34 states fighting mandatory healthcare

Mine is one of those states lil, (thank you rep. Dan Itse!!!!) along with a few others by the same rep to inoculate my state against federal intrusion on a number of areas, including fireamrs regulations and jury nulification of law capability. In most matters, state laws and co9nstitutions do in fact supercede federal laws, despite federal claims to the constrary. Hopefully people will wise up and start electing state governemtns that recognize this as well as sheriffs who are willing to have their officers enforce the state protections and arests and prosecute federal agents and officials atempting to enforce unconstitutional and illegal laws.

Shame, a public health care system is the mark of a civilised country all the best urban

Lil, you know I'm very passionate about this issue but I've gotten to the point where I don't know WHAT to think and I'm sure not going to make any predictions about what's going to happen! I honestly don't know if the individual state constitutions will override a federal bill or not. Let's put it this way, those of us ordinary citizens who care about the Constitution and think we know how to interpret have certainly been surprised before by court rulings so who knows how it would play out in court. I've had VERY mixed feelings on a mandate from the beginning. Nobody wants to be told they have to spend their hard earned money on something they don't want to spend it on and I HATE the idea that the crooked, corrupt, GREEDY insurance companies would be the biggest winners if there were a mandate. However, on the flip side I DO understand the need for a mandate to make the type of health care reform on the table have any chance of working. The goals are supposed to be to cover those who aren't insured and to bring costs down for everyone, right? Since we as a country aren't about to change the laws so someone who is unable to pay for treatment could be refused care in an ER as long as there is no mandate there will always be some who for whatever reason choose not to get insurance with the knowledge that they can always use the ER as their doctor's office and if they can't pay, they can't pay. ER bills are several times higher than doctor visits not to mention that when someone waits to visit the ER their illness is usually more expensive to treat, so all these bills that are unnecessarily high will be passed on to anyone who has insurance or can pay in the form of higher premiums and higher fees. Basically, I'd have to see the final product once a bill has been reconciled between the two bills before I could really pass judgment but my feeling is that there would have to be generous subsidies for lower to middle income people and there would have to be a cap on how much of one's income they could be required to pay. I've said this before over and over again but what I'd like to see happen is for this to push Congress into realizing a single-payer system which makes it totally clear that all medical decisions are up to the patient and the doctors is the only true way to go. Annie

Well based on the 10th amendment it would. It's not in the U.S. Constitution so it is a power left to the states.

hi lil - sorry i don't have any opinion whatsoever on this but i wanted to add something to the box above. i am adding my own response so if anybody can be bothered explaining this particular debate (i don't mean healthcare, i mean your constitution question) can.

Federal law would trump until it got challenged in court. The point of the changing of the state constitutions is to be able to challenge it in court.

My State had passed this a few years ago, but as it stands, it is not enforced. We will see this fall!