- advertisement -

ALEC Applauds Missouri Vote to Allow Health Care Act to Proceed

Discussion in 'US Health Care Reform' started by MReinhardt, Aug 4, 2010.

  1. MReinhardt

    MReinhardt Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,953
    Last night, the state of Missouri voted to pass Proposition C, also known as the "Health Care Freedom Act," barring governments from requiring people to have health insurance. The measure conflicts with a key provision of the new federal health care law that requires people to have health insurance or pay fines by 2014. The proposition is modeled after the American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which has now been introduced or announced in 42 states.

    More info: http://www.redorbit.com/news/health...health_care_act_to/index.html?source=r_health


    Check you state out http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm...aggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=29&ContentID=13558
     
  2. chbarnes

    chbarnes Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,215
    I have mostly avoided this topic, but frankly, insurance of all types only works if the majority of people paying premiums don't make claims. This is true for health insurance, too. When we decided as a society that we would not abandon the sick and injured because they could not pay, it created an obligation for everyone to buy insurance if they can afford it. My experience is that uninsured persons with good jobs usually expect free care. The truly poor usually offer to make payments.
    People have asked me to write-off their balance in the same visit they tell me about their home-remodeling project or upcoming cruise.
    I think everyone who can afford health insurance has an ethical obligation to buy it - or be prepared to pay cash.

    Chuck
     
  3. Lakeman

    Lakeman Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    956
    First let me say that I understand why you would avoid topics like this one. They can get heated. I do not wish to create any ill will between you and I but I do simply disagree. There is more than one way to skin a cat and I believe we can honor the intent of what you say while still finding a solution that others like too. I don't believe that Democrats and Republicans can do that but, hey, who is supposed to be in charge of running this country anyway, us or them? we are supposed to be in charge and they are just supposed to do what we want. I think they forget that many times.

    We decided as a society long before government provided health care that we would not abandon the sick and injured. And we did so with no obligation to coerce people to abandon their rights to their hard earned property that they need to sustain their own lives.

    We CAN continue to provide care to the sick and injured without coercing people to buy a privately produced product and without violating the constitutional rights of 100% of the population.

    Everyone does have an ethical obligation to help provide for the sick and injured. The gov has no constitutional authority to be the means of that assistance and therefore no authority to make you pay for their care when you can very well pay for their care on your own.

    If you earn money then you are the best person in the whole world to decide how that money is best spent. You may choose to buy food for your family and may at the same time choose to fund a hospital (we have a long history of funding hospitals in this country). As health care costs rise I urge you all to help out more than you may be used to. I also urge you all to support solutions that lower costs and create a society that respects freedoms at the same time.

    There is no reason to give up liberty when we can offer the sick and injured security of our own free will. But if we take the other road and give up liberty for security then we will lose both.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2011
  4. Lakeman

    Lakeman Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    956
    I applaud Missouri!
     
  5. Lakeman

    Lakeman Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    956
    The insured have already paid for the covered treatment in their insurance premiums. If it is an uncovered procedure then they should pay for it themselves.

    And if they are buying luxuries then I hope that they are not only taking responsibility for their own expenses as they are legally required to do but I hope that they are also contributing greatly to the care of others as they are ethically and morally responsible to do (but which would be a moral and ethical violation if we forced them to)

    The truly poor qualify for medicaid so they would be foolish to be paying for the treatments themselves.
     
  6. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    Utah has also passed a similar piece of legislation. I believe the federal judge in Virginia spelled out the matter precisely; this is not about healthcare, it's about opening the door to allowing the federal government to require free people to buy something they may not want or need.
     
  7. Lakeman

    Lakeman Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    956
    I agree that this huge issue in our country it is not about health care. Everyone wants everyone to have good health care. And in fact, in the US everyone, every single solitary person, has some recourse by which they can get health care - though they may not like it. The way I see it for our politicians (of both major parties) this is about shaping the legal and political landscape to their own best interests while making secondary efforts to provide government services. They think they can work the system and simultaneously provide good government services. But they are failing to provide good government services which is of course why congress has approval ratings in the low teens.

    I believe the most recent health care legislation was about increasing the size of government more than about offering health care to 51 million uninsured because the 51 million uninsured had access to health care. The politicians are working the system and they are playing with fire. They create alliances with corporations. Large insurance companies would like there to be less players and to have a larger part of the pie and the congressmen would like to have more control over the pie itself. So they get in bed together. When corporations and government cooperate to this degree it is called corporatism and it is a threat to our very democracy.

    I am reminded of the Townsend Acts. The British enacted a few acts purportedly to raise revenue from the colonies (whom had no representatives in parliament). The colonies hated the idea of being taxed too highly and hated the form of the taxes, and hated that they had no representatives, and hated that the stated purpose of the acts was to raise revenue which they felt was unconstitutional. The British responded (with shortsightedness and incompletely to the complaints) that the colonies had virtual representation. The acts were small and would raise a pittance in taxes but the people were outraged and understood that it was not about taxes but about British control over the colonies. These events led to the Boston Massacre and then the Boston Tea Party and then the alliance between the parliament and the East India Company and eventually to the American Revolution. History reports that the colonies were lost to the British because of a lack of representation, actual documents from the time indicate that the colonist complained about the unconstitutionality of the acts but in reality it was about who got control of the pie. It could have all been avoided and the US would still be a part of Britain.
     

Share This Page

- advertisement -

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice