• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Missouri Health Care Freedom Act

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I love my state of Missouri because I'll have a chance to vote on a Constitutional Amendment that will nullify the federal health care nationalization within the state of Missouri.

Missouri Health Care Freedom Act
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
30,282
Reaction score
33,005
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Um... can you please show me where nationalization took place?
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Um... can you please show me where nationalization took place?
It's under the part of the health care take over act where the government mandates what doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies can charge. It's also under the part where the government will levy fines and jail time to anyone that doesn't buy 'private' or government health insurance. That's nationalization just like the government nationalized GM and Ford.
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
30,282
Reaction score
33,005
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nationalization, also spelled nationalisation, is the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state. Nationalization usually refers to private assets, but may also mean assets owned by lower levels of government, such as municipalities, being transferred to the public sector to be operated by or owned by the state. The opposite of nationalization is usually privatization or de-nationalisation, but may also be municipalization.
If you have an argument to make, at least argue the right thing. You have legitimate grievances against the Health Care Bill. But it is under no definition Nationalization. No HMO's were bought up by the Gov.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
If you have an argument to make, at least argue the right thing. You have legitimate grievances against the Health Care Bill. But it is under no definition Nationalization. No HMO's were bought up by the Gov.
I find it humorous that you took exception to one part of my statement, while ignoring the point of the thread entirely. If and when you want to discuss the topic of the thread let me know. For all intents and purposes, the federal health care bill nationalizes the health care system.
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
30,282
Reaction score
33,005
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I find it humorous that you took exception to one part of my statement, while ignoring the point of the thread entirely. If and when you want to discuss the topic of the thread let me know. For all intents and purposes, the federal health care bill nationalizes the health care system.
right back at you. And thanks for ignoring the definition of Nationalization :) Wow some of you conservatives are now re-writing definitions to suit your arguments... Genuis.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
right back at you. And thanks for ignoring the definition of Nationalization :) Wow some of you conservatives are now re-writing definitions to suit your arguments... Genuis.
Except that I didn't posit the argument to begin with. I followed what has already been established by the US government and posted Missouri's reply to the federal health care bill. Also, there have been nationalization of industries before without the government actually owning it. I can think of four industries that were nationalized via federal law during WWII, which was automobile manufacturing, ship building, aircraft manufacturing, and agriculture. Not a single share was traded to the government nor did the government spend any money to buy the industries in question. They passed a law that made the companies engaged in those activities to be part of the government to ensure that wartime production could be met. Thus, the precedent has always been a part of the US political landscape before the health care bill was passed. If you have a problem with the definition as used by the US government, I suggest you take it up with all the politicians that were alive during WWII for them changing what nationalization means.
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
30,282
Reaction score
33,005
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Except that I didn't posit the argument to begin with. I followed what has already been established by the US government and posted Missouri's reply to the federal health care bill. Also, there have been nationalization of industries before without the government actually owning it. I can think of four industries that were nationalized via federal law during WWII, which was automobile manufacturing, ship building, aircraft manufacturing, and agriculture. Not a single share was traded to the government nor did the government spend any money to buy the industries in question. They passed a law that made the companies engaged in those activities to be part of the government to ensure that wartime production could be met. Thus, the precedent has always been a part of the US political landscape before the health care bill was passed. If you have a problem with the definition as used by the US government, I suggest you take it up with all the politicians that were alive during WWII for them changing what nationalization means.
That makes sense. But please show me something in the health care bill that by your own underlined words happened that way? The Health Care Bill imposed regulations on the health care industry, no company was bought, or taken over.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
That makes sense. But please show me something in the health care bill that by your own underlined words happened that way? The Health Care Bill imposed regulations on the health care industry, no company was bought, or taken over.
The law tells hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies what they can and cannot do just like the laws passed during WWII that nationalized the automobile, aircraft, agriculture, and ship manufacturers. Just like the laws passed in WWII failure for those companies to comply will mean jail time for both the customers and the owners. It's nationalization without the purchasing of the industry in question, which is identical to what had occured in WWII. Essentialyl, the health care law makes the entire health care industry a part of the US government.
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
30,282
Reaction score
33,005
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The law tells hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies what they can and cannot do just like the laws passed during WWII that nationalized the automobile, aircraft, agriculture, and ship manufacturers. Just like the laws passed in WWII failure for those companies to comply will mean jail time for both the customers and the owners. It's nationalization without the purchasing of the industry in question, which is identical to what had occured in WWII. Essentialyl, the health care law makes the entire health care industry a part of the US government.
Whatever dude. If you want I could spare some money to buy you a dictionary?
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Whatever dude. If you want I could spare some money to buy you a dictionary?
Save your money and buy yourself some American history books that cover United States history in depth.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Even if I did you might argue the book has a liberal leaning ;)
Nope, I'll point out any historical inaccuracies with primary source documentation. I respect facts.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Except definitions of words which you use in the wrong context.
I used the proper definition in the proper context in regards to the US federal government and nationalizing an industry. I've shown it to be conclusive that in the US that the federal health care bill is consistent with the nationalization of industries within the confines of the United States since the 1930's. You have brought forth exactly zero evidence to support your claims within the context of the United States and the federal government. Just because Canada uses a different definition and context for the same word doesn't make it true for the US or any other English speaking country in the world. There is such a thing as the branching of languages into newer languages that share a common root. Canada uses the Queen's English while the United States does not and has not since 1783. 227 years is quite a divergence in the languages, even when they share a common root. Now do you have anything to add that is on topic or are you going to continue trying to tell this Missouri citizen that has studied American history for almost 30 years that he is wrong about the use of the word nationalization within the context of the US federal government's historical and current use of the term? If you are then I suggest you go buy a book on US history starting with the 1620's up until the current day.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,928
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Um, why does Missouri think it can override the federal government?
 

Your Star

Rage More!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,928
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
They are under no obligation to follow laws that are unconstitutional or outside of jurisdiction.
It's not up to Missouri to decide what is unconstitutional.

So, I ask again what makes Missouri think it can override the Federal Government?
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It's not up to Missouri to decide what is unconstitutional.

So, I ask again what makes Missouri think it can override the Federal Government?
I'm pretty sure they are well within their authority to do such a thing.
There is no law saying they can't nullify a federal law based on improper jurisdiction or unconstitutional merit.

If the Fed's want to challenge them on this they can go to the supreme court.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It's not up to Missouri to decide what is unconstitutional.

So, I ask again what makes Missouri think it can override the Federal Government?
Thomas Jefferson had this to say on the matter in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 about the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
James Madison had this to say in the Virginia Resolution of 1798 about the Alien and Sedition Acts.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.
The author of the Declaration of Independence and the author of the Constitution of the United States specifically say that the states have final say on what is constitutional or not.
 
Last edited:

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
30,282
Reaction score
33,005
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From the Free Dictionary

Nationalization - the act or process of the taking over of private industry by government.

The Business Dictionary

Nationalization - Takeover of privately owned corporations, industries, and resources by a government with or without compensation.

From Answers.com

Nationalization - The act of transferring ownership in various segments of the economy from the private sector to the public sector.

Allbusiness.com

Nationalization - takeover of a private company's assets or operations by a government. The company may or may not be compensated for the loss of assets.

encyclopedia.com

Nationalization - The process of bringing the assets of a business into the ownership of the state.

So a pretty solid definition of what nationalization is.

Now what the Health Care bill was, was a regulatory bill.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,188
Reaction score
32,353
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This bill doesn't "take over" anything. It doesn't tell doctors what they can and can't do. Regulation and takeover are not synonyms!
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This bill doesn't "take over" anything. It doesn't tell doctors what they can and can't do. Regulation and takeover are not synonyms!
It takes over the insurance companies and forms state run insurance exchanges. This in turn will tell doctors and hospitals what they can and cannot do. Under the health care takeover bill, no doctor or hospital can refuse to accept the government and 'private' insurance. It also mandates that everyone must purchase insurance in order to receive medical care. Failure to have insurance will result in jail time and fines. Insurance companies that refuse to adhere to health care takeover bill will be fined heavily and/or be absorbed by the government. I'd say that's a takeover.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,188
Reaction score
32,353
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It takes over the insurance companies and forms state run insurance exchanges. This in turn will tell doctors and hospitals what they can and cannot do. Under the health care takeover bill, no doctor or hospital can refuse to accept the government and 'private' insurance. It also mandates that everyone must purchase insurance in order to receive medical care. Failure to have insurance will result in jail time and fines. Insurance companies that refuse to adhere to health care takeover bill will be fined heavily and/or be absorbed by the government. I'd say that's a takeover.
No it doesn't "take over" the insurance companies.

No, there will be no jail time for failure to have insurance.

It doesn't mandate insurance in order to receive health care.

Whoever told these things to you lied. They lied. You're wrong. I'll say it again so it might sink in:

You have been lied to.
 
Top Bottom