Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2009 Senate Joint Resolution K: Affirm right to independent (non-government) health care
  1. Introduced by Sen. Wayne Kuipers (R) on August 27, 2009, to place before voters in the next general election a Constitutional amendment to recognize that “every person has a right to provide for his or her own health care,” and to prohibit any federal (but not state) law or rule that would directly or indirectly “compel any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system".
    • Referred to the Senate Health Policy Committee on August 27, 2009.
      • Reported in the Senate on March 2, 2010, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the joint resolution then be adopted.
    • Substitute offered in the Senate on March 16, 2010, to replace the previous version of the measure with one that revises details but does not change the substance as previously described. The substitute passed 23 to 15 in the Senate on March 16, 2010.
      Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  2. Failed 24 to 14 in the Senate on March 16, 2010, to place before voters in the next general election a Constitutional amendment to recognize that “every person has a right to provide for his or her own health care,” and to prohibit any federal (but not state) law or rule that would directly or indirectly “compel any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system." The measure failed to get the two-thirds supermajority required to place an amendment on the ballot.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  3. Moved to reconsider by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey (R) on March 16, 2010, to reconsider the vote by which the measure failed. The motion means that this can be brought up for another vote at the discretion of the Senate Majority Leader.

Comments

Re: 2009 Senate Joint Resolution K (Affirm right to independent (non-government) health care )  by FreeSpeaker on March 21, 2010 

Actually, Gypsy probably is correct here. 


State sovereignty is anything but absolute, and in most cases less extensive than many who argue it in cases like this think.


Perhaps the courts will have to decide whether the tax "penalty" assessed for those who choose to not purchase health insurance is a fine, as opponents of reforming health care in the United States claim, or is a tax to help cover the cost of making sure citizens have access to health care, as those who support reform say it is.  Of course, the authority of the federal government to tax citizens is constitutionally unimpeachable, and to tax for social puposes is demonstrably legitimate (observe the tax penalty paid by families and individuals who do not have children, for example).   


This legislation simply begs for the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to to cover thye cost of what most probably is a fools' errand.



Re: 2009 Senate Joint Resolution K (Affirm right to independent (non-government) health care )  by cschaeff on March 21, 2010 

 gypsy sanctimoniously quotes the Constitution articles as "proof" that the health insurance bill does not violate the Constitution.


He/she conveniently omits the Tenth Amendment, which by its provisions, trumps both Constitutional citations.  The Tenth Amendment precludes the Federal Government from "making things up as they go along" by providing that "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." 


If the power is not granted to the Federal Government, it's a moot point to present any other part of the Constitution to prove the bill's legitimacy.


The power to compel citizens to buy healthcare at the point of a financial gun (fine for violating the law) is not authorized to the Federal Government by any of the enumerated powers in the Constitution.  Trying to say that the fine for non compliance is a "tax penalty" is also incorrect, as it is a civil fine for non compliance.  Therefore the power to "tax" is not an appropriate interpretation of the Constitution.


SJR K is an assertion of state's rights and in no way raises the arguement (as gypsy's tangent does) about selling insurance across state lines.


As usual, the progressive leftists conveniently (a) misapply or ignore the provisions of the Constitution and (b) cite "facts" without backing them up with any references to valid studies in an attempt to convince the ignorant citizen. 


Knowledge is power.



Re: 2009 Senate Joint Resolution K (Affirm right to independent (non-government) health care )  by gypsy on March 18, 2010 

This resolution is a waste of time and effort, a poltical ploy. 


Health
insurance reform doesn't violate the constitution. It doesn't force you
to buy health insurance. You can chose not to, and pay a tax penalty
instead. You are required to pay taxes. In order for more people to have
access to health care, and to lower cost for everyone, a mandate is
needed. We are paying more now for our healthcare than any other
developed nation.Those that have insurance are paying for the uninsured.


The argument that being able to sell insurance across state lines
would lower cost is misleading. Insurance companies will go to the
states with the least regulations and headquarter there, where they can
charge the consumer more and pay out less in claims. Credit card
companies do this now.


Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution,
first sentence: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes,
duties, imposts and excises, to pay debts and provide for the common
deference and general welfare of the United States; but all duties,
imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.


Article VI, clause 2 of the constitution, referred to as the supremacy clause: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law
of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.


 



View More pre-2013 Comments.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.