Title on ballot: Health Care Services
Sponsor/Originator: The Florida Legislature
What it would do:
This would add an amendment to the state constitution that attempts to prohibit the government from requiring individuals to purchase health insurance.
If You Vote Yes:
A “yes” vote means you want the Florida Constitution to include a provision that prohibits the government from requiring you to purchase health insurance.
If You Vote No:
A “no” vote means you do not want the Florida Constitution to include a provision that prohibits the government from requiring you to purchase health insurance.
Click here to visit the Florida Division of Elections Background on Amendment 1 (including full text of the amendment)
Summary of Amendment (from Division of Elections site):
Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to prohibit laws or rules from compelling any person or employer to purchase, obtain, or otherwise provide for health care coverage; permit a person or an employer to purchase lawful health care services directly from a health care provider; permit a health care provider to accept direct payment from a person or an employer for lawful health care services; exempt persons, employers, and health care providers from penalties and taxes for paying directly or accepting direct payment for lawful health care services; and prohibit laws or rules from abolishing the private market for health care coverage of any lawful health care service. Specifies that the amendment does not affect which health care services a health care provider is required to perform or provide; affect which health care services are permitted by law; prohibit care provided pursuant to general law relating to workers’ compensation; affect laws or rules in effect as of March 1, 2010; affect the terms or conditions of any health care system to the extent that those terms and conditions do not have the effect of punishing a person or an employer for paying directly for lawful health care services or a health care provider for accepting direct payment from a person or an employer for lawful health care services; or affect any general law passed by two-thirds vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature, passed after the effective date of the amendment, provided such law states with specificity the public necessity justifying the exceptions from the provisions of the amendment. The amendment expressly provides that it may not be construed to prohibit negotiated provisions in insurance contracts, network agreements, or other provider agreements contractually limiting copayments, coinsurance, deductibles, or other patient charges.
Arguments for:
Supporters of this proposed amendment say the federal government cannot force people to purchase health insurance, and this amendment is an attempt to protect Floridians from that requirement in the federal health care act passed in 2010. They say voting for this measure would send a message that Congress overstepped its authority.
Arguments against:
Opponents say that despite its stated intention, this proposed amendment will not allow Floridians to opt out of the requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 28, 2012, that the federal requirement to purchase insurance is constitutional.
Should the state attempt to ban governments from requiring the purchase of health insurance?
Amendment 1 is an attempt to exempt Floridians from a provision in the federal health care law known as the “individual mandate,” which requires all Americans to have health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties.
The proposal also attempts to exempt employers and health care providers from penalties or taxes that the government might impose for failing to pay for health insurance. In part, the proposal reads, “Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to prohibit laws or rules from compelling any person or employer to purchase, obtain, or otherwise provide for health care coverage.”
The amendment’s supporters say the individual mandate is an overreach of federal authority. “This proposed constitutional amendment is about an individual’s right to make his own health care decisions without interference from the federal government,” former state Senate President Mike Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, told The New American in January 2011. “It also sends a message to Washington D.C. that its one-size-fits-all approach to health care doesn’t work.” Opponents say the proposed amendment is more about politics than law. “We should be concerned with healing, and not repealing,” Rep. Joe Gibbons, D-Hallandale, told the News Service of Florida in May 2011.
If Amendment 1 were to pass, its legal standing and significance remain questionable. Legal scholars mostly agree that the fate of the individual mandate rests not with the states but with the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in June 2012 that the individual mandate is constitutional. Now that the nation’s highest court has ruled, the passage or defeat of Amendment 1 has no practical implications other than to send a message that a majority of Florida’s voters are either for or against the individual mandate.
State lawmakers voted largely along party lines in deciding to place the proposal on the ballot, with Republicans voting for and Democrats against. As with all proposed amendments, passage requires approval from 60 percent or more of the voters. If approved, Amendment 1 would take effect on Jan. 8, 2013.
History
Following his election in 2008, President Obama announced his intention to establish a national health care system that provides access to health insurance for every American. In March 2010, he signed a health care act into law that, among other things, required all Americans to purchase insurance by 2014 or face a financial penalty – the so-called individual mandate. Why the individual mandate? Without it, the number of premium-paying, healthy policyholders may not reach the critical mass needed to cover the costs associated with providing care to every American.
Legal Challenges
The law’s passage prompted a legal challenge from 26 states. Florida took a leading role. It filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Pensacola that claimed the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance or face penalties is an unconstitutional expansion of federal authority. In defending the individual mandate, the Obama administration argued that the costs associated with the uninsured affect the national economy and interstate commerce, and are therefore subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Several district courts and two federal appellate courts offered conflicting rulings on whether the federal government has a right to impose the individual mandate. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in June 2012 that the individual mandate is constitutional.
Can a state nullify federal law?
Now that the individual mandate has been declared constitutional by the nation’s highest court, do states have a right to ignore or reject that law? Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal government is considered the “supreme law of the land” when conflicts arise with states. The Supremacy Clause has been tested throughout the country’s history, and legal precedent appears to affirm the opinion of most legal scholars that passage of the proposed amendment would not allow Floridians to opt out of the individual mandate. However, passage would send a message that a majority of Florida voters are against the individual mandate and that message might become ammunition for lawmakers vowing to overturn the law.
IF YOU VOTE YES:
A “yes” vote means you want the Florida Constitution to include a provision that prohibits the government from requiring you to purchase health insurance.
IF YOU VOTE NO:
A “no” vote means you do not want the Florida Constitution to include a provision that prohibits the government from requiring you to purchase health insurance.
___________________________________________
My understaning of how US laws of the land work are, A state can make a law more restrictive, not less restrictive.”
The text said this: Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal government is considered the “supreme law of the land” when conflicts arise with states. Technically this is incorrect. When a conflict arises with the states this does not mean that the federal law is supreme law of the land. The federal law is only supreme over state law if the federal law is valid; federal supremacy is contingent upon its validity (see US v Lopez (1996) and US v Morrison (2000)) of examples of state law being supreme to federal law. As District Judge Roger Vinson stated in his opinion on the health care ruling, we have a system of dual sovereignty. I would vote YES on 1 to send a message that, like President Obama said when running again Hillary Clinton, the mandate on individuals is a terrible and destructive policy.
This is true. The 10th Amendment addresses this. It draws a certain line between the Federal Government and the issues faced within each State. But that line can get thin and tricky at times. I believe the American people are savvy enough to figure this out. There are health programs out there that people can sign up for where everyone shares the medical costs. Again, it is the people’s choice to engage in this. It should not be forced upon by the Federal Government.
Even if this admendment holds no value, it will at least show our government that majority do not agree with the National Healthcare Act!!!
It is naive to think that we can just go back to the old system of health care in this country. You are being manipulated by the insurance industry as to repealing the National Healthcare Act. They would like nothing else to go back to being able to deny care to those with prior illness or to retoractively drop people from insurance for some nuance in their applications. That is not to mention the 8 to 10% annual rate increases that were happening. The vast majority of people have no idea what the Affordable Healthcare Act does for them, they just listen to politicians and the special interests they work for and blindly follow along with that message.
This proposed amendment is a perfect example of our state legislatures folly. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled the law was constitutional. Our legislature demonstrated once again, how inept they can be.
I will be voting ‘YES” on amendment 1 in November!
Romney/Ryan, the R&R Team!!!
I have completed the review of the Amendments proposed by Florida politicians. I wish to thank Collins Center for Public Policy for this Web Site and the time and effort taken to assemble the information presented. I appreciate the opportunity to offer comments and found all postings helpful. (Hope mine will be.)
The choices I made were based upon the rather straightforward “does it expand or retract the power of government.” Proposals 1 and 6 retract, I will be voting YES. All others (2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12) propose to expand, I will be voting NO.
Let me just ask all of you voters one question, before you decided to vote yes for this partisan republican ammendment. How did you vote when they mandated car insurance? Really good wasn’t it. No difference here folks. All for the better good. Everybody needs health care. The more that have it the lower the prices will be for everybody. I can remember when car insurance was priced off the charts. Now its manageable.
Jack your a dreamer 80% of our country does not want it Much different then auto insurance where tere is a huge liability .
Franklin, you are jsut spousing what special interest groups want you to say. If you are a Republican, then why is it that when Newt Gingrich initially proposed individual mandates the Republicans were all for it. Now since it is a Democratic suggestion it is terrible to those on the right. It is estimated that $1000 of everyone’s insurance premium goes to pay for those without insurance. Do you like that fact better? And incidently, 80% of the country is not against the individual mandate, only the uninformed are.
Does everyone have auto ins, NO!
Hey Jack. Have you ever been hit by a person who doesn’t have car insurance? Why do we carry uninsured motorist if its mandatory? Who pays for their lack of concern? This will also apply to healthcare; it won’t matter if the law requires it.
and when was that, Jack? Insurance has always been an ‘unwanted, but necessary evil’ for me, from teenage driver to now over-50… but I don’t see it being any less expensive now for my kids that it was for me then.
In my opinion, insurance is a hedge, a calculated risk; the insurance company will win most of the time (or they would not be in business) but the individual knows the most about his own risk factors… the people should chose, not be required, to maintain whatever risk-insurance they wish to have. Additionally, the state should not presume to take care of the uninsured, only get them patched up and back home!
Jack:
I agree and good analogy that is understandable to all. Hopefully, anyhow.
There is a difference between car insurance and health insurance. The operation of an automobile on public streets is a privilege not a right. To do so, one has to have a license, tag, and liability insurance. That makes sense given any failure to operate the vehicle safely can and most likely will cause others to suffer a loss. When last I heard, we have the right to live our lives as we deem fit. As for health insurance, living is not based on a privilege granted by the state – at least, not yet.
The “public liability” issue regarding an individual’s health is misguided. It becomes an issue only when the government is seen as the guardian of each individual’s health and wellbeing. It should not be.
Can you imagine what life will be like when some bureaucrat believes he knows what’s best for us, what food we should eat, what size soft drink we can have —– perish the thought.
Jack, nobody forces you to own a vehicle or drive – that’s optional. Nobody forces you to live, but this “affordable health care law” forces you to buy helath insurance. That is unless you get an exemption…like belonging to a union, being an illegal immigrant, or being a federal employee which exempts half the population leaving the other half to pay double whatever the premium would have been with NO exemptions.
Regarding Auto insurance …I have been hit three times by uninsured motorists and they have never gone to jail, never lost their drivers license and they continue driving without insurance. They will pay the necessary payment and never pay again. For some reason the State can not/will not enforce the laws. That is why we the insured motorist is forced to carry additional coverage called “Uninsured Motorist Coverage”. This again is putting the additional weight on the responsible party and allowing the law breakers to continue breaking the law.
Enforcement of the law is the hard part.
My auto insurance never when down…. I am 72 years old.
@Jack The car insurance and health care mandates are like comparing apples to oranges. No one is forced to buy a car, therefore car insurance isn’t mandated. It applies only to people who CHOOSE to participate in commerce (ie,. purchasing and maintaining a vehicle). The health care mandate FORCES you to participate in commerce, whether or not you can afford such insurance, and fines you via “tax” if you don’t. Do you see the difference here?
Health insurance would become more affordable if companies were allowed to compete via interstate commerce. That way the market, not the almighty government, determines the cost and benefits.
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free.
Yes, everyone is required to purchase car insurance. But we are not required to purchase it from the government. There is competition between different insurance companies, each of whom can vary their coverage to meet the needs of the individual. Different from the proposed health care coverage.
The federal government does not mandate auto insuirance; the mandate for auto insurance is a state matter. By the way, your insurance rates probable went down due to the fact that you ultimately turned 26 years of age, and perhaps, also became a safer driver. My auto insurance rates have never gone down in Florida. Were you living in some other state before?
I agree with Jack. I work in healthcare and the look on ALL the face of those who think the Don’t NEED healthcare are SADLY mistaken when they are at the register in the pharmacy because of some disease that requires medication that cost $1600 dollars if not more for a 30 day script… Its a sad thing to watch a healthy person (no matter age) who unfortunately gets sick and can’t afford the care they need and now are diagnosed and is hard to abtain a policy that they NEED! Please don’t be one of those “I never get sick” people…
The difference is just existing does not mandate a need for auto insurance your choice to own a motor vehicle and drive it public roadways does.
I think we need to vote NO on Amendment 1.
The emergency rooms at hospitals are now being instructed to turn away patients that cannot pay. They are being told to go to ‘Walk In Facilities’ and work out a payment plan. (My husband is a doctor and was just informed of this.)
No longer will those without medical insurance use the ER as their Primary Care Physicians. It is a great idea! (But a hard one on caretakers such as my husband.)
I further believe that not everyone can afford medical insurance and everyone is entitled to getting medical treatment. That’s when I believe the governement needs to help out. But, there are millions of people who choose to just opt out of paying for an HMO or minimal care insurance and we have to absorb the costs as taxpayers. They play the odds of ever needing medical treatment which I think is irrresponsible.
This law will keep costs down and differientiate between who is eligible and who isn’t to get public assistance.( Some folks would rather buy cigarettes and booze than pay for health care.)
Responsible people have insurance and the cost just goes up and up each year. It won’t under this new plan. It will be held at a reasonable price. I for one pay almost $700.00 a month for medical insurance. I have a $1,000 deductible and an 80/20 plan. It is way too much money and continues to go up each year. We need to curtail these over priced medical services and ‘even the playing field’. (A box of kleenex in the hospital shouldn’t cost $17.00.) With the new plan, these issues of outrageous prices would be fixed. Medicare will stay the same. No vouchers- no “B.S”. (I do not want anyone to mess with my Medicare when it is my time to get it!)
We also can learn who is here illegally and who isn’t with this plan. I say vote NO. (I am voting NO to all the ammendments.).
So why it that if I want to have better protection I need to get the uninsured motorist protection
Auto insurance, I believe, is under each State’s oversight. It is not Federal. Much like Romney did with health insurance in his State of Massachusetts. This health care would be better served if the States had oversight themselves, not the Federal Government. The mandate to force citizens to purchase ObamaCare is unconstitutional, as the SCOTUS said. BUT, since it is masked as a tax, they had to pass it because Congress does have the constitutional authority to levy taxes. This amendment in Florida will simply enable us to provide a layer of protection from such a tax. I would vote YES because it still does not prohibit anyone from purchasing health care on their own.
Jack, there is a difference between mandatory car insurance and health insurance. What is the difference? People have the choice to choose whether or not they want to drive an automobile, but they do not have the choice to live (per say). By getting in a car and driving on public roads, you accept that your choice is regulated by the government. Unless you cease to live, you have no choice in whether or not to buy insurance underneath the health care reform law.
Not everybody does need healthcare, quite honestly. There are many millions of healthy people who do not need to see the doctor beyond checkups and knowing that, the government will force you to buy something to pay for others healthcare. They know that people such as myself who don’t go to the doctor often can be taxed and then use that money to pay for other peoples care.
It’s a question of whether or not you want to force people to buy something they do not want and use their money to pay for other peoples health care coverage. The majority of Americans still say no, the government should not be able to do that – I hope that you see why.
The purpose of automobile insurance is to cover expenses “just in case” a person gets in an automobile accident. The purpose of health insurance is to help cover expenses “just in case” they get ill. No one makes the decision to get ill much like no one makes the decision to get in a car accident but it happens. In both cases you purchase insurance in case you need it, not because you intend to use it.
Bob -So even though you don’t go to the doctor that often, as a disclaimer to your comments above, I would like to know if you have health care insurance that pays for these infrequent visits? You imply that you pay out of your own pocket. I suspect that you are one of the lucky ones who has a job and has health care insurance.
You have been paying into Social security and Medicare for 20, 30 or more years B/4 your actually needed it. Makes sense to buy any insurance when you don’t need it to prepare for the future.
I’ve worked in healthcare for 30 years and seen thousands of patients come through the Emergency Department not having health insurance. These patients come in with a mirade of symptoms and must be seen. The patient[s] symptoms must be diagnosed through diagnostic testing [not what the patients states] and sometimes these tests are ordered by each physician seen. The costs add up and guess who pays for the
“uninsured”. THE TAXPAYER. And it’s not cheap. Take a look at the charges for services you received for medical care – be it a routine examination and testing by your healthcare provider or for a major treatment at an Outpatient or Hospital. If the majority of us had to pay for these charges out of pocket, we couldn’t [unless of course we were among the very wealthy. Thank GOD for medicare, medicaid and the Affordable Health Care Act where everyone can seek medical treatment when needed. [Remember when HCA was found guilty of fraudulent billing of medicaid/medicare and the same person who was CEO is now Florida’s Governor. How soon we forget!
you are so right!
No one MUST be seen. When a person has a “mirade of symptoms” is that person forced to go through testing? Nope. They make a choice to walk into a hospital and get tested. Once they are tested, are they forced to buy perscriptions or go through operations or more testing? Nope. They have a choice to stop at any time. This is so because forcing someone to do or buy something that they don’t want is simply wrong.
At the same time, if a hospital chooses to take a patient who is uninsured and not foot them with the bill, are they forced to go to the government and collect money to cover the cost? Nope. They could choose to deny anyone they want. They could also choose to foot the patient with the bill or even eat the expense. Instead, many, many hospitals choose to foot the government with the bill.
Continuing on, if the government is footed with the bill, is the government forced to take that bill? Technically no, not unless there is a law that was passed. But, barring that, the government is not forced to be billed for anything. In fact, technically, the government is only good at billing others for stuff (taxes anyone?). They could turn that bill right around and not pay anything and make it the hospital’s responsibility.
I made a point in another post that people are able to get loans. People can get car loans for thousands of dollars, student loans for tens of thousands of dollars, or even house loans for hundreds of thousands. Why is it when it comes to medical expenses, it’s suddenly that we simply can’t afford it? Taking out a loan would make it easier for an individual to pay for something and thus be personally responsible, get money flowing from one point to another thus helping the economy, the hospital can stay in business so they can provide service to those in want and need, and the government had nothing to do with any of it except for providing a decent playing field.
All the while, that person made his or her own choice to walk in and get treated. If they didn’t, well, at least they are alive.
Now, what if they die? Well, then the hospital is screwed. Mistakes are made and they should eat their mistakes just like any other business. They’ll probably have to face litigation too, but that’s a wholey separate debate…
Amen, Sister. I couldn’t have said it better myself. I will add that there are many educated professionals working in healthcare who simply do not make enough money to be able to afford the current insurance plans offered through their employers. The OBAMACARE mandate will help them as well as all of those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. I personally have already been helped by OBAMACARE’s elimination of obstacles to insurance eligibility ,ie., “pre-existing conditions”! So, calm down, people, this is going to be a good thing for all of us.
Emergency rooms are used too often for care that should be given elsewhere. Great reminder! I’m voting NO!!!
Such a simple explanation. So why are’t more folks understanding this reasoning? All healthcare costs are skyrocketing and one reason is that there are so many uninsured who go to emergency rooms for what could normally be done in a primary care doctor’s office. Ultimately, the cost is passed on to all the people who realize the importance and responsibility of insuring themselves and their families. Yes, there are many folks who cannot afford health insurance the way it is set up now. But, as I understand it, individual circumstances will be taken into account and assistance in meeting this responsibility will be offered. With everyone participating, costs will come down, as well. A win/win situation.
The costs are rising not only because of the uninsured, but also because patients don’t provide the correct info when they seek services or they haven’t updated their records, the medical registration process is not accurate at time of registration, the billing process from the medical practice is also inaccurate and when the wrong info gets to the insurance companies claims either can not be processed or are processed incorrectly causing multiple issues. It starts at the beginning of each step of the process. All are at fault.
Vote Yes. The government overstepped it’s authority by deciding we’ve broken the law if we don ‘t buy health insurance. What LAW? The executive branch created a POLICY upheld by the court with new judges they appointed. Against the will of the people, this partisan policy is requiring you to buy something you may not want. What will you be forced to buy next? Better put a stop to this treachery and vote Yes for the freedom to decide for yourself what you want to purchase!
the freedom to decide? look deeper into what you invest in…. some people want things to stay the same way as long as it is their way. others want change not because its easy for them but because it makes us all the more equal. but then that is hard telling someone who is self righteous.
It is not treachery to ask people to pay for insurance when everyone at some point will need health care. As always uninformed people are the first to speak out. In the courts the supreme court judge that was the deciding vote was appointed by Bush. It is also not against the will of the people as most people are in favor of making everyone pay. I have insurance and I am sick of having to pay an estimated $1,000 a year to help cover the cost of some young person, who is “healthy” and breaks their leg riding the bike and goes to the emergency room without having insurance.
You should vote yes on this amendment. This will enable our Florida representatives in the U.S. Senate to argue for voting against any future federal legislation that mandates citizens engage in an act of private commerce and claim it is not a tax, before the Supreme court rules it is a tax and the legislation stands.
Yes please vote yes so the state can spend millions of dollars fighting the federal government on what will become a constituional fight that Florida will lose so that Rick Scott can appear to really care about the health care of Floridians. Maybe he will finally be successful in turning Medicaid into a voucher program as Republicans would like.
If you repeal the Affordable Care Act you will lose any chance of every being able to have good health coverage at an affordable price. If you are working now and God forbid get sick whatever that sickness is and you lose your job, can’t afford Cobra and don’t become employed with an employer that offers you coverage you will have a pre-xisiting problem and you will not be able to get coverage or afford treatment. Example you own a home or have some money in the bank you will not quilify for Medicaid, you will be responsible for the full charges and when you lose everthing they will treat you but you may not make it becuause you can not get the kind of treatment you need to LIVE. This act does not tax you or burden your employer if you are lucking enough to have one. It does not reduce benefits if you are a MC beneficiary, it does lower costs of your healthcare because it introduces requirements such as th electronic medical record that can be accessed by any provider treating you. Do any of you have any idea what the $ savings of that alone is. Do you want to go into a hospital and be discharged only to to be re admitted for the same or similiar problems because you were discharged too early to the provider got to maximize their reimbursement??? So there is requirement with a penality for re admits for the same illness. That is just the tip of the iceburg folks. This is a good thing don’t be swayed by all the properganda around telling lies about it. Read about it reseach and you will see that it is a good, a very good law. Don’t let our state opt out of anything to do with the Affordable Care Act or as most people like to call it Obama care, you may need some if it’s provision one day or perhaps your parents who will need Medicaid to supplement or pay for their nursing home care. Beleive me this is good, it will lower costs and it will stop the fraud.
Whats next, the kind of food we eat or car we drive? House we live in? Our right to own property? Send the message. I’d vote yes!
I like Jack’s manageable explanation best. The American way is to take care of it’s own!!
It’s about time we did that, and let the priviledged pay for the care with profit’s they would make from private industry. A government plan of health care can work if we all make it work. Then the dream for American will live on in the live’s of us all, and those that are saved by having health care.
Just something today think about!!!
Having a national requirement to purchase health insurance will not work. As long as insurance companies are allowed to be run as a business with exponentially increasing profits, there will be a large segment of the population that will still need to decide whether to pay for healthcare or groceries! We need to provide a non-profit healthcare system that is more concerned with patient well being than profits.
Okay, Jack, with that type of thinking, why don’t you propose an amendment for the federal government to regulate how much toilet paper we use, or which type? After all, we all need toilet paper, right? Maybe it will be cheaper, too! And, what planet do you live on when it comes to car insurance being cheap? I can’t even put food on my family’s dinner table half the time. The incredible part is that if I do not keep car insurance, I will be charged with a hefty fine. My kids can’t eat the car insurance policy. I’m willing to bet you won’t be willing to let them redistribute YOUR paycheck to help feed MY kids.
wow, florida legislative laws are definitely misleading for the majority.
it’s obviously written to misinform citizens who support Obamacare.
our Florida governor’s interests seems to be in making money
but not redistributing it back to us… only the 2 percent.
Vote No — all those folks who say vote yes just gave the perfect reason for voting “no”, they do not want to have to pay for other people’s health care, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE HAVING TO DO NOW. Health care, like auto insurance, is paying out for a “risk”. Maybe you use it, maybe you don’t, but you never know when you might need it. Just because you don’t ever go to the doctor now, doesn’t mean you won’t go to the doctor next year or in the next 5 years. We don’t want to pay for you when you do go. If everyone pays for their own health insurance, the rates will go down.
Having health ins. may some day save your, or some one in your family’s life, with out it you do not get the same care as some one with it. Dont play Russian roulette, accidents of all kinds happen every day. Be smart, not a smart guy.
YOU MUST VOTE NO on this amendment Obama Cares has already been passed. This is more Florida trickery.
Anita,
I agree. In a time when the Florida Legislature is preaching reduced spending, why did they spend the time and money to put this on the ballot even AFTER the US Supreme Court ruled. Also, the US Constitution establishes that the state can strengthen a federal law, not weaken it, so this is just a waste of time and useless posturing.
I do not understand anyone voting yes to this, you are caliming that you need to have the freedom and not be forced to pay for something that you do not need. Well, the way I see it is that you would rather be a burden on all the insured and not have the responsibility for your own self, because whenever you get sick which will eventually happens, if not now then in your fifties or sixties. If you drive a car, you pay for insurance in the case you might have an accident, and some people live their life and never have an accident. Bob said some people do not drive and do not need this service, I can not believe he is making this comparison because unlike car insurance, health care is for the living, you do not have a choice Bob. !!!
Folks that cannot affored this cost, like Chrissie said, they will be given assitance to meet their oblegation.
Voting yes does not only releases individuals but companies as well which will be a disaster. Any responsible person must vote No, unless you are parasite then vote Yes.
My vote is no,when everyone is required to participate that creates competition, which in fact will be lower prices. The bottom line is health care will not suffer, people will receive the same if not better care because of competition!
My vote is no,when everyone is required to participate that creates competition, which in fact will be lower prices. The bottom line is health care will not suffer, people will receive the same if not better care, because of competition!
I have no interest in Florida showing itself once again to be a buffoon by making a change to our CONSTITUTION that will have no effect and is the functional equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum.
On the merits, we are the only developed nation without universal healthcare. It is a moral disgrace.
We spend more as a percentage of GDP on medical care than any other nation, even though they insure all and we don’t.
And by any measurable statistic, whether infant mortality, life expectancy, or a measure of deaths preventable by medical intervention, we rank well below average.
We have to fix it, and the economics just don’t work unless all contribute. So we need to suck it up, and do what is right.
Correction that $14,240 was by Medicare plus my secondary ins. and the meds bill should have read $210.oo which was for 8 pills that my secondary refused to cover, I finally settled for a still ridiculous $42.00 just in case I had to go back one day. Hopefully, you won’t have to go into a hospital with an aeortic anuerism one day, without insurance, and see what type of care you get. Been there ,done that, thank God I was insured.
Good Grief! This ammendment is a total waste of time. No matter who becomes the next president, the federal law will not change for atleast the next two years as the House will remain dominated by the Repubs, and the Senate by the Dems. It will take a majority in both chambers AND the White House to get this law reversed. (And it is a law, not a policy!) I have a son who lives in Germany and can’t afford to move back to the states because of health care costs. (He is a US citizen [born and breed] in the U.S. Army Reserve [activated three times over the last 12 years], married to a German gal with two children.) EVERYBODY that earns income there pays an “insurance tax”, and from what I’ve heard from him, I’m embarassed at how we do things here. Oh! And “Medicare” fraud in Germany is virtually unheard of; get caught there and you do serious HARD time in jail and loose your license! FOREVER! Vote yes if you must to make a statement, but don’t hold your breath waiting for things to go back the way things were. And how much Federal monies will Florida loose while “we” make a statement and fight the “good fight”?
The problem is that voters don’t have enough info about ObamaCare. I want it IF it is fair. We should not be forced to take out too much insurance if we don’t need it. I have Medicare but I don’t use it, I go to natural practitioners and pay $$$$ out of pocket. I use natural remedies, no drugs. Why should I be forced to pay high premiums for other people’s excess trips to doctors? I see some elderly people doing lots of dr appointments and over using their insurance now and adding to the debt. The Big Pharma controls everything and they will force drugs and vacs on us and really make people ill. There has to be limits and choices!
I see people use energency rooms for headache, rash, tummy aches, etc. cause they can’t afford dr offices and they skip out from paying their high hospital bills. This we need ObamaCare.
I am in higher middle class, so we make too much money to get assistance, but we are broke because we are responsible home owners. They say that ObamaCare will be proportioned for income levels – I know it will not be fair. Because we are seen as high income but we are into debt now!! not fair for middle class
How do I vote for this one? Yes or No? either way, we get screwed.
When ObamaCare kicks in, guess who will be abusing and overusing the services? Republicans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they will be first in line.
The Supreme Court of the United States has already upheld the individual mandate. This amendment will be deemed unconstitutional and it will be nothing but a waste of taxpayer dollars defending it, money that we should be spending on schools and public welfare.
I say vote “Yes”. The government should not have the right to force people to buy health insurance if they feel they don’t want or need it or cannot afford it. My sister lives on $800 a month. If Mr. Obama wants to force her to buy insurance every month would he prefer that she give up her heat in the winter or her air conditioning in the summer or maybe $100 worth of her food allowance every month. But wait, if she has no heat in the winter (in North Carolina) she will end up with frost bite or pneumonia…. No air in the summer, heat stroke… or not enough food, mal-nutrition. But thank goodness she will have health insurance because she will certainly need it. However, she won’t be able to afford the RX that the doctor prescribes….medicine, heat, airconditioning and proper diet. Oh yes, that is what food stamps and welfare are for. There you go! Put more people on welfare and food stamps so they can afford health insurance. Wake up people. The government is overstepping it’s bounderies.
I have medicare. It’s great! Why should people who have medical problems not be able to be covered. Why should a republican legislature be able to exclude people just to give big insurance companies a big profit at the end of the year. It’s all about greed and helping business. I’m for business making a profit – but how much will ever be enough. Business is still going to make money because they will still be selling the product. The best part of the plan is that the insurance companies will have to return money at the end of the year since their profit level will be capped.
The sad thing about all this is that, even with the law in place requiring that everyone buy insurance, there will still be SO many people who will get away with not having to buy it. I have no problem with helping those who cannot work due to true physical/mental disabilities, but it peaves me to no end to have pay for those who just WON’T work and somehow get exempt from any responsibility for anything!! If everyone but the disabled were made to buy the insurance (no exemptions for able bodied people), then I wouldn’t mind being forced to buy it. I buy it anyway and always will…can’t afford not to in case of a medical catastrophy.
The problem is that our laws require Emergency Rooms to treat everyone whether or not they have insurance and whether or not they can afford the care. Knowing that, why would anyone buy insurance? Mr. Romney even acknowledged that that is our system for assuring that healthcare is provided to all our citizens. The rest of us foot the bills for those freeloaders. Not nice.
Why not, instead of mandating that everyone buy insurance, give everyone a one-time opportunity to buy insurance. If they don’t buy insurance, eliminate their right to be treated in an emergency room unless they pay for it out of their own funds. If they don’t have funds, don’t provide them healthcare and let them die. That wouldn’t bother my conscience.
Of course some more thought should go into this regarding those who can’t afford to buy health insurance. My conscience would balk if we didn’t provide help for those folks. Subsidized insurance, I guess, but if they declined even that they shouldn’t get free healthcare in emergency rooms.
It is the people that have insurance (and a job) that don’t want this mandated insurance. Poll the people without insurance and you would be hard pressed to find 80 percent of them against the Affordable Care Act.
The ACA (affordable care act) is a comprehensive approach to attempt to more effectively utilize and distribute health resources, while trying to control the increasing costs of medical care. It is the most well thought approach to getting the US on par with other developed nations in terms of national health care and distribution I have ever seen. While it may put additional responsibilities and constraints on a number of stakeholders, including practicing physicians such as myself, it will ultimately improve the health care landscape in our country on so many levels.
@Anita, you got lost, maybe you don’t grasp the whole situation. There is not trickery in Florida. The entire Country is against this liberal trickery they passed, on their own, without any consultation or votes.
The less power the Federal govt collects from the states will be the optimum balance and need to prevent a large,powerful buracracy from negating and controlling states rights.Jj
Doesn’t this sound like socialism? It should be an individuals choice whether they choose to have health insurance or not. If someone doesn’t have insurance it is not Joe Publics responsibility to pay for it no more than it is the publics responsibility to pay their car payment or their other bills. #One issue is the inflated pricing of going to the Doctor/ hospital. How did people in the healthcare profession get such inflated salaries as compared to other educated people? How much does the policeman who responds to your home when your being robbed, and puts their self in harms way to save you make? The teacher who educates your children? etc. etc. How about the elected politicians that make rules that apply to you and I but don’t apply to them? (their salary, retirement, etc.)
This is misleading. States CAN opt-out of ObamaCare and will receive NO penalty for it. The article here makes it sound like we can’t get out of it. ScotUS says we don’t have to do it and Obama cannot penalize states by yanking Medicare funding for opting out.
Nice Babe and Chrissie. I totally agree
Vote Yes. Nobody is saying health care doesn’t need reform; it just doesn’t need ObamaCare reform. ObamaCare’s endpoint is a single-payer system–the federal govt. By requiring private insurers to spend x% on direct care, requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions, and capping premium increases to 10% in the small group and individual markets, private insurers will leave the market, leaving all of us at the mercy of the ObamaCare health plans. Do you really want the federal government administering your health plan and making healthcare decisions for you? Ask someone who lives in the UK and has used the system how that’s working out for them.
Floridians don’t be tricked with the no. 1 constitutional amendment, make sure you vote NO they are trying to get rid of the affordable care act, approved as contitutional by the Supreme court.
Why can’t this be put into plain english? You have to be a lawyer to understand this. So if I vote no, the government is going to require me to buy insurance? If I vote yes, what are they going to require me to do?
Voting ‘yes’ would be a protest of the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare), but my understanding is that it will simply be an ineffective protest since the Supreme Court has already approved of the Act (this is just my interpretation, anybody else?).