Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess the argument would apply to any product from another state. Like, no more Washington apples unless you live in Washington, no more California wines unless you live in California. etc, etc. all in the name of States' rights? Interesting.
yep, you got it, states rights has nothing to do with what we buy...
boy would a lot of us be up a creek if we couldn't buy CA wine. We don't make it here in AR. (well I bet some do)
I am wondering, what she meant about states rights? I still have no idea what that has to do with insurance...States rights has do with state laws versus federal laws.
No bills are being debated that would create a UHC.
If you are going to pretend to answer me, please answer the question I asked and please don't use a quote from an advocacy site. That insults both our intellegence.
No bills are being debated that would create a UHC.
If you are going to pretend to answer me, please answer the question I asked and please don't use a quote from an advocacy site. That insults both our intellegence.
H.R. 676 and S. 703
Quote:
Proposed Funding For HR 676 Program
Maintain current federal and state funding for existing healthcare programs; employer payroll tax of 4.5%, an employee payroll tax of 3.3%, in addition to the already existing 1.45% for Medicare; establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners; 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners, 1/3rd of 1% stock transaction tax, closing corporate tax loop-holes; repeal the Bush tax cut for the highest income earners.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,761,129 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
yep, you got it, states rights has nothing to do with what we buy...
boy would a lot of us be up a creek if we couldn't buy CA wine. We don't make it here in AR. (well I bet some do)
I am wondering, what she meant about states rights? I still have no idea what that has to do with insurance...States rights has do with state laws versus federal laws.
Nita
Actually you are wrong on that. The ONE item that states SOLEY regulate that is specifically exempt from the Interstate Commerce Clause is alcohol. The 21st Amendment item 2 specifically said it is up to the states to decide what their alcohol policies would be. Some states were "dry" until recent times. So if Arkansas wanted to ban wine from out of state it can do so.
Actually you are wrong on that. The ONE item that states SOLEY regulate that is specifically exempt from the Interstate Commerce Clause is alcohol. The 21st Amendment item 2 specifically said it is up to the states to decide what their alcohol policies would be. Some states were "dry" until recent times. So if Arkansas wanted to ban wine from out of state it can do so.
ok, you are right but I wasn't thinking about it in the same way you are. My comments were in response to someone saying republicans want states rights and still want to be able to be able to buy insurance from whereever, my point was, she doesn't have a clue what is meant by states rights.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,761,129 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
ok, you are right but I wasn't thinking about it in the same way you are. My comments were in response to someone saying republicans want states rights and still want to be able to be able to buy insurance from whereever, my point was, she doesn't have a clue what is meant by states rights.
Nita
I agree. And I don't think states have rights. People have rights.
I love the way the author characterizes buying insurance across state lines as the "Drill Baby Drill" of the health insurance debate. Genius!
I think each state should be able to say what rules the insurance companies have to abide by if they do business in that state. By allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines, it usurps the state insurance regulations.
Selling insurance across state lines is basically deregulation and we know how well deregulation works out...........
Insurance is defined as a state activity under the McCarran-Ferguson Act meaning it's not interstate commerce and not subject to federal regulation.
ANY legislation that FORCES insurance on Americans, is wrong.
So you disagree with car insurance being mandated?
In any case, I don't agree with forcing Americans to line the pockets of the private health insurance industry. I think we can agree on that much, right?
In a perfect world, we would have had this a loooong time ago.
Makes so much sense, yet in America, we love us some private corporations, so I doubt it will happen for decades.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
why selling across state lines isn't all it's cracked up to be
