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

Originally posted by tamaransd
Doesn't this remind you of that Russian Professor last year who said in 2010 the USA would break up into several different unions? I wonder if this may be the beginning?

[edit on 22-3-2010 by tamaransd]

The course of civilization:

anarchy
dictatorship
democracy
civil unrest
anarchy
dictatorship
etc
etc

reply to post by jam321


I never said I was for Obama, and if you really think Bush helped the country grab an economics book genius. Like I said Bush, Obama, whoever... if your for one politician your for them all or your a hypocrit.

Hopefully this opens up the floodgate for countless lawsuits based on the 10th amendment. It has been a long time coming.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by HolgerTheDane

 

Don't all politicians play the God bless card.

I don't see why that surprises you.

As for King, it is probably a publicity stunt and he is trying to win votes.

He knows a lot of voters are upset.

I lived in IA for quite some time. This is who Rep King is. He's a pretty no BS guy.

reply to post by Thirty_Foot_Smurf

This is who Rep King is. He's a pretty no BS guy.

Thank you for the info.

Do you know how he stands on secession? In the article, he never exactly says the word.

reply to post by jam321


Also you may enjoy this article it was written while Bush was in office about the people who didn't want "free" healthcare.

billionairesforbush.com...

It's quite clearly labeled Billionaires for Bush and is a comedic aproach to why the Bush administration disliked HC reform in the first place.
Also again I'm not for Obama, i see you didnt get that the first time figured I'd type it again.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by NoJoker13]

"Can't get any clearer than that in regards to insurance being a form of gambling."

Exactly what it is, Legalized Gambling, which is regulated by each state and not the Federal Government. Just like your state Lotto and gambling casinos. This is why insurance professionals use the term risk. The carrier is basically hedging their bets on the likelihood of a loss not occurring.

The bookmaker in the insurance industry is the Underwriter. They calculate the possibilities of occurrence and set the rates.

Now, one thing which must be realized is the poor in society have a greater chance of becoming ill than the healthy due to a number of reasons (less sanitary conditions, lower quality health services, more dangerous lifestyle, etc.). Due to a greater risk of illness, you better believe the Healthcare premiums for these poorer individuals will be sky high. Who do you think will end up paying for the brunt of this?

Let's put it like this. If the Federal Government forced you to buy 100 very expensive useless Lotto Tickets per month, and if you didn't, there would be punitive consequences, would you be happy with this law?

With this bill, the Federal Government is playing with house money...your house money!

reply to post by NoJoker13


My apologies, never saw your edited post.

I wonder if all these states would be in on this if Bush were still in office and he labeled this bill a part of homeland security... then it'd be ok right?

Your point is valid. And IMO if Bush had done this then the Dems AG would probably be calling for a lawsuit.

I am still trying to find out if all 38 states are truly red states.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Thirty_Foot_Smurf

 

This is who Rep King is. He's a pretty no BS guy.

Thank you for the info.

Do you know how he stands on secession? In the article, he never exactly says the word.

I lived in the Sioux City area so he was on local TV quite a bit. He correctly expresses he majority view of his constituency but had always had a fine line to skirt because it is mainly a farming community and leans moderate democrat. I left there over 2 years ago for greener pastures. On the surface things weren't as screwed as they are right now so no, during my time there I had never heard him mention secession. However, I don't think I even heard that rumble from Texans at the time either for what that's worth.

reply to post by jam321


I'm happy you saw that Jam and I'm not saying I'm for or against this bill. Courrently I live in MASS. and it is state law here to have HC so in my eyes nationwide care may not be that bad. I mean I'm not positive but I'm willing to bet my weekly tax raise won't be more then what I'm currently paying weekly for HC. MA already passed a law thats unconstitutional, so in my eyes this is a loaded subject for me since I've been living with this for a couple years now. I just don't think everyone can jump to a "lawsuit" mentality when then didn't get their way, the dems never tryed to sue when bush was in office. So it's a bit hypocritical to try to sue Obama now, when Bush was given a free pass on quite a few topics.

reply to post by jam321


Also the 38 states can't be red states, the numbers don't add up. I'd wager that a third of those are blue states.

reply to post by NoJoker13


I see your point. I am want who wants healthcare for all. I don't like this bill. But I respect the vote that passed yesterday.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I really hope these AG's have a leg to stand on and are not filing a frivolous suit just because they didn't like the results. As it stands now, it looks more like an agenda than a lawsuit.

Once they disclose the text of the lawsuit, we will be able to determine if it has merit.

The 38 states is confusing. As of now, I am only hearing of 12 states joining the lawsuit and all are red states.

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.

The precise wording.

"Lawmakers in 38 states have deemed this federal health reform bill unconstitutional, and are now redoubling their efforts to pass legislation that would stop ObamaCare at the state line."

Not AGs, but legislators. My guess is.. repub legislators

Source

Still don't think it's bipartisan.

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane

You guys are so pathetic in your retoric.

Don't you realize that caring for it's citizens is one of the fundamentals of a civilized society?

And you think this bill demonstrates the government caring for its own citizens? If that were the case don't you think this bill would be offering Health Care services to the poor and offering to pay for it through a government-funded "escrow account" and not forcing people to deal with the middleman by buying insurance??? What about people who make sacrifices just to have what they have now - transportation to get to work, gas for the car, food on the table, utilities, rent and clothes? Now what will they have to give up to buy this government-forced insurance?

Yeah, that's caring all right.

Don't you guys realize that when people are turned away from health treatment because they are poor is a sure way of creating discontent?

Hospitals DO NOT turn away those in an ER seeking treatment. However, the line to be seen may be long. And what does this bill do to fix that problem? Absolutely nothing! The fact that you have doctors and nurses threatening to quit if this bill becomes law means that wait times may get longer or hospitals may get shut down.

So which is better? Re-writing a bad bill and doing it right or making a bad system worse by bankrupting the nation and discouraging people from entering the medical field to work, knowing that they will be forced to deal with government red tape on top of everything else?

The people you elected into office weren't willing to sit down and re-write the bill for the betterment of the people of the U.S. - they wanted to pass something quick.

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?

Yeah he's got a strange way of doing that when the bill is written to cater to those same insurance and big pharma companies.

Obama may THINK he's helping the country but I'll bet you money that he doesn't know the half of what's in that bill, and being the POTUS and signing this thing into law he is the one person that should know the damned thing word for word. So yes, Obama is hurting this country through his sheer ignorance.

The road to hell is paved with the best intentions. Welcome to hell, America. Obama just brought us all there.

Originally posted by Jazzyguy

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.

The precise wording.

"Lawmakers in 38 states have deemed this federal health reform bill unconstitutional, and are now redoubling their efforts to pass legislation that would stop ObamaCare at the state line."

Not AGs, but legislators. My guess is.. repub legislators

Source

Still don't think it's bipartisan.

Oh no, it couldn't be bi-partisan because all of the Democrats in the house voted for this bill, didn't they?

Oh wait - no, there were 33 Democrats who voted against it which proves that not all Democrats bought into the health care bill hysteria.

Makes your opinion about no bi-partisanship in this movement worth #$%^

Some additional information that seems to clarify things....

With consent from the other states, a state can secede from the Union and the tenth amendment already provides us with this in one simple way -

Despite granting Congress the power to admit new states, the Constitution says nothing about secession. And under the Tenth Amendment, silence in such matters means there is no federal power: Powers not enumerated "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

With 38 states currently on the same page with this, that is the majority needed for any 1 state to secede. If that 1 state gets the permission of the others, they can proceed. Once that state is out, the remaining can follow suit, one after the other, with each having the approval of the remaining majority of states.

It's either that, or civil war. This time, it obviously won't be between the North and the South...

it's roughly 300 million against 545.

Look, this whole scam is based on simple economics... the government is broke, period. They don't have enough money coming from us anymore in the form of taxes to support their ever-growing appetite for spending, so rather than go under (which would be the best thing for us to start over), they are squeezing us all for more money. How? Health care and taxes for starters. This will keep them going and add money to the coffers for quite some time. Add to that the student loans that they cut out the middle man (the banks) on, and they add even more in "savings". Those "savings" go in the coffers.

Now, don't think for one second that the Dems are going to just roll-over now that they have this bill. They are going to need more voters, so how are they going to do that? Immigration reform. That is what is coming next - it will likely be amnesty for the illegals, making them "qualified" for the health care they now will need a social security number for so that the IRS can garnish their wages when they don't pay the hospital bill. Those 30 million people will be more than happy to vote for Obama and his friends that made their amnesty possible.

After that, they are coming for more taxes and then our guns. They are going to do everything that they know they can't pass after November between now and then. Nothing will stop them except impeachment.

It's hard for me to grasp that with all of the people who disagree with this, that there is nothing clearly in our Constitution or the easily-read laws that allows WE THE PEOPLE to stop this.

Come November, the Republicans, should they win, better keep to their word and rescind this bill.

One more thing... the executive order that was signed will not hold up in court because it isn't statutory law. The Supreme Court already ruled on this once before but I can't remember the case off-hand. Executive orders are specific to the executive branch of government, not the legislative. If this bill were to go to court on the grounds that it does not explicitly state in the written word of law that abortion is NOT to be funded, it will be funded, and someone will abuse the law, paving the way to a court room setting. The law could stand for 25 years, but a sitting President can remove the executive order in 3 more years, which would nullify the "no funding for abortion" bribe that Stupid Stupak took, thus changing his REAL vote to a NO and making the bill moot. But I digress because we're already beyond that point now...

Anyway, the states will have more power to exercise their rights if they show unity, that is the key here. They must all stand behind the 10th Amendment and be firm, and this bill, while it might be legal for the moment, will not get past the states without a civil war.

I just hope we get some representation by the right people soon, it might not be too late to fix things... I am losing hope.

~Namaste

Excellent Legal Argument on Secession

Originally posted by jam321

If the states lawsuits hold no merit, I am sure that legal scholars will tear it to shred in a heartbeat.

From what I see, a lot will ride on the commerce clause.

The whole talk of 39 states is just that thus far.

as far as the commerce clause..yes it will get torn to threads. It already has been. Do you think the Administration would pass a bill that was in danger of being overturned?

the power of Congress under article I, section 8 of the Constitution to regulate commerce “among the several states” authorizes a federal statute requiring individuals to purchase health insurance.

[excerpted case law...see link for full legal article..but the short story of how it is constitutional follows]

(Justice Scalia, concurring, opined that more precisely, “Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not themselves part of interstate commerce . . . derives from the Necessary and Proper Clause,” because this authority is necessary to implement the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the states.) Thus, even though the individual purchase of insurance takes place locally, it is still, like growing marijuana for personal medical use, subject to regulation under the Interstate Commerce clause.

oneillhealthreform.wordpress.com...


So why would the AG of Texas being rambling on about it? For pure rhetorical purposes. You will see a great deal of it comming from a defeated GOP in comming weeks.

The last I heard about this guy Abbott was when he fought to have the 10 Commandments monument on the court steps. Very conservative and likes attention.

just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by sos37
***snip***

Hospitals DO NOT turn away those in an ER seeking treatment. However, the line to be seen may be long.

So what you are telling me is that the stories we hear in Danish news that people are refused anything but basic medical aid on grounds of not having an insurance are lies?

That everybody get's the health care they need without getting bills so high that they are technically insolvent? Or even go bankrupt?

And what does this bill do to fix that problem? Absolutely nothing! The fact that you have doctors and nurses threatening to quit if this bill becomes law means that wait times may get longer or hospitals may get shut down.

from what I read about hospitalists (or doctors) they don't exactly live a hard life with minimum wages.

hospmd salaries 2008-2009

So where will they go to to get a "fair deal"?

So which is better? Re-writing a bad bill and doing it right or making a bad system worse ***snip***

According to news and the internet this health care reform has been on the way since Rosevelt suggested it back in 1912.
Is there a reason why you think a health care bill could be "done right" and pass - given the way the american nation is divided into two groups of "caring people" and "selfish hypocrites".


EDIT
Isn't it better to go one step in the right direction rather than sit on your hands because you can't get the full monty?

[edit on 22.3.2010 by HolgerTheDane]

reply to post by jam321


Nice going for you guys!

I wish the best result out of that lawsuit! Cheering it on from over here, and will be following it!

This is all well and good, but they should include all the bills from decades past that are also unconstitutional and trample individuals' and states' rights. Starting with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.