What States are Suing over Healthcare?

[darrels joy]

GOP governors are going around their Democratic attorney generals to sue the federal government over Obama's intended destruction of the best healthcare system in the world. Governors Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Jan Brewer of Arizona, and Jim Gibbons of Nevada are all getting into the act.

Also on that front, several states are pulling together legislation to prohibit abortion coverage in health plans under the bill. Tennessee, Oklahoma, Missouri, Mississippi, Kansas and Arizona are working on bills for that.

[darrels joy]

Kansas Seeks to Join Multistate ObamaCare Lawsuit; Brings Number of States Suing to 26



Following the elections, newly GOP-led states Ohio, Wisconsin, and Wyoming also asked permission to join. A decision from the district judge in the multistate suit is expected at any time. Virginia filed its own lawsuit and already saw success at the district court. Oklahoma just filed its own lawsuit against ObamaCare.

That brings the number of states suing the federal government to 26. As Ilya Somin writes, it shouldn't matter legally if one state sues or all of them. But it still helps to show widespread objection:

But in politically sensitive cases such as this one, legal arguments are not the only factors that matter. The Supreme Court is usually reluctant to strike down a major federal law that has strong support from the president and his party and is a big part of their political agenda. In this case, however, the law in question is unpopular with the general public. . . .

And the states’ action is an indication that it is also disliked by a large part of the political elite. Widespread popular and elite opposition gives the Court the political cover that it would need to strike down the law. If the political winds continue to blow against the law, the justices can be confident that a decision to strike it down won’t create a dangerous backlash against the Court.

There is a bit of variation in the arguments raised in each lawsuit, as I discussed here, so it's still good that there's more than one on track. Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, won't reach arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Having more than one lawsuit also gives various circuit courts of appeals a crack at it, providing a fuller record for the Supreme Court to ultimately consider. As I wrote before, sometimes it's strategically helpful to give the Supreme Court justices (ahem, Kennedy) some room to maneuver.

There's some psychology that individuals are more likely to respond positively if they have options. As far as result goes, it doesn't matter how ObamaCare gets knocked down, only that it gets knocked down.

That's just a simple "yes or no" question. But sometimes you have to make the "yes or no" question more attractive. Psychologically you can do that by turning it into a multiple choice problem. Give the judge options A, B, and C, -- various reasons to knock down the law . . . say the Commerce Clause, Tax Clause, and General Welfare Clause arguments against ObamaCare. Option D is to uphold the healthcare law. The judge or justice faced with the multiple choice version has an opportunity to be clever (and you know how judges love to get "clever"), saying "no" to one or two of A, B, and C, while still ultimately finding the law unconstitutional.

I've seen this at work myself when I was clerking. A judge would get off track thinking about the options, when the real answer should have been a simple: "no way."
As far as Somin's "political cover" argument, there's some unfortunate truth to the idea that Supreme Court justices sometimes consider the legitimacy of the Court in the eyes of the public and not just the legitimacy of the legislation it is called on to review. In light of accelerated backlash against judges who issue unpopular decisions, it's no wonder.

http://minx.cc/?post=310712

[1CAVCCO15MED]

Even as we speak I have a friend who is dying of colon cancer. His medical bills have passed the $1,000,000 mark which is the lifetime cap for health insurance payout per the insurance companies. He is now about to lose his house and will be probably forced into bankruptcy. He has life insurance but he told me he has to die within a time bracket for his wife to collect, he told me why but I can't remember all the details. If not, his wife will be out on the street with a paid for car and some furniture with no job in a down economy. What makes this all the more striking is the rest of the story. He was regional director (the South) of a large government agency, a GS 17. The house is a mansion and the car is a Mercedes. He did everything right, had a fantastic job, a big house, a large life insurance policy and a "full coverage" health insurance. But it didn't matter. The insurance company death panel said, "That's all buddy, time to die". I don't like the health care bill and unlike the "This homework is too hard" congressmen paid to do it, I read the bill and unlike the idiots in congress, I recognize there is a problem. If this guy can lose it all and his wife put out on the street, unless you are better off than him, everything you have, any security for your family is hostage to your health. We pay the most per capita of any country in the world for health care and still are the only first world nation where you can lose everything you have and your family put out on the street if you get sick. And if your kid gets sick, you better hope it is cancer because St Jude's is free.

[darrels joy]

St Jude"s is great.

Darrel's oldest son got really sick and his dad got him referred to St Jude's. He got better without their specialized care and grew up to join the Air Force .

It is one of few places we would donate money if we had any.

Joy

[1CAVCCO15MED]

On that we totally agree. The hospital where I worked was affiliated with St Jude's. Amazing work. If there is but one saint in heaven, his name is Danny Thomas.

[darrels joy]

Figures. Experts Say Job-Killing Obamacare May Actually Leave More Americans Without Insurance

Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, January 29, 2011, 7:43 AM

Experts now believe that Obamacare will actually leave more Americans without insurance than before the law was passed.
FOX News reported:

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has now tripled the number of waivers granted to employers who cannot meet with the requirements of the new law — from a little more than 200 to more than 700.

“Even the Obama administration is admitting by granting these waivers that they better make some exceptions or they’re going to have the unintended consequence of having more uninsured, not less,” according to Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a former official in the White House Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004.

John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis says “What’s happening is the federal government is trying to force workers to have a health insurance plan that’s more expensive than they or their employers can afford.”

The law now forces all plans to offer at least 750,000 dollars in annual benefits, but the administration has already granted waivers to McDonald’s and other low wage firms.

Goodman and others fear employers will just drop insurance altogether and pay the penalties, or hire fewer people.

“The cheapest thing for an employer not to do is not to hire people,” Goodman says, “to hire only temporary workers.
To hire contract laborers. And then you get out from under the fines. You get out from under the mandates, but is that really where we want to go?”

Hundreds of entities from banks to church groups to school districts are saying they can’t live up to the law.

Michelle Malkin adds that the growing numbers of ObamaCare waivers alone prove it is unconstitutional: it violates the Equal Protection clause.

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.co...out-insurance/

[1CAVCCO15MED]

It is a mess. But next time you are in an ER waiting room, read the sign on the wall. It explains your rights under the law (not Obamacare, it has always been this way). You are entitled to an evaluation, triage if you will. If you are in labor, you have to be checked whether you can pay or not. That is what is posted. What is not posted but has equally been the law is that they have to treat what is ailing you and they can only transfer you to another facility if you have a condition they are not qualified to treat. If you are in labor they have to deliver you and you and your baby get all the care you need.

Suppose you are out there exercising your rights. You go riding your motorcycle without a helmet as is your right and get t-boned by a semi. Now, you were also exercising your right not to have health insurance so from that point on, you are legally stealing what could be hundreds of thousand of dollars, maybe millions if you are truly gorked in the head. Who are you stealing from? Every person that is involved from your care, nurses, doctors, aides, dietitians, x-ray techs, stenographers, supply techs, ad infinitum. Their pay is less, their lifestyle is impaired, their kids do without. My question is, why are you not a thief? You have stolen multiple times from multiple people great amounts of money that you knew might happen if you did not get the means to pay for it all ahead of time. In any other instance I can think of you would be not a patient but a crime wave subject to arrest and imprisonment. Not only that, you have committed enough felonies to fall under the three strikes law and now deserve life in prison. Now, of course, this doesn't happen because you have a right to health care. But what about personal responsibility? Somebody has to pay for this, otherwise the caregivers would go bankrupt. How are you going to pay for this?