State Lawmakers Move To Ban Health Insurance Mandates

The New York Times:

ST. PAUL -- In more than a dozen statehouses across the country, a small but growing group of lawmakers is pressing for state constitutional amendments that would outlaw a crucial element of the health care plans under discussion in Washington: the requirement that everyone buy insurance or pay a penalty.

Read the whole story: The New York Times

Comments

[Lemmy]

That will be the least of the state's worries regarding this health care "reform". . .

"One reason it allegedly "pays for itself" over 10 years is because it would break all 50 state budgets by permanently expanding Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for the poor.

Democrats want to use Medicaid to cover everyone up to at least 133% of the federal poverty level, or about $30,000 for a family of four. Starting in 2014, Mr. Baucus plans to spend $287 billion through 2019—or about one-third of ObamaCare's total spending—to add some 11 million new people to the Medicaid rolls.

About 59 million people are on Medicaid today—which means that a decade from now about a quarter of the total population would be on a program originally sold as help for low-income women, children and the disabled. State budgets would explode—by $37 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office—because they would no longer be allowed to set eligibility in line with their own decisions about taxes and spending. This is the mother—and father and crazy uncle—of unfunded mandates."

WSJ 9/28/09

[wdw505]

wow........sounds like a hel1 of a plan

laughing

“The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” —Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain,

[Artemis34]

No one should be required to give even more money to those criminal enterprises we erroneously call insurance companies.

Private "insurance companies" have been r0bbing US and k.!l!ing US at the point of a pen for too long.

We can't even talk about mandatory participation without an affordable public option.

[Eggsackley]

We need to recognize that finance and insurance are national in nature and should be regulated on a national level. Congress clearly has the power to do that Over twenty years ago, the insurance companies bought enough Congressmen to pass ERISA under the authority of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. ERISA was then upheld by the Supreme Court. ERISA replaced all the State common law remedies for bad faith insurance practices in health care and replaced them with a much weaker federal remedy. However, the insurers wanted to keep their cushy relationships with State regulators. This also allowed them to realize greater profits by not competing on a national level. So ERISA We need to eliminate all state regulation of banks, savings and loans, credit card companies, insurance of all kind. This will eliminate wasteful duplication of government oversight, and create national competition among insurers, provided there is a strong public option to keep them from colluding to set excessive rates as they do now. The last thing insurers want is to lose their monopolistic power to wring excess profits out of the market. The fact that they are fighting so hard to defeat a public option is the best proof that it is needed.

[AnnfromCA]

More than a few lawsuits will be filed if that is part of the healthcare reform bill.

[FGDinVA]

If there is sufficient precedent, the states could very well block specific clauses of the health care reform bill that might require mandates. However, then the federal government might feel it necessary to withhold reimbursements to hospitals within those states that help to offset the cost of care for those without insurance.

It's a sticky situation. On the one hand, I'm amazed that anyone wouldn't think they need health insurance. On the other hand, I don't think a penalty to the individual is the answer either, even though we are basically paying a $1000/yr "penalty" in higher healthcare costs because of medical expenses accrued by people without insurance. BUT! On the other hand (that's 3 so far), are those uninsured patients people who can afford coverage and choose not to have it, or people who can't afford it in the first place? Will providing affordable insurance to lower income people offset the need for a mandate? Maybe so.

[wdw505]

"Will providing affordable insurance to lower income people offset the need for a mandate? " who will pay this bill

[ForObamaInDallas]

This is grand standing. These people don't have the b@lls. They did this for the stimulus package yet accepted government funds. And while my dumb.@ss governor was yelling "Secession!" he was asking for more federal help for border patrol. They're doing this as chest beating to "show" the voter base they are standing up to the Big Bad Government.

When it comes right down to it, they'll be the first to accept federal funds for ANYTHING.

[Wickywoo]

As usual, State's Rights is code for abusing people

[wdw505]

the only way any bill of value will pass is if they do line item by line item on the things most can agree on.

address the following one by one

Insurance companies may not use preexisting conditions when pricing

Insurance companies may not drop you if you get sick as long as the premium is paid

No insurance caps

A company or individual may purchase from any insurance company in any state from any state.

[Wulfbrande]

Don't forget the 65% of the American people who want the Public Option. That's the only way the insurance companies are going to stay honest, and not find some loophole in the laws regarding the two points above.

[FGDinVA]

Exactly. You show me a large corporation and I'll show one that knows how to get around just about anything, including providing what their customers have paid for - namely, the insurance against financial ruin in the case of medical expenses.

[wdw505]

70% said they want reform....­.....nothi­ng more..........i believe this problem can be addressed incrementally

[JackND]

I totally agree with what they are doing...lacking a public option, a mandate is absolutely outrageous.

[wdw505]

even with a public option a mandate is absolutely outrageous.

[FGDinVA]

I'm not in favor of a mandate in any case either, but why wouldn't you want to have health insurance? Even if one were to pay a penalty, it still would not provide health care coverage if they needed it (as I understand it).

[jazabelz]

Then how come automobile and home insurance are mandatory?

[OhComeOnNow]

This guy has delcared himself a candidate for MN governor in the Pawlenty mode. A naysayer and obstructionist, this move to ban mandates is no surprise to anyone here in Minnestoa.

http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/4097/note-to-minnesota-tom-emmer-hates-you

[wdw505]

good, i love it .........funny as hel1

[OhComeOnNow]

Grandstanding buf foon.

[OhComeOnNow]

Emmer is a...

[Mixpixlix]

How interesting that states with the highest number of uninsured and Medicaid recipients scream the loudest against mandates. As was revealed over the weeked at the FREE CLINIC event in Houston. Texas has the highest number of uninusured in the nation, yet Gov. Perry refuses to recognize the need for healthcare reform.

WAKE UP PEOPLE. Your money is being spent very unwisely and you and your family are at risk.

If we don't get real healthcare reform that provides affordable accessible care to individuals, families and businesses, the U.S.A. can kiss it's status as a first world nation goodbye.

[marijam]

Good. There shouldn't be a mandate unless there's a public option. A public option open to any and all who want it. No catch-22 triggers, either.

[tucsoncindy]

After reading the full article and researching Dr. Eric Novack, I found " This Makes Me Sick" a web page that the fine Doctor once had. Dr. Novack also had a radio show in Phoenix a few years back. His take seems to be " If we patients didn't sue for malpractice " , or if the State of AZ. set limits on malpractice awards the Insurance Coverage for Doctor's would not be so expensive. These articles date back to 2006. Check out the Sept. 09 article more BS....I'm getting very discouraged at this point.

[marijam]

Texas has proved that tort reform does not, let me repeat that, does not, lower health care costs.

[JePense]

Nor does it reduce incidents of medical malpractice!

[Gidster]

2% of all health care costs result from malpractice lawsuits.....Not really a huge number in the $2.5 trillion spent on health care nationwide....

[PWM]

Health Insurance Costs (NCHC) http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

[AirViceMarshalPark]

“And tell me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the federal government has the right to provide health care? This is the essence of the debate.” - Rep. Emmer, from the article

How about that funny little part that says, "...provide for the general welfare..."?

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the Federal Government has the right to mandate the Federal Air Regulations for airlines, either.

[Gidster]

Like Free Speech, it only applies when and where they say it does.

Bush ran roughshod over the Constitution, I remember distinctly in the Bill of Rights, we are to be protected from unwarranted searches, yet not a word from these guys that was not cheer leading!

They pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they want to apply, just like they do the Bible....

Hypocrites and liars.....

[wdw505]

it says general welfare not individual welfare!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!

but thanks for playing

[FGDinVA]

And yet, somehow, the individual's right to bear arms affects the genral welfare of residents in nursing homes and police officers in Pittsburgh. Especially the de.ad ones.

[PWM]

General implies individual.

[PWM]

Also, Emmer should read

The founding Fathers intended the government to provide for people:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." - Declaration of Independence

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - US constitution

Did he notice promote the general welfare - do you think they intended to allow insurance companies to have the power of life and death over citizens!

[gonbald]

provide for the general welfare..."?

General who?
To hell with you lower ranks.

[wdw505]

agreed

[goodpyr]

AirViceMarshalPark,
Try Article 1 Sect 8 of the Constirution.

[Gidster]

That section lays out some foundations for the federal government:

Coin money, build roads, assemble an army/navy, promote science, convene courts, punish pirates, declare war, assemble a National Guard etc.....

Are you implying that they should do nothing else at all? Leave the rest to the states? Roll back civil rights? Disband the Air Force? Roll back women's voting rights? Re institute slavery?

Because that is what happens if the Constitution is left in the 18th Century.....

[DRaymond]

People who think that this has any chance of working are clearly living in a fantasy world. Not only is there the matter of the supremacy of federal law, but the individual mandate is enforced through the income tax. Do you think the court is going to rule that it is OK for states to exempt their citizens from certain provisions of the income tax? I mean that would be a nice fantasy, but no way is it actually going to be allowed to happen.

[viflyer]

I agree, these are political stunts by various legislatures. However, it does help point out the rediculous healthcare legislation , that is moving through Congress.

[AirViceMarshalPark]

OK, tenther, your flight must land before entering Kansas because it doesn't meet Kansas airworthiness laws. You must transfer to another airplane. Once airborne, you will be under Kansas Air Traffic Control and it has different regulations from Missouri Air Traffic Control.

Your Vermont marriage is not legal in New Mexico and your driver's license is not honored in California.