Multi-State Lawsuit Over Healthcare As Soon As Obama Signs!!!!!

Not being able to pay healthcare related bills is one of the major reasons for foreclosures. Foreclosures hurt everyone because it hurts the economy as a whole. So if everyone has to pay 1-2% more tax to prevent that, I think it's a good thing. One of the reasons why I am in favor of this bill...

Originally posted by jam321

Virginia will file suit against the federal government charging that the health-care reform legislation is unconstitutional, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's office confirmed last night.

Cuccinelli is expected to argue that the bill, with its mandate that requires nearly every American to be insured by 2014, violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. The attorney general's office will file suit once President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, which could occur early this week.

www2.timesdispatch.com...

xstealth- My bet is on SC.

God Bless my fellow citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia, this lawsuit is endorsed by the remnants of the Arlington Volunteers!

May I present our first performer, here is legend Bob Dylan playing DIXIE! LINK

reply to post by jam321


A sense of horror is filling me more and more - especially after reading the OP. I feel like this health care bill is the start to something terrible to come. Something we all have be anticipating for a long time. This lawsuit will show us the power the fed has over everyone though, because I can guarantee it will be shoved away and thrown in the trash like my FOIA requests as many others have been as well.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by endisnighe

 

The governor of Idaho signed a bill last week blocking federal mandates requiring individuals in his state to purchase health insurance.

Some 38 states have either filed or announced their intention to file similar legislation, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, which opposes the health reform bill.

news.smh.com.au...

I am still trying to figure out if all 38 states are Red states. The latest news has 12 republican AG's are filing suit.

Washington is not a red state and it's intending to file, it's more of a purple state though.

for the first time in my life i am ashamed to be an american my state is one of the ones filing suit.

nothing will come of it- its been said and said right noone has a spine to do anything.

the previous poster is right the only way they will wake up is succession and noone has the balls to do that either.

automakers,banks,and now healthcare the biggest power grab in american history and his term isnt even over yet. god knows whats comming next and then after.

i cannot beleive how many think more government in their lives is better.

god save the republic cause liberals are destroying it.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Not being able to pay healthcare related bills is one of the major reasons for foreclosures. Foreclosures hurt everyone because it hurts the economy as a whole. So if everyone has to pay 1-2% more tax to prevent that, I think it's a good thing. One of the reasons why I am in favor of this bill...

One of the major reasons for bad ideas and mistakes is people making major statments without some major research and major statistics to back them up.

Do you seriously believe that health care issues are really a major cause of foreclosures?

Considering most home loans provide insurance for people who become ill and can't work because they are ill. It's called credilt life/health where if you die the home is paid off or if you get incapacitated from illness the insurer will pay the mortgage until you are better.

Lets further forget that people going bankrupt because of medical bills can't be kicked out of their homes simply because their mortgage was one of the things they fell behind on.

Why pretend a bad health care program that really is just the government take over of the last lucrative business in America some how helps people on other grounds like mortgages.

Statistics will likely show fewer than 5% of mortgage borrowers loose their homes because of ill health and likely only when their health is so ill they can't maintain a home in the other normal ways (cut the lawn, sweep the floors, take out the trash).

So if that's been highly exagerated to you by someone looking to sell you on the idea that health care is a good thing what else could they have been exagerating about.

There is a map showing 36 states that have or are trying to pass legislation concerning this healthcare.

Hope somebody can insert it. I'm at work. Thanks.

As of early March, formal resolutions or bills had been filed in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Up to three additional states were reported in media or association articles to have discussed future action or intentions; examples are listed below.

www.ncsl.org...

reply to post by jam321


Here is the map-

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/68f738f3bc0e.gif[/atsimg]

The 1st amendment addresses the right to redress grievances and there's also the uniform commercial code; specifically the UCC1-207 (which some states have changed to UCC1-308).

I reserve my rights under UCC 1-207 not to be forced to perform under the terms of a contract that I did not enter into knowingly, willingly, and intentionally.

GO STATES GOO!!

Hell yea, some good news!

reply to post by HolgerTheDane


If you show up at a hospital and are in need for emergency stabilizing care, legally you can not be turned away. They can not accept money up front for services rendered. They will however bill you after the fact and a lot of people choose not to pay.

What you fail to understand about this bill is it does not open up a public option. It is forcing the public, many of whom cannot afford coverage, to purchase said coverage or face fines and/or jail time. It will not lower insurance rates and leaves no caps on them going higher. It also imposes stiff taxes on pharmaceutical companies which will be passed on to the consumer.

If the bill included a public option that said, everyone gets health care weather they can afford it or not and you will be taken care of 100%, then less people would be upset about this. Unfortunately this is going to do considerably more harm to the poor and small business owners who are unable to afford coverage. The public option in the bill was done away with months ago.

Originally posted by xstealth
lawsuits are just going to get held up in court and do nothing, ultimately get dismissed.

I'll be impressed when I start seeing succession; nothing speaks louder then that.

before the civil war, states did not one day wake up and decide to leave.. it took years of bitter arguments and threats.. ultimately the states decided they wanted nothing to do with the Union any longer.

But note.. not all the states left at once. It wasn't until SC was assaulted by the Federal forces that numerous other states decided to go to her aid, and not side with the Federal forces.

I'm glad to see States standing up for themselves.. the people/states seem on edge over the past few years, not all that unlike before the Civil War.

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane

Don't you guys realize that Obama isn't tearing down the country - he is trying to make sure that Insurance companies, Banks and BigPharma doesn't take over control of your nation?

How is he doing that? By forcing us to hand billions of dollars over to them?

"You put a little something in my pocket every week. I'll make sure nothing... nothing bad happens to ya. I'ld hate to see ya pretty little kids grow up with out a poppa. So, just hand over the dough and ya never have to see me around here again."

A bunch of Italians in New York used that kind of logic. The FBI started a task force just for them.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by MikeNice81]

reply to post by xizd1


Key word being COMMERCE LAW! If the states even try to bring this sort of lawsuit on grounds of Constitutionality, or by filing suit declaring said law is; UNCONSTITUTIONAL in a court of THE UNITED STATE OF AMERICA, then it will surely fail as the political propaganda that it is. It will have to be filed as a commerce violation if it has any chance of success. IMO this is a disinformation tactic of politicians to blind and snow the constituancy of the natural born humans of the Republic.

Just my opinion.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by rougeskut]

[edit on 22-3-2010 by rougeskut]

I hope that it proves to be untrue in the case of this bill that "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I think this experience, (being alive during the historic legislation) has taught me how much I have taken for granted. What little understanding I have of the struggle between the federal government and states rights seemed like something you only considered in terms of "The Civil War," but I had always associated the struggle in terms of the fight against slavery, not the freedom of a state to govern itself.

The track record for states asserting sovereign authority is not a good one.

I also am less than optimistic about the outcome of any challenge to this legislation. We had all heard of the sentiment represented among those who wander the halls of power "Damn The Country, Obama Must Fail".

And against such resistance, this bill, clearly a contentious proposition, succeeded nevertheless. One might be tempted to think that this is a questions of democracy, 51% ruling the other 49%. Them's the brakes!

But most of us know that it can never be that simple.

I find it odd, that I was always taught (heck, conditioned) to think that no one can compel another to enter a contract with another private citizen without their consent. This is no longer true. We must engage the risk-taking insurance industry to give them money, just in case we get sick. I know it may seem infantile to some, but it feels wrong to me.

I wouldn't object if it were the government itself that was the provider, although I know they lack the competence and dedication to service that is requisite if they are to do it acceptably. But now I am told I must labor to provide a private for-profit company with revenue, or face a penalty.

What do I get in exchange for that? I don't know, only time will tell. Maybe nothing, in which case the insurers are so much the richer and I so much the poorer. Maybe I will require assistance that I could not have paid for on demand by the health care providers who won't help you for free. Again, it feels wrong. It's like setting the system up to invite price hikes for health care services; heck, it's not like the sick or injured have to pay full price.

Of course, if I refuse, I still have to give the fruit of my labor to the government..., funny how my debt share keeps going back to the Fed, isn't it?

Maybe I need more sleep.

Maxmars, that is a well written post.




I believe we all knew this was bound to turn ugly one way or the other. Right now it is lawsuits, tomorrow who knows.

Lots of questions and many answers.

Who is right, who is wrong? Who wins and who loses?

Does it really matter? The damage has already been done. I am not talking about the healthcare bill when I say damage. I am talking about the relationship between Americans.

The Dems are on one side, the reps on the other and people are picking their side.

Constitutional or unconstitutional? Which side is yours?


Of course, the reality is that both parties have proven over the years that the Constitution is just a damn piece of paper.

In other news, Is this the race card or just historical fact?

The third-ranking Democrat in the U.S. House said Monday that state efforts to sue the federal government over health care are reminiscent of attempts to derail civil rights nearly 50 years ago.

"I think I remember South Carolina filing a lawsuit saying integrating the schools was unconstitutional, that getting off the back of the bus was unconstitutional, allowing me to have a vote was unconstitutional," said House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, a Democrat and the highest-ranking black member of Congress. "I remember that as if it were yesterday."

www.miamiherald.com...

Originally posted by jam321
Maxmars, that is a well written post.

I believe we all knew this was bound to turn ugly one way or the other. Right now it is lawsuits, tomorrow who knows.

Lots of questions and many answers.

Who is right, who is wrong? Who wins and who loses?

Does it really matter? The damage has already been done. I am not talking about the healthcare bill when I say damage. I am talking about the relationship between Americans.

The Dems are on one side, the reps on the other and people are picking their side.

Constitutional or unconstitutional? Which side is yours?


Of course, the reality is that both parties have proven over the years that the Constitution is just a damn piece of paper.

In other news, Is this the race card or just historical fact?

The third-ranking Democrat in the U.S. House said Monday that state efforts to sue the federal government over health care are reminiscent of attempts to derail civil rights nearly 50 years ago.

"I think I remember South Carolina filing a lawsuit saying integrating the schools was unconstitutional, that getting off the back of the bus was unconstitutional, allowing me to have a vote was unconstitutional," said House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, a Democrat and the highest-ranking black member of Congress. "I remember that as if it were yesterday."

www.miamiherald.com...

Its funny how they will always fall back on their go-to arguments such as race when they feel threatened and need to rally their base. Next they'll be saying people that are against socialized healthcare are no different than anti Semites. Or maybe racists for wanting to deny free health insurance to illegals. Seems like a stretch now but I'm sure they will find a way to use that argument when they need the discussion to become toxic to anyone who wants to debate.

Abbot confirms case will rely on individual mandate and commerce clause.

Of course, the big question is upon what grounds this group of attorneys general will be making their claim. A term tossed about throughout the GOP gubernatorial primary with regard to how to respond to federal healthcare reform was “nullification,” the theory that a state has the power to nullify any law passed by the federal government they believe is unconstitutional. Abbott says they won't be relying on that argument at all. “Nullification as a legal theory is not a part of this," he says. "If we prevail, it is, in essence, a nullification of this law.” The case they’re making hinges on the individual mandate in the bill and the commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution:

www.texastribune.org...

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Not being able to pay healthcare related bills is one of the major reasons for foreclosures. Foreclosures hurt everyone because it hurts the economy as a whole. So if everyone has to pay 1-2% more tax to prevent that, I think it's a good thing. One of the reasons why I am in favor of this bill...

One of the major reasons for bad ideas and mistakes is people making major statments without some major research and major statistics to back them up.

Do you seriously believe that health care issues are really a major cause of foreclosures?

Considering most home loans provide insurance for people who become ill and can't work because they are ill. It's called credilt life/health where if you die the home is paid off or if you get incapacitated from illness the insurer will pay the mortgage until you are better.

Lets further forget that people going bankrupt because of medical bills can't be kicked out of their homes simply because their mortgage was one of the things they fell behind on.

Why pretend a bad health care program that really is just the government take over of the last lucrative business in America some how helps people on other grounds like mortgages.

Statistics will likely show fewer than 5% of mortgage borrowers loose their homes because of ill health and likely only when their health is so ill they can't maintain a home in the other normal ways (cut the lawn, sweep the floors, take out the trash).

So if that's been highly exagerated to you by someone looking to sell you on the idea that health care is a good thing what else could they have been exagerating about.

According to this study, 49% of foreclosures are triggered by health issues by people who don't have proper healthcare.

Imo 49% counts as a "major reason"...and your 5% estimate is way way way waaaaay too low

I already addressed this here.

The short of it; only a handful of states are likely to get this done but don't count on it.

Just watch the lawsuit's crash and burn as you're given more and more money by the government to pay for health care. Poor, poor, middle-class you.