Obamacare Defeated 71%-29% in Missou!

[amicus]

http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2010/08/02/daily35.html

Missouri overwhelmingly approved Proposition C at Tuesday's primary election with 71 percent of voters supporting a law banning the government from forcing residents to buy health insurance....


Missouri Lt. Governor Peter Kinder called Tuesday a historic night. “Missourians have the distinction of being the first Americans to go to the ballot box and reject the reckless federal health-care takeover," he said. "From Massachusetts to Virginia to Missouri, voters are rejecting the extreme liberal agenda being forced upon our nation by an out-of-control federal government.”

***

Twenty other States have ballot measures or legislation pending as Americans reject socialized medicine at the ballot box!

Someone say 'constitutional crisis'?

The people ain't buying what obamaites are selling.

Amicus

 

[Boxlicker101]

http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2010/08/02/daily35.html




***

Twenty other States have ballot measures or legislation pending as Americans reject socialized medicine at the ballot box!

Someone say 'constitutional crisis'?

The people ain't buying what obamaites are selling.

Amicus

Even so, some people on this forum will insist "The People" want it. Does this have any effect on what happens in MO or is this just an expression of opinion?

 

[amicus]

Even so, some people on this forum will insist "The People" want it. Does this have any effect on what happens in MO or is this just an expression of opinion?[/QUOTE]

~~~

I listened to a couple constitutional attornies arguing the issue; it seems the 'Commerce Clause' of the Constitution is at the root of the lawsuit, and just how far the government can go to compel a citizen to purchase any product such as health insurance.

The other attorney responded that the requirement to purchase health insurance is a 'tax' which the government has the authority to impose.

The right counters that government is out of control and that the Executive Branch is by-passing Congress and assuming more power than the constitution authorizes.

Each side says they are certain of winning before the Surpreme Court.

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

What I read says Obama's lawyers are spinning the case around the governments right to tax. That is, Obama characterizes the insurance mandate as a tax. Some of us knew ObamaCare was a tax grab from the get-go.

 

[Pure]

Missouri overwhelmingly approved Proposition C at Tuesday's primary election with 71 percent of voters supporting a law banning the government from forcing residents to buy health insurance....


Missouri Lt. Governor Peter Kinder called Tuesday a historic night. “Missourians have the distinction of being the first Americans to go to the ballot box and reject the reckless federal health-care takeover," he said. "From Massachusetts to Virginia to Missouri, voters are rejecting the extreme liberal agenda being forced upon our nation by an out-of-control federal government.”
------

pure: US citizens will have to buy insurance from PRIVATE companies, dolt, i.e. the biggies like Kaiser, Cigna, etc., which remain in PRIVATE hands.

further subsidies are to be given to the poorest.

many areas and countries have compulsory auto insurance--again, usually to be bought from PRIVATE companies-- and that is, yes, a mild coercion. HOWEVER, like the healthcare requirement, it puts billions of dollars into private company coffers.

odd to see why republicans would object to making some major corporations even richer. (actually, i predict that will not happen; the Missouri gov and other yahoos are simply spreading lies for political gain. the health insurance lobby will insure that Republicans stay onside.).

 

[Boxlicker101]

Missouri overwhelmingly approved Proposition C at Tuesday's primary election with 71 percent of voters supporting a law banning the government from forcing residents to buy health insurance....


Missouri Lt. Governor Peter Kinder called Tuesday a historic night. “Missourians have the distinction of being the first Americans to go to the ballot box and reject the reckless federal health-care takeover," he said. "From Massachusetts to Virginia to Missouri, voters are rejecting the extreme liberal agenda being forced upon our nation by an out-of-control federal government.”
------

pure: US citizens will have to buy insurance from PRIVATE companies, dolt, i.e. the biggies like Kaiser, Cigna, etc., which remain in PRIVATE hands.

further subsidies are to be given to the poorest.

many areas and countries have compulsory auto insurance--again, usually to be bought from PRIVATE companies-- and that is, yes, a mild coercion. HOWEVER, like the healthcare requirement, it puts billions of dollars into private company coffers.

odd to see why republicans would object to making some major corporations even richer. (actually, i predict that will not happen; the Missouri gov and other yahoos are simply spreading lies for political gain. the health insurance lobby will insure that Republicans stay onside.).

You can't really compare auto insurance to health insurance, because the former is required only of a specific class - the owners of automobiles, if those automobiles are driven on the public streets. The latter will be required of everybody.

I went many years without auto insurance because I did not own a car. Once I bought one, I needed liability insurance for the protection of other drivers. I had no collision, etc. insurance on my first car. I did have liability insurance, because, if I injured somebody, that person would be made whole again, even if I could not personally afford to pay for the damage I might have caused.

 

[statsultan]

Even so, some people on this forum will insist "The People" want it. Does this have any effect on what happens in MO or is this just an expression of opinion?[/QUOTE]

~~~

I listened to a couple constitutional attornies arguing the issue; it seems the 'Commerce Clause' of the Constitution is at the root of the lawsuit, and just how far the government can go to compel a citizen to purchase any product such as health insurance.

The other attorney responded that the requirement to purchase health insurance is a 'tax' which the government has the authority to impose.

The right counters that government is out of control and that the Executive Branch is by-passing Congress and assuming more power than the constitution authorizes.

Each side says they are certain of winning before the Surpreme Court.

Amicus

It sounds like the "Right's" attorney was an idiot. He was arguing the wrong part of the constitution, and then said that the executive ignored congress when the bill was passed by ... Congress!

And the Missouri vote means nothing. A state cannot pass a law allowing its citizens to ignore a federal law or, in this case, a federal tax.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The bottomline is Obama can tax you however he pleases and he doesnt have to call his tax a tax.

 

[Seduc1ove]

You can't really compare auto insurance to health insurance, because the former is required only of a specific class - the owners of automobiles, if those automobiles are driven on the public streets. The latter will be required of everybody.

I went many years without auto insurance because I did not own a car. Once I bought one, I needed liability insurance for the protection of other drivers. I had no collision, etc. insurance on my first car. I did have liability insurance, because, if I injured somebody, that person would be made whole again, even if I could not personally afford to pay for the damage I might have caused.

So if they said you are only required to purchase health insurance if you are a US citizen? Or in order to use public streets, sidewalks, parks, police force, etc. then it would be okay? That is an invalid argument. If they aren't allowed to require insurance then it applies across the board to all citizens. The reason Republicans try to make a distinction is because it makes that argument against the health care reform look foolish. Either the government has a right to to do it or not.

 

[JamesSD]

To be fair, Missouri is perfectly happy taking the BENEFITS of Health Care Reform. They just voted against paying for it. The individual mandate wasn't my preferred way to pay for it, but it was a compromise. Single payer was the obvious, rational solution, but the boogeyman of "socialism" keep that at bay, despite working pretty damn well in most of the industrialized world.

At this point, part of me wants states to be able to opt out of it, but they need to opt out completely. An opt out system could save states like Mass. and California tons of money, states that already have programs that bridge the gap and won't benefit nearly as much as states like... Missouri. The voters of missouri basically voted the equivalent of "We want to keep taking federal money for roads, etc, but don't want to pay taxes".

 

[Boxlicker101]

It sounds like the "Right's" attorney was an idiot. He was arguing the wrong part of the constitution, and then said that the executive ignored congress when the bill was passed by ... Congress!

And the Missouri vote means nothing. A state cannot pass a law allowing its citizens to ignore a federal law or, in this case, a federal tax.

What do you think of the recently passed law in AZ and "Sanctuary Cities?" Isn't the former a matter of telling police to enforce federal laws and the latter just the opposite?

 

[Boxlicker101]

So if they said you are only required to purchase health insurance if you are a US citizen? Or in order to use public streets, sidewalks, parks, police force, etc. then it would be okay? That is an invalid argument. If they aren't allowed to require insurance then it applies across the board to all citizens. The reason Republicans try to make a distinction is because it makes that argument against the health care reform look foolish. Either the government has a right to to do it or not.

Does Obamacare specify it only applies to those who use public facilities? If not, your argument is invalid.

 

[Seduc1ove]

Does Obamacare specify it only applies to those who use public facilities? If not, your argument is invalid.

Really? How so? My argument is that either they have a right to do it or they don't.

 

[statsultan]

What do you think of the recently passed law in AZ and "Sanctuary Cities?" Isn't the former a matter of telling police to enforce federal laws and the latter just the opposite?

It's mostly a matter of semantics, but granted, with real world consequences.

Local and state police, under current law that passes constitutional muster, may inquire about a person's immigration status if it flows from their other ministerial duties, and they can pass that information on to the Feds. But they cannot take action themselves (arresting and deporting) because it is a realm of law left exclusively to the Federal government by the U.S. Constitution - thus the Arizona law is unconstitutional and has already been struck down in court by a conservative judge. There's no way the court could have ruled any other way. The law is clear.

Sanctuary cities are cities where the policy is that even if a question about immigration status would naturally flow from a police duty, the police are still not allowed to ask it. There's nothing unconstitutional about that either. Its a policy clearly reserving enforcement of federal law to the feds.

 

[Seduc1ove]

It's mostly a matter of semantics, but granted, with real world consequences.

Local and state police, under current law that passes constitutional muster, may inquire about a person's immigration status if it flows from their other ministerial duties, and they can pass that information on to the Feds. But they cannot take action themselves (arresting and deporting) because it is a realm of law left exclusively to the Federal government by the U.S. Constitution - thus the Arizona law is unconstitutional and has already been struck down in court by a conservative judge. There's no way the court could have ruled any other way. The law is clear.

Sanctuary cities are cities where the policy is that even if a question about immigration status would naturally flow from a police duty, the police are still not allowed to ask it. There's nothing unconstitutional about that either. Its a policy clearly reserving enforcement of federal law to the feds.

Isn't that law on hold?

 

[Boxlicker101]

It's mostly a matter of semantics, but granted, with real world consequences.

Local and state police, under current law that passes constitutional muster, may inquire about a person's immigration status if it flows from their other ministerial duties, and they can pass that information on to the Feds. But they cannot take action themselves (arresting and deporting) because it is a realm of law left exclusively to the Federal government by the U.S. Constitution - thus the Arizona law is unconstitutional and has already been struck down in court by a conservative judge. There's no way the court could have ruled any other way. The law is clear.

Sanctuary cities are cities where the policy is that even if a question about immigration status would naturally flow from a police duty, the police are still not allowed to ask it. There's nothing unconstitutional about that either. Its a policy clearly reserving enforcement of federal law to the feds.

I am not completely sure about this, but I believe a sworn officer is called that because he or she has taken an oath and sworn to uphold local, state and federal laws. Since an illegal is in violation of the law, a sworn officer who does not report that person would be in dereliction of duty.

ETA: Local police cannot deport somebody, but they often arrest and incarcerate those who are in violation of federal law. If somebody is seen robbing a bank - usually a federal crime - and the cops are called, they will be local police, and they will try to arrest that person and hold him or her in jail.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Does Obamacare specify it only applies to those who use public facilities? If not, your argument is invalid.

Really? How so? My argument is that either they have a right to do it or they don't.

If Obamacare does not include the specifics you mentiioned, you have created a straw man. I believe we are discussing the law the way it is written.

 

[Seduc1ove]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Does Obamacare specify it only applies to those who use public facilities? If not, your argument is invalid.




If Obamacare does not include the specifics you mentiioned, you have created a straw man. I believe we are discussing the law the way it is written.

So if the insurance mandate does not require you to use public facilities then "the government either has the right to or it doesn't."?????

 

[statsultan]

I am not completely sure about this, but I believe a sworn officer is called that because he or she has taken an oath and sworn to uphold local, state and federal laws. Since an illegal is in violation of the law, a sworn officer who does not report that person would be in dereliction of duty.

ETA: Local police cannot deport somebody, but they often arrest and incarcerate those who are in violation of federal law. If somebody is seen robbing a bank - usually a federal crime - and the cops are called, they will be local police, and they will try to arrest that person and hold him or her in jail.

There are some areas of law specifically reserved to the Federal Government by the U.S. Constitution. Matters involving immigration is one of them. The federal gov't has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. The Arizona law was incorrect because it forced state police to enforce federal immigration law. That's a direct violation of the separation of powers.

You are correct in that many believe that police have a duty to investigate and report violations of federal law to the appropriate federal agencies, which is what makes Sanctuary Cities so controversial. But as far as I know, no court has ruled against any policeman or elected official for failing to pass information regarding an individual's immigrant status to the INS.

But your example involving robbing a bank isn't a good analogy. Robbing a bank involves numerous violations of state laws (assault, battery, robbery, aggravated robbery, etc.) that local police have a duty to investigate and arrest for that even though there might be additional federal laws violated by the robbers.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Nonsense. Federal already requires state/local police to enforce immigration laws. Youre confused about dual sovereignty. The Feds handle foreign policy and create policies and rules to administer foreign policy, and the states enforce the law and policies.

When a felon flees and goes to another state to avoid prosecution, he breaks Federal Law. But the police in the other state dont sit on their asses and ignore the felon; they capture his ass and hand him over to the FBI. Ditto for army deserters.

 

[Loring2]

Even so, some people on this forum will insist "The People" want it. Does this have any effect on what happens in MO or is this just an expression of opinion?[/QUOTE]

~~~

I listened to a couple constitutional attornies arguing the issue; it seems the 'Commerce Clause' of the Constitution is at the root of the lawsuit, and just how far the government can go to compel a citizen to purchase any product such as health insurance.

The other attorney responded that the requirement to purchase health insurance is a 'tax' which the government has the authority to impose.

The right counters that government is out of control and that the Executive Branch is by-passing Congress and assuming more power than the constitution authorizes.

Each side says they are certain of winning before the Surpreme Court.

Amicus

The attorney who responded that the "health insurance" is in reality "a tax" is spreading nonsense.

The congress could indeed have passed a law which "taxed the people" for the cost of health care but it didn't and our illustrious President does not have the power to do two things.

First, he is not empowered to unilaterally change a bill which has been passed by congress and second he cannot create a "tax" on the people. Such a tax must be imposed by congress.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LORING.

Obama's lawyers are arguing that ObamaCare is a tax scheme and immune from Constitutional concerns. Seems pretty plain to me.

 

[Seduc1ove]

Plain and simple. There is already a precedent for requiring insurance with auto insurance that is imposed on all citizens in the US. There is also precedent for using taxes to enforce policy such as taxing cigarettes. Nothing being done is either unconstitutional, morally wrong, nor even new for that matter. Just more Republican BS trying to cast everything the Democrats do in a bad light and throw every challenge they can at it. Just like challenging the 9/11 responders and victims health bill.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Alas all the Democrat fun comes to a halt next January when mom & pop take the car keys and credit card back.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Plain and simple. There is already a precedent for requiring insurance with auto insurance that is imposed on all citizens in the US. There is also precedent for using taxes to enforce policy such as taxing cigarettes. Nothing being done is either unconstitutional, morally wrong, nor even new for that matter. Just more Republican BS trying to cast everything the Democrats do in a bad light and throw every challenge they can at it. Just like challenging the 9/11 responders and victims health bill.

Not all persons in the US are required to have car insurance. Car owners, citizens or not, are required to have liability insurance, so that if they are at fault in an accident, the injured parties can be made whole. This is to protect others, not the car owners, although it does prevent them from being liable for large amounts also. Those who do not own cars do not have insurance; you can't have insurance on something you don't possess.

Cigarettes and alcohol and, I understand, tanning beds are taxed or will be taxed, and there are excise taxes on other things for various reasons. Congress, not the president, has the authority to levy and collect taxes. That's why I believe the health insurance requirement is contrary to the Constitution. It is not paid to Congress; it is paid to the health insurance companies. Have you ever heard of a tax that is assessed by a governmental unit and is paid to a third party and is revenue for that third party?

Sometimes retailers charge sales or excise taxes and pass them along to the government. Sometimes manufacturers pay excise taxes to governments and pass the expense, as they do all their expenses, to the consumers. However, this is the first time I have ever heard of a government requiring citizens to buy services, whether they want them or think they need them, from private concerns. That's why I don't believe it will pass Constitutional muster.

What they maybe could have done would have been to require persons to include some kind of surcharge on their income tax returns, based on income and number of dependents, and designate the recipient of this surcharge, such as Aetna, Kaiser, Blue Cross, etc. This might have met Constitutional requirements, but I am not at all sure of that.