Michigan Votes Forum

I'm very supportive of Resolution K.

Shouldn't this read (affirm the right to insurance company controlled health care)?

Does this bill only address State Law? What about a Federal Mandate to buy Health Care Insurance?

A proposal as flaky as the people who have sponsored it ...

Are you kidding me?

We definitely need this option to stop encroaching federal interference. I'd like to see some action on a 110th Amendment resolution out of Lansing also . . ASAP!

 Excellent!  There is nothing wrong with upholding our constitutional 10th Amendment rights.  Health Care is not a RIGHT -- it is a product and a commodity.  Point out to me in our U.S. Constitution where it says that health care is a right and that the government has the right to dictate and mandate coverage.

Stunning.  Our state's economy is a horror show, and THIS is what our legislators pick to work on???  It's SILLY ON IT'S FACE!!!  No matter what they do in DC, there will always be private insurance scalpers... er, I mean, companies... to buy insurance from.  This is window dressing/political posturing ON OUR DIME.  Is it any wonder why the public has NO CONFIDENCE in our government?

I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Mr. Chisholm.

Senator Prusi, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of Senate Joint Resolution K.

Senator Prusi’s statement is as follows:

It was presented as something very simple—an affirmation or reaffirmation of everyone’s right to purchase their own health care. But missing from the debate was which people had the means to purchase their own health care. It sounded

very simple on its face, but I believe underlying this resolution is a lot more complexity and more unforeseen consequences than may have been explained, as we had our brief discussion and debate on the joint resolution.

We all know that there is a tremendous struggle going on in Washington, D.C., around reforming our health care delivery system and the costs, whether spread out across the nation, the individual states, or an individual person seeking to be treated in one of our health care facilities. I think one of the further undiscussed ramifications of this may have been what it could cost the state of Michigan if we are making this statement and trying to contravene what is going on in Washington. That’s the potential withholding of Medicaid payments, SCHIP payments, and other health care dollars that flow from Washington to the states.

I think as we considered this in the brief time that we had the opportunity to debate, there were a lot of things left out of the debate. I also further believe that underlying this joint resolution was a lot of cynical politics, and I find it sad that we would use such a critical issue that affects nearly every one of the people we represent here to advance in an election year; cynical politics of fear. While it may sound simple and popular on its face, it has a lot of undisclosed and unforeseen ramifications.

I think the people of Michigan would want us to consider it with a little more clarity and a little more in-depth discussion. For these reasons, I cast a "no" vote.

Senators Jacobs, Kuipers, Clarke and Brown asked and were granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Jacobs’ statement is as follows:

I rise in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution K. Many times I have come up here and have talked about how careful we have to be when we amend the Constitution. I am scratching my head as to why we, through this joint resolution, would want to handcuff ourselves and our state before we know what is in the bills that we are so fearful about being debated in Washington, D.C., as we speak.

Our constituents expect us to study and analyze bills before we vote on them to make sure we are making the right decisions. If this is not a knee-jerk reaction that is going to come back to bite us, then I don’t know what else it is. As a body, we need to be open to solve the huge problems, particularly the health care problems, that this state faces and that our nation faces.

This joint resolution feeds into the fear-mongering that is paralyzing Congress and the Legislature here in Michigan. The irony of all this, as we hear the debate that says the state should be taking care of things themselves, we are not doing that. We have not even passed individual market reform that has been batted around for a couple of years now.

New York Times article, we have a perfect example of the kind of problem that our state is facing that is being addressed in terms of our Medicaid problems. This article that speaks about what is going on in Flint is pretty representative of things that are happening all over the state. There is a story here of a person whose cancer "returned with a fury last summer, the tumors metastasizing to her brain, liver, kidneys and throat." The article goes on to say that her doctor whom she has been seeing just informed her a few months ago that he would no longer see her because, like a growing number of doctors, he has stopped taking patients with Medicaid. His reimbursements from Medicaid were so low that often receiving no more than $25 per office visit, he was losing money every time a patient entered his exam room.

The article goes on to talk about states squeezing payments to providers even as the economy fuels explosive growth in enrollment. Patients are finding it increasingly difficult to locate doctors and dentists who accept their coverage, and now, as we all know, many wind up in hospital emergency rooms which are required to take anyone in an urgent condition.

There is another example of someone who lives in the midsection of Michigan who had to skip work to drive her eight-year-old son more than two hours for a five-minute consultation with this child’s doctor. The examples go on and on.

We are not doing what we need to be doing here in this state, and there are going to be some significant fixes that will really help us. So why we would want to go and tinker with our Constitution, handcuff us from programmed changes that will positively help and impact all of the people we represent is just wrong.

I would challenge members not to play to what you think may get you votes later on, but to do what is best for this state. This joint resolution is not what is best for this state.

Senator Kuipers’ statement is as follows:

Before I begin my remarks on why I think it is important for us as a state to pass Senate Joint Resolution K, let me respond to some comments made by the Senator from the 14th District. She asked why we should be going out on this limb before we know what is in the bill being debated in Congress. The scary part of that statement is that it sounds very similar to a statement made by the Speaker of the House, Speaker Pelosi. She argued that we need to pass this bill so we know what is in it.

Right now, Congress is debating a health care plan that has some 2,700 pages that few people know the details of what is in it. Yet at the end of the day, if they are successful in passing this, it will take over one-sixth of our federal economy.

That should scare us all. How can you resolve a problem when you haven’t properly identified which problem you are trying to fix? Some have argued that health care is too expensive. We need to address that. This legislation being debated in Washington certainly doesn’t address the cost issues associated with health care.

Some have argued that the problem we are tying to fix is providing insurance for the uninsured. Yet when the debate started, they were talking about a population of people around 42 million. In recent months that number has dropped to 31 million, but as I do the math, they should be talking about a number closer to 7 million. If you take out those who don’t want health insurance—again it is a personal right—or take out those who don’t think they need it even if they could afford to pay for it on their own, and take out providing health care coverage for illegals, you are talking about a population of not 42 million people, but 7 million. You do not need to take over one-sixth of our nation’s economy for 7 million people.

Senator Clarke’s statement is as follows:

I oppose this joint resolution because if it is enacted without changing the way we regulate health insurance companies in this state, it will lead to more families going into bankruptcy because of high medical costs. It will also increase the rates for people who are sick, chronically ill, or who could be in good health but are 55 years old or older but too young to qualify for Medicare.

Also if this is passed without changing the way we regulate health insurance here in Michigan, this joint resolution would drive up costs to the taxpayers even more because more and more individuals who rack up high medical bills will have to be forced to go on the tax rolls as Medicaid recipients.

This joint resolution would undermine the whole premise of health insurance. Insurance is set up to spread the risk of those who are in good health with those who are in bad health; to help cover the costs of those who are sick right now with the premiums of those in good health. It also protects those in good health, so once they do get sick, they won’t be burdened with the high cost of medical bills or won’t be forced to go to an emergency room where you and I as taxpayers have to pay their bills.

Essentially it is this: I oppose this joint resolution because if it were adopted, it would continue the unfairness in the health insurance system in this state which allow commercial health insurers to cherry-pick and cover only those who are in good health, offering them the lowest rate; yet charge those 55 and older and too young to be covered by Medicare the highest rates, which is totally unfair.

I would urge this body to vote this joint resolution down because it could force more families into bankruptcy and end up charging the taxpayers more money to provide more coverage for those who must resort to Medicaid. It would also help to increase the premiums for those who can least afford it.

Senator Brown’s statement is as follows:

Senate Joint Resolution K would add—let me back up and just say that the Michigan Constitution begins with the same words as the U.S. Constitution—"We, the people." Senate Joint Resolution K would add to these all-important words a statement affirming the right of every person to provide their own health care, stating clearly that federal law can’t compel a person, employer, or health care provider to participate in the health care system. And that no person or employer is to be subject to penalties or fines for paying directly for health care services.

Senate Joint Resolution K is timely and proper. Our founders said eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. "Vigilance" is a strong word, it is a precautionary word, and it is a word that applies and explains the reason for advancing the joint resolution today. I urge members to support Senate Joint Resolution K.

Admin003:

If you take out those who don’t want health insurance

They don't want health insurance because they can't afford it. They do want healthcare when they need it.

 I don't agree nor do I want the Health Care Reform Bill to pass as it is right now.  I don't feel that people should be forced to obtain Health Insurance or pay a fine.  Nor do I feel that ANY ONE political party should pass ANY type of Bill without the approval the MAJORITY of Congress.  I also DON'T feel that ANY State should decide NOT TO FOLLOW any Bill just because they don't like it.  This WAR between Republicans and Democrats MUST STOP or both parties need to be DISBANNED! 

 If you oppose 2009 Senate Joint Resolution K and see the need for healthcare reform why don't you really do something to fix it?  I support 2009 Senate Joint Resolution K because I strongly oppose Obamacare!  However, there is a need for healthcare reform but not in mandatory coverage for all, especially when it comes to "illegal aliens and abortion".   Allowing alternatives would be a good place to start, such as "freedom to choose" one's own type of treatment, whether it is medical or "natural", or education on proper nutrition, banning MSG, Aspartame, Flouride, etc.,regulating "BIG PHARMA".  These are just a few changes that would actually bring down the cost of healthcare and improve health, instead of the sickcare we now have.  Of course it would mean actually working for the people instead of special interest groups and big corporations!   

 Healthcare cannot work if your healthcare provider is working for the benefit of their stock holders vs. the benefit of your health. Our healthcare needs eat into their profits. So their goal of keeping our money is in direct conflict of our goal of spending that money on our healthcare needs.

I totally agree with SJ - K.  The Federal government, especially the U.S. Congress - has no true authority under our U.S. Constitution mandate our health insurance coverage.  Read Article 1, Section 8.  What is needed is health insurance competition across state lines to lower the cost.

We have a Limited Republic - meaning individual rights and choice.  The national health care bill violates those rights. If you don't believe in our U.S. Constitution or our unalienable rights then I guess you would support our representatives violating their oath of office. 

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.

 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.

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.