PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues 11 States slated to file suit over health care


petegz28
03-22-2010, 09:26 PM
Vriginia
Florida
South Carolina
Nebraska
Texas
Utah
North Dakota
South Dakota
Alabama
Pennsylvania
Washington

Dottefan
03-22-2010, 09:26 PM
Shotgun..DO IT ..DO IT...DO IT....




CRY BABY..LOL.

Mr. Kotter
03-22-2010, 09:28 PM
OMG!!!

The world is gonna END!!! Soon!!! Run!!!!

OMG!!!

petegz28
03-22-2010, 09:30 PM
OMG!!!

The world is gonna END!!! Soon!!! Run!!!!

OMG!!!

Yes, Mr. Kotter, you will soon enjoy even more of my money.

Dottefan
03-22-2010, 09:31 PM
OMG ..SHOTGUN..DO IT...DO IT...DO IT...FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAN..DO IT.

BigRedChief
03-22-2010, 09:32 PM
http://christianmenchristianwarrior.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/chicken-little-sky-falling.jpg

petegz28
03-22-2010, 09:39 PM
http://christianmenchristianwarrior.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/chicken-little-sky-falling.jpg

Yea, yea. Mr. "I'm against the bill" but now suddenly all for it reposts links from other threads. You have lost a ton of credibility over this, I do hope yo realize that.

Dottefan
03-22-2010, 09:49 PM
Yea, yea. .

DO IT...DO IT...DO IT..GRAB THE SHOTGUN..DO IT..DO IT..DO IT..

BigRedChief
03-22-2010, 09:59 PM
Yea, yea. Mr. "I'm against the bill" but now suddenly all for it reposts links from other threads. You have lost a ton of credibility over this, I do hope yo realize that.ROFL I'm off your friends list?

I don't justify chit to you pal. I've got a right to my opinion and if you don't like it, theres always the ignore option.

Your constant BS and the sky is falling threads are just BS to convince yourself of the righteouness of your views at the expense of any other opinions.

petegz28
03-22-2010, 10:04 PM
ROFL I'm off your friends list?

I don't justify chit to you pal. I've got a right to my opinion and if you don't like it, theres always the ignore option.

Your constant BS and the sky is falling threads are just BS to convince yourself of the righteouness of your views at the expense of any other opinions.

I'll just call you John Kerry from now on, OK? Your opinion seems to change as often as the wind blows. One day you are telling us all how you are against the bill and the next you are celebrating and telling others tough-titty.

BigRedChief
03-22-2010, 10:06 PM
I'll just call you John Kerry from now on, OK? Your opinion seems to change as often as the wind blows. One day you are telling us all how you are against the bill and the next you are celebrating and telling others tough-titty.see your so frigging obvious. Marginalize the others viewpoints and then come up with some demeaning analogy or slogan to reinforce your view of the others.

petegz28
03-22-2010, 10:12 PM
see your so frigging obvious. Marginalize the others viewpoints and then come up with some demeaning analogy or slogan to reinforce your view of the others.

Do what? I am not the one that made you say you were against this bill then jump for joy when it was passed. Don't blame me. I didn't make you do it. I am just calling you on it. And you don't like it.

It's more than obvious now you were just saying you were against the bill but really weren't.

CoMoChief
03-22-2010, 10:26 PM
I'll just call you John Kerry from now on, OK? Your opinion seems to change as often as the wind blows. One day you are telling us all how you are against the bill and the next you are celebrating and telling others tough-titty.

ROFL John Kerry. nice.

KC Dan
03-22-2010, 10:30 PM
Man, watch out for the line. Crossing it can be hazardous to your integrity. We really don't want a good guy like you jumping it.

BigRedChief
03-22-2010, 10:42 PM
Man, watch out for the line. Crossing it can be hazardous to your integrity. We really don't want a good guy like you jumping it.I'm a multi facted guy. Read why I supported the bill after it passed before jumping to conclusions.

Useful Idiot
03-22-2010, 10:51 PM
so much for that 'socialism fear mongering' mantra from the left.

btw, I should point out that I have no dog in this fight. I hate republicans and democrats equally.

petegz28
03-22-2010, 10:54 PM
I'm a multi facted guy. Read why I supported the bill after it passed before jumping to conclusions.

LMAO, ok, Johny K. I'll get right on that. I am so curious to see as to why you were against it before you were for it. ROFL

KC Dan
03-22-2010, 10:55 PM
I'm a multi facted guy. Read why I supported the bill after it passed before jumping to conclusions.I know that you are. I read enough of your posts beforehand. I don't really care about the bill or anyone's support or lack thereof. The pic was more of a joke than anything else. This HC bill is a done deal and we will live with it and pay for it until it, SS and Medicare/Medicaid formally bankrupt this once proud nation. It is coming but I still pray that it can be averted. I honestly just don't see how at the rate we are declining fiscally-wise

ClevelandBronco
03-22-2010, 11:46 PM
Looks like Colorado is on board.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14732156

Colo. will join lawsuit to block health care bill

By COLLEEN SLEVIN Associated Press Writer

DENVER—Colorado Attorney General John Suthers is joining a national lawsuit to try to block federal health care legislation—over the objections of Gov. Bill Ritter and the Democrats who control the state Legislature.

Suthers said Monday he would join fellow Republican attorneys general in at least nine other states in opposing the bill because he thinks a provision requiring most Americans to purchase insurance is an unconstitutional expansion of federal power. Congress has the right to control interstate commerce but can't force people to participate in commerce, he said.

"Never before has Congress compelled Americans, under the threat of economic sanction, to purchase a particular product or service as a condition of living in this country," Suthers said.

Republican state lawmakers had called on him earlier in the day to join the lawsuit. But Suthers, the only Republican elected to statewide office, said he reached his decision on his own and said it wasn't politically motivated.

Democratic legislative leaders disagreed.

Senate Majority Leader John Morse said it was based on the "ideology of the extreme right wing" rather than on compassion for the estimated 800,000 uninsured Coloradans. House Speaker Terrance Carroll called it "Republican obstructionist politics."

"It's really a political argument looking for legal justification," Carroll said.

Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer said the governor believes Congress has the right to pass such legislation, which he said would provide insurance to 300,000 in the state. Recent state legislation, including a fee on hospitals passed last year, has already provided care to 200,000 residents, Dreyer said.

Republican lawmakers, however, said the mandate to buy health insurance was an invasion of people's privacy and that the state can't afford the bill's significant expansion of Medicaid, the joint federal-state health plan for the poor. Colorado's Medicaid benefits are relatively low compared to many states, and lawmakers have had to slash payments to Medicaid providers to help balance the budget during the recession.

House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, said the bill marks a major shift in how the federal government prods the states and citizens to move the way it wants. While the federal government has held out funding and tax credits to get results in the past, the federal government will now be able to punish people who don't buy health insurance by fining them, he said.

"We've moved beyond enticement to holding a hammer over your head," May said.

Some Republican lawmakers are also supporting a proposed ballot measure that would seek to block the legislation in Colorado. It would add the right to choose health care to the list of rights outlined in Colorado's constitution and would bar the state from enforcing the federal legislation.

Independence Institute president Jon Caldara said the ballot measure would set up a fight between state's rights and federal power that would have to be settled in court.

Opponents have until Wednesday to file a legal challenge. After that, Caldara plans to start gathering the 76,047 signatures needed to get it on the ballot. He has until July 12.

Dylan
03-22-2010, 11:48 PM
Sad state for American Democracy. ...

The Wall Street Journal

March 21, 2010

Inside the Pelosi Sausage Factory

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Last week Republican Rep. Mike Pence posted on his Facebook site that famous Schoolhouse Rock video titled "How a Bill Becomes a Law." It's clearly time for a remake.

Never before has the average American been treated to such a live-action view of the sordid politics necessary to push a deeply flawed bill to completion. It was dirty deals, open threats, broken promises and disregard for democracy that pulled ObamaCare to this point, and yesterday the same machinations pushed it across the finish line.


You could see it all coming a week ago, when New York Rep. Louise Slaughter let leak a breathtaking strategy whereby the House would not actually vote on the unpopular Senate bill. The House would instead vote on a "reconciliation" fix to that bill, and in the process "deem" the underlying legislation—with its Cornhusker kickbacks and Louisiana purchases—passed.

The Slaughter Solution was both blunt admission and warning. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not have 216 votes to pass the Senate bill, there never was going to be majority "support" for it, but they'd pass it anyway. The final days were a simple death watch, to see how the votes would be bought, bribed or bullied, and how many congressional rules gamed, to get the win.

President Obama flew to Pennsylvania (home to five wavering House Democrats), Missouri (three wavering), Ohio (eight), and Virginia (four) to hold rallies with small, supportive crowds. In four days, Mr. Obama held 64 meetings or calls with congressmen. The goal was to let undecideds know that the president had them in his crosshairs, that he still had pull with the base, and he'd use it against them. By Saturday the tactic had yielded yes votes from at least half the previously undecided members of those states.

As for those who needed more persuasion: California Rep. Jim Costa bragged publicly that during his meeting in the Oval Office, he'd demanded the administration increase water to his Central Valley district. On Tuesday, Interior pushed up its announcement, giving the Central Valley farmers 25% of water supplies, rather than the expected 5% allocation. Mr. Costa, who denies there was a quid pro quo, on Saturday said he'd flip to a yes.

Florida Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (whose district is home to the Kennedy Space Center) admitted that in her own Thursday meeting with the president, she'd brought up the need for more NASA funding. On Friday she flipped to a yes. So watch the NASA budget.

Democrats inserted a new provision providing $100 million in extra Medicaid money for Tennessee. Retiring Tennessee Rep. Bart Gordon flipped to a yes vote on Thursday.

Outside heavies were enlisted to warn potential no votes that unions and other Democrats would run them out of Congress. Al Lawson, a Tallahassee liberal challenging Blue Dog Florida Rep. Allen Boyd in a primary, made Mr. Boyd's previous no vote the centerpiece of his criticism. The SEIU threatened to yank financial support for New York's Michael McMahon. The liberal Working Families Party said it would deny him a ballot line. Obama deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand vowed to challenge South Dakota Rep.

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin if she voted no. New York's Scott Murphy was targeted as a part of a $1.3 million union-financed ad campaign to pressure him to flip. Moveon.Org spent another $36,000 on ads in his district and promised a primary. Messrs. Boyd and Murphy caved on Friday.

All the while Mrs. Pelosi was desperately working to provide cover with a Congressional Budget Office score that would claim the bill "saved" money. To do it, Democrats threw in a further $66 billion in Medicare cuts and another $50 billion in taxes. Huzzah! In the day following the CBO score, about a half-dozen Democrats who had spent the past months complaining the bill already had too many taxes and Medicare cuts now said they were voting to reduce the deficit.

Even with all this, by Friday Mrs. Pelosi was dealing with a new problem: The rule changes and deals winning her votes were losing her votes, too. The public backlash against "deem and pass" gave several wary Democrats—such as Massachusetts's Stephen Lynch and California's Dennis Cardoza—a new excuse to vote no.

Mrs. Pelosi jettisoned deem and pass. Once-solid Democrat yes votes wanted their own concessions. Oregon's Pete DeFazio threatened to lead a revolt unless changes were made to Medicare payments to benefit his state. On Saturday Mrs. Pelosi cut a deal to give 17 states additional Medicare money.

By the weekend, all the pressure and threats and bribes had left the speaker three to five votes short. Her remaining roadblock was those pro-life members who'd boxed themselves in on abortion, saying they would vote against the Senate bill unless it barred public funding of abortion. Mrs. Pelosi's first instinct was to go around this bloc, getting the votes elsewhere. She couldn't.

Into Saturday night, Michigan's Bart Stupak and Mrs. Pelosi wrangled over options. The stalemate? Any change that gave Mr. Stupak what he wanted in law would lose votes from pro-choice members. The solution? Remove it from Congress altogether, having the president instead sign a meaningless executive order affirming that no public money should go to pay for abortions.

The order won't change the Senate legal language—as pro-choice Democrats publicly crowed within minutes of the Stupak deal. Executive orders can be changed or eliminated on a whim. Pro-life groups condemned the order as the vote-getting ruse it was. Nevertheless, Mr. Stupak and several of his colleagues voted yes, paving the way to Mrs. Pelosi's final vote tally of 219.

Even in these waning minutes, Senate Democrats were playing their own games. Republicans announced they had found language in the House reconciliation bill that could doom this entire "fix" in the Senate. Since many House Democrats only agreed to vote for the Senate bill on promises that the sidecar reconciliation would pass, this was potentially a last-minute killer.

Senate Democrats handled it by deliberately refusing to meet with Republicans and the Senate parliamentarian to get a ruling, lest it be unfavorable and lose House votes. The dodge was a clear dereliction of duty, but Democrats figure the Senate parliamentarian won't dare derail this process after ObamaCare passes. They are probably right.

So there you have it, folks: "How a Bill Becomes a Law," at least in Obama-Pelosi land. Perhaps the most remarkable Democratic accomplishment this week was to make the process of passing ObamaCare as politically toxic as the bill itself.

President Obama was elected by millions of Americans attracted to his promise to change Washington politics. These were voters furious with earmarks, insider deals and a lack of transparency. They were the many Americans who, even before this week, held Congress in historic low esteem. They'll remember this spectacle come November.

Ms. Strassel writes the Journal's weekly Potomac Watch column from Washington.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703807904575097394068626652.html

orange
03-22-2010, 11:50 PM
Washington

[Gov.] Gregoire said she spoke with McKenna Monday morning after hearing he would be joining the lawsuit along with other Republican attorneys general.

Gregoire said she told him to "get ready to represent me" because she intends to file a legal brief opposing McKenna's action. :D

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2011412329_mckenna_says_hell_sue_to_block.html

petegz28
03-22-2010, 11:51 PM
[Gov.] Gregoire said she told him to "get ready to represent me" because she intends to file a legal brief opposing McKenna's action. :D

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2011412329_mckenna_says_hell_sue_to_block.html

And?

orange
03-22-2010, 11:53 PM
And?

... And ... he's going to be the lawyer for both sides of the suit. You think that will work? :doh!:

I bet the authority of a lot of these guys to do this is in question.

petegz28
03-22-2010, 11:54 PM
... And ... he's going to be the lawyer for both sides of the suit. You think that will work? :doh!:

I bet the authority of a lot of these guys to do this is in question.

Well, it really is not a big deal. The Gov can cry all she wants but the fact is, the Constitution is against her. I belive they took an oath to uphold the Constitution. So their authority is just fine. Why do you hate the Constitution, Orange?

ClevelandBronco
03-22-2010, 11:56 PM
Well, it really is not a big deal. The Gov can cry all she wants but the fact is, the Constitution is against her. I belive they took an oath to uphold the Constitution. So their authority is just fine. Why do you hate the Constitution, Orange?

Because even though his party can stretch it like Silly Putty, they haven't yet figured out a way to break it permanently.

orange
03-22-2010, 11:59 PM
Well, it really is not a big deal. The Gov can cry all she wants but the fact is, the Constitution is against her. I belive they took an oath to uphold the Constitution. So their authority is just fine. Why do you hate the Constitution, Orange?

What authority are you talking about now? ROFL

McKenna's authority as Washington Attorney General derives strictly from the Washington state constitution. The U. S. Constitution is TOTALLY SILENT on it. And his job is to represent the Governor in suits like this. Whether he can pull a lawsuit out of his hat on his own initiative is more than debatable.

petegz28
03-23-2010, 12:00 AM
What authority are you talking about now? ROFL

McKenna's authority as Washington Attorney General derives strictly from the Washington state constitution. The U. S. Constitution is TOTALLY SILENT on it. And his job is to represent the Governor in suits like this. Whether he can pull a lawsuit out of his hat on his own initiative is more than debatable.

Why, Orange? Why do you hate the Constitution?

I think it is so funny the Dems are so worried about these suits. They act as if they aren't but they are.

orange
03-23-2010, 12:00 AM
Because even though his party can stretch it like Silly Putty, they haven't yet figured out a way to break it permanently.

Maybe YOU can tell me exactly what powers the United States Constitution grants the Attorney General of Washington state. I don't see a damn thing there.

orange
03-23-2010, 12:01 AM
Why, Orange? Why do you hate the Constitution?


The same reason you hate your mother. When are you going to stop beating her?

petegz28
03-23-2010, 12:03 AM
The same reason you hate your mother. When are you going to stop beating her?

That all you got?

ClevelandBronco
03-23-2010, 12:03 AM
Maybe YOU can tell me exactly what powers the United States Constitution grants the Attorney General of Washington state. I don't see a damn thing there.

None. But the question you pose has nothing to do with what I said.

petegz28
03-23-2010, 12:06 AM
Actually, Orange, it is the job of the AG to protect the State's consumers.

orange
03-23-2010, 12:06 AM
That all you got?

It's more than I need.

bowener
03-23-2010, 12:08 AM
Couldn't this all just be solved by simply adding an option for public health care? I would like the freedom to at least consider if it is the better option for me.

Dylan
03-23-2010, 12:10 AM
[Gov.] Gregoire said she spoke with McKenna Monday morning after hearing he would be joining the lawsuit along with other Republican attorneys general.

Gregoire said she told him to "get ready to represent me" because she intends to file a legal brief opposing McKenna's action. :D

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2011412329_mckenna_says_hell_sue_to_block.html

"If Gregoire is for it, then I am against it. I will no longer trust anything she says. If she says it is sunny outside, I plan to bring my umbrella." ... Seattle, WA
LMAO


"I don't know who he represents. He doesn't represent me," Gregoire said"

For one, he represents me. I voted for him and I will do it again, given the chance." ... citizen in Seattle, WA :D

orange
03-23-2010, 12:11 AM
None. But the question you pose has nothing to do with what I said.


Au contraire. It has everything with what you said.

Well, it really is not a big deal. The Gov can cry all she wants but the fact is, the Constitution is against her. I belive they took an oath to uphold the Constitution. So their authority is just fine. Why do you hate the Constitution, Orange?
Because even though his party can stretch it like Silly Putty, they haven't yet figured out a way to break it permanently.

You supported the idiotic claim that the Attorney General of a state can ignore his state's Constitution - apparently because he took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

petegz28
03-23-2010, 12:11 AM
Couldn't this all just be solved by simply adding an option for public health care? I would like the freedom to at least consider if it is the better option for me.

The only freedom you have is none. You will buy health care insurance or Dear Leader will come after you. Welcome to Amerika.

ClevelandBronco
03-23-2010, 12:12 AM
Couldn't this all just be solved by simply adding an option for public health care? I would like the freedom to at least consider if it is the better option for me.

You'd like the freedom to depend on someone else to pay part of your tab?

Oh, yes. I can see that you're all about freedom.

petegz28
03-23-2010, 12:12 AM
Au contraire. It has everything with what you said.



You supported the idiotic claim that the Attorney General of a state can ignore his state's Constitution - apparently because he took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Where does the State Constitution say they people can be forced by the fed gov to buy insurance?

orange
03-23-2010, 12:13 AM
If she says it is sunny outside, I plan to bring my umbrella. ... Seattle, WA

Always a good plan for Seattle in any case.

ClevelandBronco
03-23-2010, 12:15 AM
Au contraire. It has everything with what you said.
You supported the idiotic claim that the Attorney General of a state can ignore his state's Constitution - apparently because he took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

I did nothing of the sort. I answered this question alone, you pompous twit.

Why do you hate the Constitution, Orange?

bowener
03-23-2010, 12:18 AM
The only freedom you have is none. You will buy health care insurance or Dear Leader will come after you. Welcome to Amerika.

I already have it, so no biggie to me.

petegz28
03-23-2010, 12:18 AM
Legal issues aside, Gregoire said McKenna should have consulted with her and legislative leaders.

But McKenna said it's his call: That's why the state constitution makes his office independently elected rather than appointed, as in some states. It's "checks and balances," he said

bowener
03-23-2010, 12:19 AM
You'd like the freedom to depend on someone else to pay part of your tab?

Oh, yes. I can see that you're all about freedom.

Well, my understanding is that I currently depend on someone else to pay part of my tab through the shitty private health care that I currently own... actually come to think of it, I don't make any large claims so they depend on me and my money... I'm really getting shafted by this fucking HC... fuck blue cross/blue shield.

petegz28
03-23-2010, 12:20 AM
Well, my understanding is that I currently depend on someone else to pay part of my tab through the shitty private health care that I currently own... actually come to think of it, I don't make any large claims so they depend on me and my money... I'm really getting shafted by this ****ing HC... **** blue cross/blue shield.

Wait until the Fed Gov gets ahold of you. :D

orange
03-23-2010, 12:23 AM
I did nothing of the sort. I answered this question alone, you pompous twit.

To which question, you have no right to speak for me, you pusillanimous ass.

And if you're only speaking to "C," you shouldn't quote "A" and "B" to support the question when "A" and "B" make you look like an idiot. How's that for pompous?

ClevelandBronco
03-23-2010, 12:24 AM
I already have it, so no biggie to me.

That's good, then. The only freedom you've lost is one that you didn't intend to exercise.

You'll probably not want to let that way of thinking about freedom extend too far, though. Some of your fellow citizens might like to use a freedom that you don't care much about and you might like to use one that they don't care much about.

You'll have to have each others' backs in situations such as those.

Dylan
03-23-2010, 12:25 AM
Couldn't this all just be solved by simply adding an option for public health care? I would like the freedom to at least consider if it is the better option for me.

Al Sharpton: 'The American Public Overwhelmingly Voted for Socialism When They Elected President Obama'

Some of the American people probably thought they were voting for hope and change when they voted for President Barack Obama on Nov. 4, 2008. But according to Rev. Al Sharpton, they were voting for socialism.

Sharpton, the founder of the National Action Network and talk radio host told Fox News on March 21, during their special coverage of the House of Representatives' passage of health care reform legislation, this victory for President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would begin "transforming" the country.

"I think that the president and Nancy Pelosi get credit," Sharpton said. "I think this began the transforming of the country the way the president had promised. This is what he ran on."

And if that transformation is socialism, then so be it, he explained. That is what the American public "overwhelmingly" voted for.

"First of all, then we have to say the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama," Sharpton said. "Let's not act as though the president didn't tell the American people - the president offered the American people health reform when he ran. He was overwhelmingly elected running on that and he has delivered what he promised."

Despite polling showing otherwise leading up to the momentous occasion of the vote on health care reform, the claim this goes against the wishes of the American people is false based on the 2008 presidential election.

"I don't understand Republicans saying this is against the will of the American people," Sharpton said. "They voted for President Obama who said this was going to be one of the first things he would do and he has done the first hurdle of that tonight. So I think the American people was very loud and clear. This was not some concept the president introduced after he won. He ran on this and the American people won tonight because they got finally something from a president they voted for."

... said President Obama' BFF

I swear, this post deserves it's own thread... Priceless. LMAO

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mqojWrtnieI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mqojWrtnieI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

bowener
03-23-2010, 12:25 AM
Wait until the Fed Gov gets ahold of you. :D

Why? It's going to be cheaper for me, isn't it? Tell me! Is it? I think it is.

ClevelandBronco
03-23-2010, 12:25 AM
To which question, you have no right to speak for me, you pusillanimous ass.

I'm sure if I had offended pete by answering his question he would have said so.

You'll note that I didn't speak for you. I spoke about you.

You spoke for yourself later.

petegz28
03-23-2010, 12:26 AM
So acutally, the AG gets the authority from the State Constitution and it is his call to file the suit or not. Apparently the Governor has no say. LMAO

bowener
03-23-2010, 12:26 AM
That's good, then. The only freedom you've lost is one that you didn't intend to exercise.

You'll probably not want to let that way of thinking about freedom extend too far, though. Some of your fellow citizens might like to use a freedom that you don't care much about and you might like to use one that they don't care much about.

You'll have to have each others' backs in situations such as those.

What is this freedom that I or others are losing exactly? Honestly, I really do not know what one I am losing yet.

petegz28
03-23-2010, 12:27 AM
I'm sure if I had offended pete by answering his question he would have said so.

You'll note that I didn't speak for you. I spoke about you.

No one has offended me. Have they??? :eek:

ClevelandBronco
03-23-2010, 12:28 AM
What is this freedom that I or others are losing exactly? Honestly, I really do not know what one I am losing yet.

The freedom not to purchase insurance.

orange
03-23-2010, 12:28 AM
Here's some actual information about the suit:

The lawsuit is likely to be filed in the District of Columbia Circuit Court or the federal court in the northern district of Florida. Colorado will contribute "minimal" resources to the legal effort but should be on record as opposing the unconstitutional provision, Suthers said.

The legal action would not seek to invalidate the entire bill but to throw out the individual insurance mandate and the penalties associated with it, he said.

...

Florida's McCollum said he expects that it will take years for the litigation to wind its way through the courts.

“It’s not going to be a simple process,” he said. “I will be out of office by the time it makes U.S. Supreme Court, but I fully expect it will get there.”



http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2010/03/22/daily6.html?page=2

|Zach|
03-23-2010, 12:29 AM
Can't hurt to play stuff out in the courts. I look forward to hearing the rulings if these cases come to be.

ClevelandBronco
03-23-2010, 12:29 AM
No one has offended me. Have they??? :eek:

I'm happy to hear that apparently I haven't. orange expressed some concern.

petegz28
03-23-2010, 12:30 AM
Here's some actual information about the suit:

The lawsuit is likely to be filed in the District of Columbia Circuit Court or the federal court in the northern district of Florida. Colorado will contribute "minimal" resources to the legal effort but should be on record as opposing the unconstitutional provision, Suthers said.

The legal action would not seek to invalidate the entire bill but to throw out the individual insurance mandate and the penalties associated with it, he said.

...

Florida's McCollum said he expects that it will take years for the litigation to wind its way through the courts.

“It’s not going to be a simple process,” he said. “I will be out of office by the time it makes U.S. Supreme Court, but I fully expect it will get there.”



http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2010/03/22/daily6.html?page=2

Yep. And if the mandate is thrown out the whole thing will unravel.

petegz28
03-23-2010, 12:31 AM
Can't hurt to play stuff out in the courts. I look forward to hearing the rulings if these cases come to be.

I believe the Senate is asking for a Judicial Review of the bill by the SCOTUS before it gets signed. Personally I thyink it would save a lot of time and money if the SCOTUS weighed in now rather than later.

|Zach|
03-23-2010, 12:33 AM
I believe the Senate is asking for a Judicial Review of the bill by the SCOTUS before it gets signed. Personally I thyink it would save a lot of time and money if the SCOTUS weighed in now rather than later.

Do they have the lever?

Things have to come to them don't they?

ClevelandBronco
03-23-2010, 12:34 AM
I believe the Senate is asking for a Judicial Review of the bill by the SCOTUS before it gets signed. Personally I thyink it would save a lot of time and money if the SCOTUS weighed in now rather than later.

Not to mention that our point of view may get a friendlier response now rather than later.

Discuss Thrower
03-23-2010, 12:34 AM
I believe the Senate is asking for a Judicial Review of the bill by the SCOTUS before it gets signed. Personally I thyink it would save a lot of time and money if the SCOTUS weighed in now rather than later.

Ummm.. Ripeness mean anything to you?

petegz28
03-23-2010, 12:35 AM
Do they have the lever?

Things have to come to them don't they?

I think they can ask for review. I should say, the Senate Repubs are asking for it.

orange
03-23-2010, 12:35 AM
I'm happy to hear that apparently I haven't. orange expressed some concern.

No. I'm not surprised you completely misunderstand given the third grade level of reading comprehension around here.

Tell me this - have I stopped ass-raping your wife yet? And has she stopped begging for more?

petegz28
03-23-2010, 12:36 AM
Ummm.. Ripeness mean anything to you?

The banana I had for breakfast was ripe.

ClevelandBronco
03-23-2010, 12:39 AM
No. I'm not surprised you completely misunderstand given the third grade level of reading comprehension around here.

Tell me this - have I stopped ass-raping your wife yet? And has she stopped begging for more?

It's probably your fourth-grade writing skills that went completely over my head then.

To answer your questions, I don't know.

The Mad Crapper
03-23-2010, 09:37 AM
Bailing Out Medicaid: A Bad Solution
Published on January 21, 2009 by Dennis Smith and Nina Owcharenko

American taxpayers are--again--about to be abused. Congressional leaders in the House of Representatives are recommending spending $87 billion over the next two years to relieve the states from the pressures of the Medicaid programs that they administer.

Leaving aside for a moment the issue of whether Congress should embark on a spending splurge as a way out of our nation's economic problems, bailing out state Medicaid programs simply delays the fiscal reality, rewards inefficiency and overspending, and props up a broken program. With no conditions, accountability or objectives, this spending splurge only reinforces the short-sighted thinking at the state and federal level about Medicaid.

Delaying the Fiscal Reality

The Medicaid piece merely represents a temporary shift in the accounting ledger from the states to the federal government. But once the two year federal bailout expires, states will be forced to pick up their share of the tab again. Moreover, the state share will have to be adjusted to reflect additional costs associated with increased Medicaid growth over this period. For example, if Medicaid grows at a rate of 8 percent, a state with a current Medicaid liability of $5.2 billion (without assistance) will face an even larger liability when the federal assistance expires in 2010.[1]

Whether states will be prepared to meet this obligation in two years is uncertain. It is more likely that those states that continue to mismanage Medicaid will turn to the federal government, again, to bail them out. And if past action is any warning, states will continue to use the federal taxpayers as an open checkbook.

Rewarding Inefficiency and Overspending

Medicaid, the health care program for the poor, is funded by a formula with matching funds from the federal government and the states. The more states spend, the more money they get from the federal government. The result is that most states try to maximize the federal match. The proposed across-the-board bailout for state Medicaid programs ignores the action (or inaction) by the states to take difficult but important steps to address their Medicaid problems. Ultimately, the policy would penalize states that have been fiscally conservative and reward states that have spent without caution.

According to the National Association of State Budget Directors, states project they will end FY 2009 with balances as a percent of expenditures of 7.0 percent, compared to the 30-year average of 5.7 percent.[2] There is great variation on a national and even regional basis. For example, Illinois expects a 1.6 percent balance, but neighboring Indiana projects a 10.2 percent balance. The responsible officials of Indiana have made some tough decisions to maintain adequate reserves, while the governor in Illinois has expanded public programs despite the state's inability to pay its bills on time. So under the proposed economic plan, federal taxpayers in Indiana are bailing out Illinois and rewarding their mismanagement of the program, sparing them the unpleasant business of raising even higher taxes on Illinois voters.

Propping Up the Failing Status Quo

Although these bailout funds are designated for Medicaid, it is important to recognize that the flow of dollars to the states does not ensure access for enrollees; it only guarantees payment to providers and institutions for the services they provide to Medicaid beneficiaries. Under this process, enrollees are dependent on providers and institutions to accept Medicaid, which is not a guarantee.

Because of out-dated reimbursement systems dominated by institution-based providers such as hospitals and nursing homes, Medicaid recipients often have limited options for physicians and community-based providers. Not surprisingly, Medicaid patients disproportionately end up in hospital emergency rooms because they cannot get appropriate care from their community providers.[3]

What Congress Should Do

Reconsider a Federal Medical Assistance Percentage-related bailout. During this difficult economic time, spending should not be the basis of a recovery plan. Instead, the federal economic package should consider economic stimulus, such as tax cuts, to help re-energize the economy to get it back on track.[4]

Set federal criteria for assistance. If Congress demands to include a bailout to state Medicaid programs, it should at the very least establish firm criteria for the states. For example, the federal government should consider whether states have established reasonable cost-sharing requirements, restructured their benefit packages, and held spending and eligibility under control over the past years.

Require states to submit reports and provide a plan for long-term reform. Building on the assumption of an imminent bailout, federal policymakers should also require states receiving these funds to report to the public, Congress, and the Administration on how they have used the funds to measurably improve care to those on the program. In addition, states should engage the Obama Administration regarding its commitment to entitlement reform. States should submit on a state-by-state basis a plan for long-term reform of their Medicaid programs. No lasting Medicaid reform can happen without the states.

Restore Accountability

Congress should not throw good money after bad. But if Congress insists on writing bigger checks for state officials--again--then it should take very specific steps to require accountability on the part of state officials for any additional funds they get from the federal taxpayer.

Dennis G. Smith is Senior Fellow and Nina Owcharenko is Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/01/Bailing-Out-Medicaid-A-Bad-Solution

bowener
03-23-2010, 11:24 AM
The freedom not to purchase insurance.

But I'd be an idiot not to purchase it, right? I would be irrational if I did not purchase health insurance. It is apparently of such great importance that changing it may end the world as we know it, why would I ever not want something this important?

edit:

And nobody got back to me on why my current HC, (i.e., me paying a shit load of money and not having to make any claims while some freeloading fat ass who eats too much bacon has his 4th heart attack gets to use my money and raise my premiums so his fat ass can remain alive to eat more bacon tomorrow, and then some corp. profiting off 30% of what I pay) is better than what we will now have or if we had a single payer system.

Bob Dole
03-23-2010, 01:53 PM
What is this freedom that I or others are losing exactly? Honestly, I really do not know what one I am losing yet.

The freedom to spend the money you earned as you see fit, rather than spending the bulk of it the way others see fit? (Especially when it is being spent by/for/on those who didn't bother to earn any of their own, or spent what they earned frivilously.)

But hey...Bob Dole has already gotten used to people who work less than Bob Dole having nicer stuff than Bob Dole does, because Bob Dole pays for their necessities and leaves them with disposable income.

Garcia Bronco
03-23-2010, 02:03 PM
Maybe YOU can tell me exactly what powers the United States Constitution grants the Attorney General of Washington state. I don't see a damn thing there.

The First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment do actually.

bowener
03-23-2010, 02:17 PM
The freedom to spend the money you earned as you see fit, rather than spending the bulk of it the way others see fit? (Especially when it is being spent by/for/on those who didn't bother to earn any of their own, or spent what they earned frivilously.)

But hey...Bob Dole has already gotten used to people who work less than Bob Dole having nicer stuff than Bob Dole does, because Bob Dole pays for their necessities and leaves them with disposable income.

As far as I can tell the bulk of no single person's income will be spent on HC in this instance. I am probably wrong, but in the US there is typically no person who gives up or is taxed the bulk of their income.

I also realize that the majority of people who are not well off in this nation did not get that way by spending frivolously, but rather were born into poverty and had no ways out of it.

Can you define nice things for me? Also, the type of work you do, or pay you make. Is it average? What jobs do the people who work less than you do? How much education have you received? I doubt if you are a middle class American living in a typical middle class suburb in a typical middle class home you are in no way worse off than those that are being aided by welfare, at least in this country. Again, I am not sure what stuff it is you are referring to, but with clarity on the issue I will give a better response if you wish.

vailpass
03-23-2010, 02:23 PM
Add Arizona to the list that will join in the lawsuit.

Mr. Kotter
03-23-2010, 02:26 PM
The First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment do actually.

As long as it doesn't conflict with the Supremacy Clause. :)

Bob Dole
03-23-2010, 03:07 PM
As far as I can tell the bulk of no single person's income will be spent on HC in this instance. I am probably wrong, but in the US there is typically no person who gives up or is taxed the bulk of their income.

I also realize that the majority of people who are not well off in this nation did not get that way by spending frivolously, but rather were born into poverty and had no ways out of it.

Can you define nice things for me? Also, the type of work you do, or pay you make. Is it average? What jobs do the people who work less than you do? How much education have you received? I doubt if you are a middle class American living in a typical middle class suburb in a typical middle class home you are in no way worse off than those that are being aided by welfare, at least in this country. Again, I am not sure what stuff it is you are referring to, but with clarity on the issue I will give a better response if you wish.

Bob Dole pays more in taxes every year than Bob Dole pays for his own housing, interest on the mortgage on that housing, property insurance on that housing, utilities for that housing, and the food Bob Dole consumes COMBINED. (In other words, Bob Dole lives within his means.)

Thus, Bob Dole considers his expense to support others "significant".

Nice things? The folks who lived in the Section 8 house across from Bob Dole (until they were evicted last year) had a big screen TV a full TWO YEARS before Bob Dole had anything larger than 27". Those same folks were standing in their front yard grilling ribeyes and drinking beer many afternoons when Bob Dole left his job at lunch to go release his pets and grab a quick sandwich. And in Bob Dole's experience, this is not an isolated example.

How much education has Bob Dole received? Bob Dole went to a public school and worked his ass off to obtain academic scholarships that paid for Bob Dole's college education. Everything Bob Dole "received", was earned by ways other than whining and the tyranny of the majority.

Taco John
03-23-2010, 03:11 PM
But I'd be an idiot not to purchase it, right?

Not really. If you're a healthy individual who would prefer to keep that $8-$12k per year in their own pocket, you might be an idiot to cough that money up. The point is, the only person who should get to decide is the individual. The government doesn't not have the authority to force this decision on you.

Taco John
03-23-2010, 03:14 PM
If I was a doctor, I would leave the health care system, form a private practice, and accept no third party payments.

orange
03-23-2010, 04:05 PM
Is there a huge pool of potential patients whose desire to pay 100% of their medical costs out-of-pocket is going unmet?

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 04:06 PM
To be honest this will go nowhere. If people want this bill to fail they simply should not fill out the new fourm that you have to report.

jjchieffan
03-23-2010, 06:30 PM
Looks like Missouri's democrat Attorney General isn't joining the lawsuit. Fortunately, our Lt. Governor is taking up the fight for us.

Mo. Lt. Gov. Kinder will seek to join anti-health care bill lawsuit
Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder announced Tuesday he would seek to join the lawsuit filed by 13 state attorneys general against the federal health care bill signed into law by President Obama.

Kinder, the only Republican among Missouri’s six statewide elected officials, said he was taking the step because Attorney General Chris Koster has not joined the suit.

“This law represents an unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of our state in the form of millions of dollars in unfunded mandates,” he said.

The move raises several questions regarding Kinder’s standing to join the suit and the implications for the state should the case advance.

Kinder said he had authority to join the suit as a constitutional officer of the state and as Missouri’s official “senior advocate.” He and his staff were unsure, however, whether an attorney from his office could represent him in the case or if they would need to hire a private representation.

Kinder and his staffers also said joining the case would make any concessions won in the suit applicable to Missouri.

“If the litigation is ongoing and Missouri is a party to it, they will have the same power to have remedy that the other states would,” said Rich AuBuchon, a lawyer in Kinder’s office.

Koster’s office was noncommittal on the lawsuit and Kinder’s announcement.

“The Attorney General’s Office is evaluating the various legal issues and proposals as they are developing,” Koster spokeswoman Nanci Gonder said in a statement. “Lt. Gov. Kinder may seek to enter any lawsuit on his personal behalf.”

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/21800

The Rick
03-25-2010, 10:40 AM
Might be able to add Wisconsin to the list. Our attorney general, a Republican, is seeking approval to file the lawsuit.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/89110637.html

I'm not holding my breath though. Our governor is a Democrat who is firmly entrenched in Obama's back pocket so there's no way he'll approve. Our only hope is that one of the houses of the state legislature approve, which is unlikely since Democrats hold a majority in both houses.

PhillyChiefFan
03-25-2010, 10:48 AM
I put this in another thread, but it's applicable here. PA house is threatening to withhold Attorney General's funding if he proceeds with a lawsuit against the healthcare bill.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/03/state_democratic_lawmakers_thr.html

Mr. Flopnuts
03-25-2010, 10:56 AM
LMAO


:D

Christine Gregoire is the gawddamned devil. I hate her, and that goes a lot farther back than this nonsense. I've hated her since she was the attorney general of this state.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-25-2010, 10:57 AM
I put this in another thread, but it's applicable here. PA house is threatening to withhold Attorney General's funding if he proceeds with a lawsuit against the healthcare bill.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/03/state_democratic_lawmakers_thr.html

I see they've been paying attention to the federal government's tactics in recent years. Comply, or we will break you financially.

Who needs warfare anymore? If you control the money, you control everything.

Mr. Kotter
03-25-2010, 10:57 AM
If the supremacy clause fails to prevail on this, the feds will make Medicare funding contingent on compliance....thus making the point moot.

Dole vs. South Dakota, 1986

PhillyChiefFan
03-25-2010, 11:20 AM
I see they've been paying attention to the federal government's tactics in recent years. Comply, or we will break you financially.

Who needs warfare anymore? If you control the money, you control everything.

Exactly!

I really can't believe they can do that, I mean if it's a bluff, it's a ballsy one. I was under the impression that the AG was set up to be a check to things like this? Violations of state rights etc etc. And the state appropriations committee is threaten to remove funding for the AG office?

Can someone please explain that to me, am I missing something important or is this just blatant strong arming?

Mr. Flopnuts
03-25-2010, 11:23 AM
Exactly!

I really can't believe they can do that, I mean if it's a bluff, it's a ballsy one. I was under the impression that the AG was set up to be a check to things like this? Violations of state rights etc etc. And the state appropriations committee is threaten to remove funding for the AG office?

Can someone please explain that to me, am I missing something important or is this just blatant strong arming?

Check out seatbelt laws, and auto insurance enforcement. This isn't a new concept. The federal government has been doing it for years.

This is the first time I've heard of it being done on this level though. Great! Before you know it, they'll be telling us to buy insurance or have our paychecks withheld. And if you don't go to work, you go to jail. I'm only being slightly sarcastic. :)

PhillyChiefFan
03-25-2010, 11:30 AM
Check out seatbelt laws, and auto insurance enforcement. This isn't a new concept. The federal government has been doing it for years.

This is the first time I've heard of it being done on this level though. Great! Before you know it, they'll be telling us to buy insurance or have our paychecks withheld. And if you don't go to work, you go to jail. I'm only being slightly sarcastic. :)

Exactly, what else could they potentially do? Where is the check and balance. If that is the AG's job, then that is what he is supposed to be doing. So the state AG is at the mercy of the state house??? Really?

I assume the house appropriations cmte can do what they are threatening, otherwise why would they go public with it. Sounds like something that would happen behind closed doors in a Jack Ryan movie.