Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (162884)	4/5/2006 11:32:35 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793692

I was particularly annoyed when the governor said they were following the car insurance model. That's very misleading. With car insurance, you're required to have liability coverage for damage you cause to others. You're not required to have coverage for your own car. It it turns out that the insurance plans offered under this law include one that pays only for emergency medical care expenses that the hospital would otherwise have to eat, then the model may be valid because that poses a liability on someone else. Otherwise, it's bogus.

To: Bill who wrote (162884)	4/5/2006 3:40:50 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793692

that is a wonderful piece by williams...thanks for posting that however, my reading of the bill of rights enables the state of massachusettes to create and enforce this silly law.... right now, at least to me, it seems if you don't like it... move.. Article the twelfth [Amendment X] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. iow, you get the state governance you elect, and unless the laws created are specifically prohibited by the constitution, certain states are able to go the way of france, it would appear... if there are any constitutional experts on this thread, i would be more than happy to be disabused of this conclusion. i believe this to be so significant (states rights) that congress sought and did establish an amendment called the 'defense of marriage' "108th Congress in the Senate as SJ 16 and in the House as HJ 56: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. now if congress decides that no state shall confer upon its citizens the right to health care, by means of imposing a sanction on those who do not willingly 'comply' and countered by the 'defense of marriage' act...i would be thrilled but for the moment, it seems to me the law will stand, (until the culprits are voted out and new representatives willing to write laws according to the will fo the people)..... unless rendered unconstitutional by the supremes so what do you think? you think the supremes will come down on the side of 'health care' not being an 'inalienable right'? i guess what i am saying is that any state has the right to enact stupid laws (as long as they are not unconstitutional) that ultimately drives residents away from the state..... massachusettes is apparently doing that very well...last i read it was losing population greater than any state in the union

To: Bill who wrote (162884)	4/5/2006 9:25:52 PM
From: ManyMoose	Respond to of 793692

My local newspaper has a front page spread on the failure of my new health insurance company's appeal of a suit they lost after applying to become a "for profit" corporation. I hate to say it, but my old health insurance company used to be a non-profit employee association. I didn't hear any noise about it going for profit status, but the service deteriorated and the cost went up steadily over the last half of the 35 years I was with them. Which is why I dropped them for my new insurance company. I'm not very happy about my new insurance company trying to do the same thing. I don't see how service and cost can be improved by shunting part of my dollars into some CEO's pocket.