Michigan house resolution would prevent being forced onto a public health care plan

This proposed amendment to Michigan’s constitution would affirm that you can not be forced to buy health insurance, and you can’t be penalized for paying directly for health care services.

It would preserve the freedom to choose what kind of health-related services you want to pay for on the open market.

It should be noted that this would not preclude the expansion of Medicaid to include preventative care.  This still allows for a public OPTION.  (Read: option.  this is not Communist China)

All Michigan residents need to get behind this resolution. I’ll post an update when I know more about this and will try to get some contact info up here so we can call in when it goes up for a vote.

Download PDF

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION CC

September 9, 2009, Introduced by Reps. Calley and McMillin and referred to the Committee
on Health Policy.

A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the state  constitution of 1963, by adding section 28 to article I, to provide  a right to independent health care.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the  state of Michigan, That the following amendment to the state  constitution of 1963, to provide a right to independent health  care, is proposed, agreed to, and submitted to the people of the state:

ARTICLE I

SEC. 28. (1) EVERY PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO PROVIDE FOR HIS OR  HER OWN HEALTH CARE.

(2) A FEDERAL LAW OR RULE SHALL NOT COMPEL, DIRECTLY OR  INDIRECTLY, ANY PERSON, EMPLOYER, OR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER TO  PARTICIPATE IN ANY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

(3) A PERSON OR EMPLOYER MAY PAY DIRECTLY FOR LAWFUL HEALTH  CARE SERVICES AND SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY PENALTIES OR FINES  FOR PAYING DIRECTLY FOR LAWFUL HEALTH CARE SERVICES. A HEALTH CARE  PROVIDER MAY ACCEPT DIRECT PAYMENT FOR LAWFUL HEALTH CARE SERVICES
ROVIDED AND SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY PENALTIES OR FINES FOR  ACCEPTING DIRECT PAYMENT FROM A PERSON OR EMPLOYER FOR LAWFUL  HEALTH CARE SERVICES.

(4) SUBJECT TO REASONABLE AND NECESSARY RULES AND LAWS THAT DO  NOT SUBSTANTIALLY LIMIT A PERSON’S OR EMPLOYER’S OPTIONS, THE  PURCHASE OR SALE OF HEALTH INSURANCE OR COVERAGE IN PRIVATE HEALTH  CARE SYSTEMS SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL LAW OR RULE.

(5) THIS SECTION DOES NOT DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

(A) AFFECT WHICH HEALTH CARE SERVICES A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER  IS REQUIRED TO PERFORM OR PROVIDE.

(B) AFFECT WHICH HEALTH CARE SERVICES ARE PERMITTED BY LAW.

(C) PROHIBIT CARE PROVIDED PURSUANT TO, OR PROHIBIT PARTICIPATION UNDER, WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW OR AUTOMOBILE NO-FAULT LAW.

(D) AFFECT LAWS OR RULES IN EFFECT AS OF JANUARY 1, 2009.

(E) 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 EMPLOYER FOR PAYING DIRECTLY FOR  LAWFUL HEALTH CARE SERVICES OR A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER FOR ACCEPTING  DIRECT PAYMENT FROM A PERSON OR EMPLOYER FOR LAWFUL HEALTH CARE  SERVICES.

(6) AS USED IN THIS SECTION:

(A) “COMPEL” INCLUDES PENALTIES OR FINES.

(B) “DIRECT PAYMENT” AND “PAY DIRECTLY” MEAN PAYMENT FOR  LAWFUL HEALTH CARE SERVICES WITHOUT A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE THIRD  PARTY, NOT INCLUDING AN EMPLOYER, PAYING FOR ANY PORTION OF THE  SERVICE.

(C) “HEALTH CARE SYSTEM” MEANS ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ENTITY  WHOSE FUNCTION OR PURPOSE IS THE MANAGEMENT OF, PROCESSING OF,  ENROLLMENT OF INDIVIDUALS FOR, OR PAYMENT FOR, IN FULL OR PART,  HEALTH CARE SERVICES, HEALTH CARE DATA, OR HEALTH CARE INFORMATION  FOR ITS PARTICIPANTS.

(D) “LAWFUL HEALTH CARE SERVICES” MEANS ANY HEALTH-RELATED  SERVICE OR TREATMENT, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SERVICE OR TREATMENT  IS PERMITTED OR NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW, RULE, OR REGULATION, THAT  MAY BE PROVIDED BY PERSONS OR BUSINESSES OTHERWISE PERMITTED TO  OFFER THOSE SERVICES OR TREATMENTS.

(E) “PENALTIES OR FINES” MEANS ANY CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PENALTY,  FINE, TAX, SALARY OR WAGE WITHHOLDING, SURCHARGE, OR ANY NAMED FEE  WITH A SIMILAR EFFECT ESTABLISHED BY LAW OR RULE BY A GOVERNMENT-ESTABLISHED, -CREATED, OR -CONTROLLED AGENCY, THAT IS USED TO  PUNISH OR DISCOURAGE THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THIS  SECTION.

Resolved further, That the foregoing amendment shall be  submitted to the people of the state at the next general election  in the manner provided by law.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/jointresolutionintroduced/House/pdf/2009-HIJR-CC.pdf

Obama: We Need To Bailout Newspapers To Stop New Media Taking Over

President says preserving “mutual understanding” is critical to democracy

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, Sept 21, 2009

President Obama has stated that he is happy to consider bailing out the corporate media, expressing concerns that alternative internet based news outlets will grow in popularity as a result of the downfall of newspapers.

Obama told editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade that preserving the print media is “critical to the health of our democracy”.

“I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding,” Obama said.

He also indicated that readers should be made to pay for online news content in the near future:

“What I hope is that people start understanding if you’re getting your newspaper over the Internet, that’s not free and there’s got to be a way to find a business model that supports that.” he said.

Over the past year, scores of newspapers have gone out of business or shifted to online only output, due to the rise of the alternative media and the resulting loss of ad revenue. Several large newspaper corporations have filed for bankruptcy, including the Tribune Co., owner of the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times.

Obama said he “would be happy to look at” legislation aimed at providing newspapers tax-breaks if they were to restructure as 50 (c) (3) educational corporations. Democratic Senator Ben Cardin has introduced a bill in this vain titled “The Newspaper Revitalization Act.”

Critics may point out that, far from being “critical” to democracy, a bailed out government subsidized media is the very antithesis of a “free press”.

Government Banking and Government Motors would effectively be joined by the Government Press if bailouts were to be granted.

Bailing out the corporate media would once again constitute rewarding outdated and failing monopolies with more taxpayer dollars, thus punishing innovative forward thinking competition.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no basis for bailing out the newspapers, given that they employ less than one percent of the labor force in the United States.

The dinosaur corporate media is dying because it has proven itself to be almost wholly untrustworthy, acting as an unquestioning mouthpiece for the establishment.

Denouncing all blog based media as unreliable or without context is laughable in the face of the mainstream media’s recent track record.