Coercion clause

[Dr.Who]

Would you vote for a law like this in your state?

"No law shall be passed that restricts a person's freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person's or entity's right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan."

If you want to read the article that introduced us to this click here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/19/fighting_a_coericion_clause_99203.html

 

[top gun]

Would you vote for a law like this in your state?

"No law shall be passed that restricts a person's freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person's or entity's right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan."

If you want to read the article that introduced us to this click here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/19/fighting_a_coericion_clause_99203.html

Of course not!

This is one of those Republicant play on words initiatives like the Bush clean air & water acts that actually lowered standards.

It's misses the entire point of having certain basic standards. It also would adversely affect Medicare as well as the soon to be law on National Health Insurance Reform which relies on pooling risks.

 

[Little-Acorn]

like the Bush clean air & water acts that actually lowered standards.

Oh, you mean the standard that had been the same for fifty-plus years, agreed to as safe and effective by everyone, and never touched until a month before Bill Clinton left office? The one that Clinton raised to almost-unachievable levels just three days before Bush was inaugurated? Levels that would have imposed horrendous costs on every business that tired to meet it, while making not the slightest difference to the number of people getting sick or dead from those pollutants... since none were? The suddenly-ridiculous standard that Bush lowered back down to the original, fully safe level later?

THAT standard that "Bush lowered"?

(BTW, did I hear somebody complaining about a "play on words"?)

It's misses the entire point of having certain basic standards.

Yes, it certainly did... until Bush restored it to a basic, known-completely-safe level.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Would you vote for a law like this in your state?

"No law shall be passed that restricts a person's freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person's or entity's right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan."

There's already a law that says this (plus a lot more).

It's called Amendment 10 to the Constitution of the United States. And it's one of the most-disobeyed commands in that document.

If people don't obey the 10th amendment (and a lot more), what makes you think they'll obey your new law?

 

[Dr.Who]

Of course not!

This is one of those Republicant play on words initiatives like the Bush clean air & water acts that actually lowered standards.

It's misses the entire point of having certain basic standards. It also would adversely affect Medicare as well as the soon to be law on National Health Insurance Reform which relies on pooling risks.

Which part do you object to?

The part that says a person must have the freedom to buy any private plan they choose.

The part that says a person must have the freedom to buy any public health plan they choose.

The part that says a person must have the freedom to buy a service directly from a doctor.

The part that says a person can't be fined for choosing their own coverage.

The part that says a person can't be fined for choosing their own doctor.

The part that says a person can't be fined for refusing coverage.

The part that says a person can't be fined for refusing medical care?

One observation I note is that it does not disallow a public option is just makes sure that people don't get forced into it.