Missouri Health Care Freedom Act

[Harry Guerrilla]

This bill is not a government takeover. Regulation is not takeover. Regulation is not socialism. Buying insurance from private companies is not socialism. Subsidies are not socialism. Words mean things!

It is specifically, economic fascism.

Forcing people to buy a privately managed product, from a company that is directed by the government.

 

[Deuce]

It is specifically, economic fascism.

Forcing people to buy a privately managed product, from a company that is directed by the government.

If there's one thing I've learned from this message board, it's that conservatives and libertarians are mostly incapable of thinking in terms other than black and white. First off, no, that's not what fascism means. Fascism is actually a specific term that just about everybody uses incorrectly in place of "SOMETHING I THINK IS BAD!"

Second, you're on the wrong scale. There's a difference between "hey lets regulate insurance companies more strongly" and "WOOO! COMMUNISM FOR EVERYONE!" You're a half-breath away from invoking the Godwin fallacy. Why not just say this bill is something Hitler would have liked? Because that's apparently the level of discource that your side wants to operate on. I mean, why bother debating specifics when you can just call it fascistsocialcommuliberalism?

Edit: And Monroe, for God's sake, you're still talking about a theoretical situation. No insurance company would willingly or knowingly put such a clause in their insurance contracts, and there's nothing in this bill that forces them to do so. Yes, theoretically some bonehead politician could introduce a bill that lets people opt-out of deductibles. Insurance companies would basically riot, and if that scenario did occur I'd be right there next to you holding up a protest sign and writing to my congressman urging him to vote against such a foolhardy idea.

You know, theoretically an asteroid could kill us all tomorrow, but there's no evidence that one will. So let's maybe worry about things that are actually happening?

 

[jallman]

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

As much as I applaud Missouri for taking this stand, I have to say it's blatantly illegal what they have done. Nullification was one of the central contentions leading up to the Civil War and it was deemed to be unlawful then. I don't think any rulings have come down to the contrary either.

 

[The_Patriot]

As much as I applaud Missouri for taking this stand, I have to say it's blatantly illegal what they have done. Nullification was one of the central contentions leading up to the Civil War and it was deemed to be unlawful then. I don't think any rulings have come down to the contrary either.

It's pefectly legal and the states have been doing nullification for a very long while. No Child Left Behind was nullified by Utah. Real ID was nullified by a lot of states, including Missouri. Recently, the federal firearms legislation has been nullified in a lot of states for weapons manufactured and sold inside state lines. The federal government cannot do anything about it, short of sending in the US military and declaring martial law.

 

[jallman]

It's pefectly legal and the states have been doing nullification for a very long while. No Child Left Behind was nullified by Utah. Real ID was nullified by a lot of states, including Missouri. Recently, the federal firearms legislation has been nullified in a lot of states for weapons manufactured and sold inside state lines. The federal government cannot do anything about it, short of sending in the US military and declaring martial law.

And they can and will do exactly that if it's what they deem fit to do. We fought a civil war over this exact issue and the issue was decided. Nullification is not legal. Hasn't been since the close of the civil war and this was reaffirmed in the 1950's when Cooper v Aaron was decided in response to 10 southern states trying to nullify Brown v Board of Education.

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions are great and they make for interesting legal theory, but that's all they are at this point. Nullification was decided and it was in the favor of the federal government.

For the record, I am staunchly opposed to the Health Care Reform act, also.

 

[The_Patriot]

And they can and will do exactly that if it's what they deem fit to do. We fought a civil war over this exact issue and the issue was decided. Nullification is not legal. Hasn't been since the close of the civil war and this was reaffirmed in the 1950's when Cooper v Aaron was decided in response to 10 southern states trying to nullify Brown v Board of Education.

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions are great and they make for interesting legal theory, but that's all they are at this point. Nullification was decided and it was in the favor of the federal government.

For the record, I am staunchly opposed to the Health Care Reform act, also.

The War of Northern Agression was all about taxes and the collection of them. It had nothing to do with nullification or secession.

 

[jallman]

The War of Northern Agression was all about taxes and the collection of them. It had nothing to do with nullification or secession.

You may want to brush up on your history. The great Nullification Question was centered around the Tariff of Abominations and South Carolina's move to nullify it using the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions as the legal theory. This brought about the Civil War in no small part.

And by the way, secession is a big part of the nullification theory. You may want to brush up on that whole issue as well.

 

[The_Patriot]

You may want to brush up on your history. The great Nullification Question was centered around the Tariff of Abominations and South Carolina's move to nullify it using the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions as the legal theory. This brought about the Civil War in no small part.

And by the way, secession is a big part of the nullification theory. You may want to brush up on that whole issue as well.

I'm quite familiar with it as it has been my focus in studying American history for as long as I have. It still doesn't change the fact that many federal laws are nullified by the state governments and the feds can't do anything about it.

 

[jallman]

I'm quite familiar with it as it has been my focus in studying American history for as long as I have. It still doesn't change the fact that many federal laws are nullified by the state governments and the feds can't do anything about it.

Except where the Feds do something about it. Laws may have exceptions and different applications to make them mesh with state laws but they are never simply "nullified" if the fed gov wants it to happen.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

If there's one thing I've learned from this message board, it's that conservatives and libertarians are mostly incapable of thinking in terms other than black and white. First off, no, that's not what fascism means. Fascism is actually a specific term that just about everybody uses incorrectly in place of "SOMETHING I THINK IS BAD!"

Second, you're on the wrong scale. There's a difference between "hey lets regulate insurance companies more strongly" and "WOOO! COMMUNISM FOR EVERYONE!" You're a half-breath away from invoking the Godwin fallacy. Why not just say this bill is something Hitler would have liked? Because that's apparently the level of discource that your side wants to operate on. I mean, why bother debating specifics when you can just call it fascistsocialcommuliberalism?

Edit: And Monroe, for God's sake, you're still talking about a theoretical situation. No insurance company would willingly or knowingly put such a clause in their insurance contracts, and there's nothing in this bill that forces them to do so. Yes, theoretically some bonehead politician could introduce a bill that lets people opt-out of deductibles. Insurance companies would basically riot, and if that scenario did occur I'd be right there next to you holding up a protest sign and writing to my congressman urging him to vote against such a foolhardy idea.

You know, theoretically an asteroid could kill us all tomorrow, but there's no evidence that one will. So let's maybe worry about things that are actually happening?

I did not bring up Hitler, so you better stop right there unless you want to Godwin this thread.

Price controls, cartelizing the industry, favoring large corporations, compulsory participation, a government bureaucracy charged with reviewing and approving corporate policy changes.

It fits the bill of economic fascism.
The state directing private industry.

You may not like the terminology but you have yet to show that it isn't, other than loudly protest with no factual evidence to prove otherwise.

 

[Deuce]

It "fits the bill of economic fascism" like the ice cubes in my freezer fit the bill of a glacier. You're being hyperbolic to try and sway opinion to your side.

"Cartelizing" the industry? Really?
Floating large loans for starting up non-profit coops is favoring large corporations?
And that last bit, "charged with reviewing and approving corporate policy changes?" That's outright fabricated.

You talk about factual evidence but fail to explain those things you're talking about.