18 States Suing Fed Govt Over Health Care Reform

[Brad M.]

Think it'll fly?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...Type=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

 

[JNickel101]

I thought there was some kind of law against suing the Fed Gov't...?

 

[kastein]

Don't know, but there is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

I really hope they win this one.

 

[Brad M.]

I thought there was some kind of law against suing the Fed Gov't...?

That's the way I understood it too, but I know absolutely nothing about law. Just curious to see where this one goes. And my state is on the list!

 

[wolfpackjeeper]

The Gov't has to acknowledge the suite. I think this is why you end up seeing the suite being brought against a person or office of the Govt more often.

 

[WB9YZU]

The Wisconsin AG wanted to join the suit, but needed the Governor's consent. He was denied. The AG is a Republican, the Gov, a Democrat. The Governor's explanation was that the suit would be a waste of tax dollars. Our Gov was the AG at one point.

I looked around an bit, and except for Tort cases, it looks like Wolfpack is right. These Governors would have to get a Federal Court to give them permission to proceed with the case. That's not very likely...

I thought the mandated insurance thing was the sticking point, but, the concept of mandated car insurance in most States is nothing new, as is the concept of a penalty if you don't have it (in fact our nice Dems voted that one in on the sly this year). So that's can't be it.

I think the issue comes back to cost and the fact that many States don't have a welfare-health care system in place, like "Badger Care", and would be forced to now roll one out and pay for it out of their own pockets.

I don't think they have a chance in Hades...

Ron

 

[joe_peters]

Auto insurance, once again, is a favorite "red herring" of the un-informed.

1. The federal government does NOT mandate that you have auto insurance.

2. State governments mandate that you HAVE auto insurance to operate a motor vehicle. You can own an auto and not have insurance--just don't drive it on public roadways. You can choose to not own an auto, and then you don't have to buy auto insurance either. CHOICE. STATE not federal. In fact, some states have provisions in their laws to allow you to "self-insure". Again, NO federals involved.

I believe that the federal government has the power and constitutional authority to tax and provide for all citizens (and they would include legal residents and illegals too) medical care. We can't stop that, its called universal health care or single payer health care or national health care.

What I can't get myself wrapped around is where in the U.S. Constitution the federal government believes it has the power to force me to buy a product from a private vendor. It isn't there. The interstate commerce clause doesn't apply. Period. We are suffering under the delusional precedents set by FDR's Progressive Socialist SCOTUS and later SCOTUS loath of setting aside precedents.

Our constitution was written specifically for a WEAK central government. Under a warped view of the interstate commerce clause we now have a intrusive, invasive, and oppressive federal government.

We are at the tipping point.

Mao, a hero of the current administration, said: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." Remove "communist" and insert "Democratic" and things will be much clearer.

When the government no longer fears the people, the people will fear the government.

 

[kastein]

I thought the mandated insurance thing was the sticking point, but, the concept of mandated car insurance in most States is nothing new, as is the concept of a penalty if you don't have it (in fact our nice Dems voted that one in on the sly this year). So that's can't be it.

The difference: Cars have no rights, neither natural nor imaginary. I can have a car on my own private property and not need insurance or even registration or plates. I for some reason cannot live on my own property and not have health insurance though.

If this was the same as auto insurance, you would need health insurance to be present on public property.

 

[WB9YZU]

The State car insurance requirement is just an analog that is often used. I though it out there because I believe that if it wasn't for the costs a number of the States in the suit would accrue to implement this program, they would not be suing.

Does the Fed have the "Constitutional Right" to demand you buy health insurance? What about the whole "Life..." bit? Could that be construed as saying that health insurance is a "Right" under the Constitution?

*** Yes ***, I do know what they meant by the "Life, Liberty, etc..." clause, however, it seems courts now days legislate from the bench in ways that the Founding Fathers never envisioned.

Though I don't agree with how this law was passed, or even what it contains for most people, the mounds of additional taxes, and the outright lies about this reducing the deficit...

I know that without your health, you don't have anything and there are good hardworking folks out there who need help. Will repealing this law help those folks get health insurance in the future, or will it hinder it?

Ron

 

[urban yan]

It seems to me the biggest problem with society nowadays is that we rather sue our fellow man rather than give him a helping hand.

 

[Brad M.]

It seems to me the biggest problem with society nowadays is that we rather sue our fellow man rather than give him a helping hand.

Forcing people to have health insurance, and fining them if they don't, is not a helping hand if you ask me. I have a cousin, single mom, who works in a 3 person dental office. No benefits, and only makes $14k a year. Can't afford any policies under the current system. Explain to me how the new system will help her?

 

[Darky]

The State car insurance requirement is just an analog that is often used. I though it out there because I believe that if it wasn't for the costs a number of the States in the suit would accrue to implement this program, they would not be suing.

Does the Fed have the "Constitutional Right" to demand you buy health insurance? What about the whole "Life..." bit? Could that be construed as saying that health insurance is a "Right" under the Constitution?

*** Yes ***, I do know what they meant by the "Life, Liberty, etc..." clause, however, it seems courts now days legislate from the bench in ways that the Founding Fathers never envisioned.

Though I don't agree with how this law was passed, or even what it contains for most people, the mounds of additional taxes, and the outright lies about this reducing the deficit...

I know that without your health, you don't have anything and there are good hardworking folks out there who need help. Will repealing this law help those folks get health insurance in the future, or will it hinder it?

Ron

We a re granted Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. That doesn't mean that the gov't can tax us if we're alive, free, and happy. This health care plan taxes you for living. Besides, you don't have to be healthy to be alive. You can live in a state of degraded health for quite some time. My grandpa made it to 86 with type 2 diabetes, emphysema, weak heart (VA found a quarter sized hole when he was in his 40's), high blood pressure, etc etc. And to make it better he didn't really even try to live like he was supposed to. He'd sneak donuts and cinnamon rolls, was always trying to mow his lawn, work on the house, etc.

 

[r33pwrd]

I really like this video... it pretty much sums up how I feel! The best quote in it is "you cant make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak" Albert E

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

 

[westvirginia24976]

My grandpa made it to 86 with type 2 diabetes, emphysema, weak heart (VA found a quarter sized hole when he was in his 40's), high blood pressure, etc etc. And to make it better he didn't really even try to live like he was supposed to. He'd sneak donuts and cinnamon rolls, was always trying to mow his lawn, work on the house, etc.

Off topic, but he sounds like a really cool guy.

 

[urban yan]

The best quote in it is "you cant make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak" Albert E

True, but you can't clean-up a weak man's situation by taking a dump on him either.
There has to be some kind of middle-ground in this shitshow.

 

[urban yan]

Also, you have to ask yourself whose the "strong-man" in this particular scenario.
Is it the American people or lobbyists/insurance companies.

 

[5-90]

The Wisconsin AG wanted to join the suit, but needed the Governor's consent. He was denied. The AG is a Republican, the Gov, a Democrat. The Governor's explanation was that the suit would be a waste of tax dollars. Our Gov was the AG at one point.

I looked around an bit, and except for Tort cases, it looks like Wolfpack is right. These Governors would have to get a Federal Court to give them permission to proceed with the case. That's not very likely...

I thought the mandated insurance thing was the sticking point, but, the concept of mandated car insurance in most States is nothing new, as is the concept of a penalty if you don't have it (in fact our nice Dems voted that one in on the sly this year). So that's can't be it.

I think the issue comes back to cost and the fact that many States don't have a welfare-health care system in place, like "Badger Care", and would be forced to now roll one out and pay for it out of their own pockets.

I don't think they have a chance in Hades...

Ron

There is a key difference - mandating vehicle liability insurance is somewhat reasonable - due to mass transit, bicycles, and good old LPCs (Leather Personnel Carriers...) it isn't strictly necessary to own a POV. And, there are several states that don't require you to actually carry a liability policy, there is also a legal mechanism that will allow you to file a certificate of deposit with the clerk of the county in which you reside for a required minimum amount (in Indiana, it's $65,000 - $15,000 Personal Liability and $50,000 Property Damage) and that will effectively replace the carriage of a policy and the recurrent payment of premiums.

The problem with the new Federal law is that it requires you to purchase some variety of healthcare coverage - simply by dint of breathing - and provides a mechanism for taxation of the non-purchase of such coverage! There has been no legal precedent for mandating the universal purchase of a good or service when such purchase simply cannot be avoided, and the idea of taxing a non-purchase is, quite simply, ludicrous.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(emphasis mine)

Failing to allow the state suits to proceed could result in another suit brought on First Amendment grounds in jig time - and that, I think, could bring much greater interest in short order. These would be untested waters (as I recall, all of the other rights guaranteed therein have been tested and upheld in court - which sets a useful precedent,) but I would become keenly interested in how such a secondary suit would proceed.