the new healthcare law. They're now going to offer a lump sum payout to their retirees and let them shop around.

This is what many said would happen. Also many said some companies would opp out of their insurance and get the government insurance. Keep in mind many companies are self insurance on their health insurance and pay an insurance company to administer it for them, it is rather costly.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Not to mention the lunacy of the federal government forcing you at the point of a gun to buy a certain product...

Fundamentally, I believe this is the central issue.

The federal government is requiring citizens to buy a product (insurance) by force of law.

As far as I know, this has never happened before and seems to be patently unconstitutional.

Advocates of the healthcare plan often point to the "requirement" of auto insurance for drivers, but don't seem to realize that:

1.) driving is fundamentally different than living (driving is voluntary, living is a right)
2.) many people do not drive (3 of my 4 grandparents did not drive during my lifetime and 2 of them did not drive an automobile a single time their entire lives)
3.) For the safety of others, the public roads are a highly-regulated place (driver's license required, insurance, vehicle inspections, enforcement of traffic laws, etc.), and you may not be allowed to drive for various reasons.

 

[Aaron]

And don't forget driver licensing, like marriage licensing, is a state function, not federal.

 

[rbell]

What is happening is obvious to me: Many in these states are recognizing that Obama has deliberately lied to America. Even he is not too stupid to see his policies will wreck insurance companies. And, when they go belly-up...in on the white horse (whoops, sorry, that's racist) rides the messiah to insure all of us, via the Imperial Federal Government.

I'm just sad that Alabama (my home state) is still under the control of bought-and-paid for entities (primarily the teachers' union), and thanks to gerrymandering, remains under Democrat control; thus, our worthless excuse for a legislature won't address what about 75% of Alabamians want: an opting out of Obamamarxism.

 

[sag38]

One Federal Judge has already proven that he's ready to ignore or reinterpret the Constitution in an act of activism concerning the legality of Obaminazation Care. God help us!!

 

[FR7 Baptist]

There is absolutely no way any of our founding fathers would recognize the "general welfare clause" as interpreted by socialists such as our new SC justice Kagan. They would cover her in laugh-spittle for even suggesting such a ridiculous thing. What passes for "general welfare" today is government intrusion on an unprecedented level. You mean that the threat of fines and jail can be used to force me to buy a specific consumer product? Riiiiight.

That would actually be the Commerce Clause.

BTW...keep in mind that the Preamble (and yes, I can read, and did read it, several times) says promote the general welfare...not provide.

I'll concede that. I should have said promote.

That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. Do you seriously think that there would be part of the Bill of Rights put in for flippant reasons? Please. You can do better than that. At least be in the same area code as facts.

It wasn't flippant. It was intended to make explicit what was implicit in the Constitution.

 

[Aaron]

Actually, the Bill of Rights did what the framers feared, it fundamentally changed the nature of the document. The Constitution wasn't intended to be a list a rights. It was intended to be an enumeration of powers. In other words, if the power wasn't explicitly given in the Constitution, the feds couldn't assume it, and since there was nothing explicitly granting congress the power to make a law respecting religion, or the freedom of the press or speech, etc. the Bill of Rights and later the Fourteenth Amendment were not only superfluous, but a weakening of the protection of liberty.

Now that we're looking to the U.S. Constitution for unspecified rights, the document is being perverted to oppress us. Paul3144's corruptions of Article I, Section 8 are prime examples.

 

[Eric B]

So you don't believe the Bill of Rights should be there?
Are you arguing for just the original document (and without the Amendments as well)?

 

[Aaron]

I'm saying that the Constitution is not an enumeration of rights. You've got folks like the afore-mentioned Paul looking for the "right to welfare" in it, and then assuming the authority to taking the property of one to give it to another.

It's a perversion of the Constitution.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

I'm saying that the Constitution is not an enumeration of rights. You've got folks like the afore-mentioned Paul looking for the "right to welfare" in it, and then assuming the authority to taking the property of one to give it to another.

It's a perversion of the Constitution.

There is no Federal constitutional right to welfare.

 

[Winman]

Fundamentally, I believe this is the central issue.

The federal government is requiring citizens to buy a product (insurance) by force of law.

As far as I know, this has never happened before and seems to be patently unconstitutional.

Advocates of the healthcare plan often point to the "requirement" of auto insurance for drivers, but don't seem to realize that:

1.) driving is fundamentally different than living (driving is voluntary, living is a right)
2.) many people do not drive (3 of my 4 grandparents did not drive during my lifetime and 2 of them did not drive an automobile a single time their entire lives)
3.) For the safety of others, the public roads are a highly-regulated place (driver's license required, insurance, vehicle inspections, enforcement of traffic laws, etc.), and you may not be allowed to drive for various reasons.

You do not have to necessarily purchase auto insurance in many states, but you must show proof of financial responsibility.

Most states allow at least one of these items to be used as financial responsibility:

1) Your car insurance policy.
2) A surety bond issued by any authorized surety company.
3) A State Motor Vehicle Department bond secured by real estate equity of a set amount (for example Ohio requires at least $60,000, same for New Mexico, California requires $35,000).
4) A State Motor Vehicle Department certificate for money or government bonds for a set amount on deposit with the State Treasurer (usually has a lesser amount required).
5) A certificate of proof of financial responsibility signed by an insurance agent on a form prescribed by your state's Motor Vehicle Department.

Most folks are not aware of these laws.

 

[Baptist Believer]

You do not have to necessarily purchase auto insurance in many states, but you must show proof of financial responsibility.

Yes, I am aware of that. For instance, Texas requires either automotive insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility.

However, I was not sure of the laws in every one of the 50 states, so I made the broadest applicable argument using the most restrictive state criteria to make the point.

I didn't want to have the main point lost in the midst of niggling about more restrictive laws in certain states, whereby people could say that insurance was "definitely required" in their state, so therefore the federal government could require everyone to buy health insurance. Even if that were true everywhere, it is not an apt comparison.

 

[rbell]

I didn't want to have the main point lost in the midst of niggling about more restrictive laws in certain states, whereby people could say that insurance was "definitely required" in their state, so therefore the federal government could require everyone to buy health insurance. Even if that were true everywhere, it is not an apt comparison.

Good line of thought.

As you said--apples and oranges. Driving is a privilege. Not to mention--requiring health insurance from all Americans--collection to be enforced by the IRS--doubly makes it a dubious comparison.