The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > General > Political Debate

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-22-2010, 04:33 PM
82Rigger's Avatar
82Rigger 82Rigger is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Fort Walton Beach, Florida
Posts: 3,591
Send a message via AIM to 82Rigger
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default What States are Suing over Healthcare?

I read that there are 10 states suing for unconstitutionality.

Does anyone know who they are?
__________________
""Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln,how did you like the play?"

Steve / 82Rigger

Last edited by 82Rigger; 03-22-2010 at 04:34 PM. Reason: typo
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 03-22-2010, 04:55 PM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Arrow

Attorneys general launch lawsuit backlash against Demcare

By Michelle Malkin • March 22, 2010 01:11 AM

In January, I blogged about the first line of defense against Demcare by the states: Opt-out initiatives.

The backlash continued over the last several weeks with state attorneys general signaling plans to sue the feds. Idaho’s governor signed an order last week.

Tomorrow, several AGs will unveil their official efforts:

VIRGINIA:
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.
SOUTH CAROLINA:
After the U.S. House’s historic vote Sunday night passing the health care reform bill, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster issued the following statement:

“The health care legislation Congress passed tonight is an assault against the Constitution of the United States. It contains various provisions and federal mandates that are clearly unconstitutional and must not be allowed to stand.
A legal challenge by the States appears to be the only hope of protecting the American people from this unprecedented attack on our system of government.
FLORIDA:
Moments after Congress voted to approve President Obama’s health care legislation, Florida’s Attorney General announced he will file a lawsuit to declare the bill unconstitutional.

…”The health care reform legislation passed by the U. S. House of Representatives this evening clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state’s sovereignty,” Bill McCollum said in a statement distributed late Sunday night.
Texas, Nebraska, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Alabama are expected to join the campaign.

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/22...ainst-demcare/
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-22-2010, 05:33 PM
82Rigger's Avatar
82Rigger 82Rigger is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Fort Walton Beach, Florida
Posts: 3,591
Send a message via AIM to 82Rigger
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default

Virginia, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, and Alabama.

Florida says the bill infringes on each state’s sovereignty.

This all sounds familiar.....
__________________
""Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln,how did you like the play?"

Steve / 82Rigger
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-22-2010, 08:27 PM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/connelly.asp
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-23-2010, 11:36 AM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Lightbulb

49% Support State Lawsuits Against Health Care Plan


Tuesday, March 23, 2010


Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters favor their state suing the federal government to fight the requirement in the new national health care plan that every American must obtain health insurance.


A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds that 37% disagree and oppose their state suing to challenge that requirement. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided.

A number of states, including Texas, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington, have already announced plans to sue the government over what they view as an unconstitutional requirement that every American buy or obtain health insurance. President Obama is expected to sign the health care plan into law today after the House on Sunday by a 219-212 vote approved the Senate version of the legislation.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans and 58% of voters not affiliated with either major party favor such lawsuits. Sixty-five percent (65%) of Democrats are opposed. This suggests that filing a suit would be popular in Republican leaning and toss-up states but not in strong Democratic states. Of course, as with all things in the world of politics, these realities could shift over time as both parties try to spin the recently-passed legislation.

The gap over suing the federal government is even wider between Mainstream Americans and the Political Class. Sixty-two percent (62%) of Mainstream voters think state lawsuits challenging the federal requirement are a good idea. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of the Political Class disagree.

Most voters (53%) oppose a provision in the new health care law that requires every American to buy or obtain health insurance. Just 42% favor it. These findings include 42% who are Strongly Opposed and 25% who Strongly in Favor.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of voters say individual states should have the right to opt out of the entire health care plan, roughly unchanged from just before the House vote. Thirty-four percent (34%) say states should not have the power to opt out, but 16% more are not sure.

Fifty percent (50%) also believe states should have the right to opt out of portions of the plan they disagree with. Thirty-three percent (33%) are opposed to even this limited opting-out. Seventeen percent (17%) aren’t sure.

In a survey just before the House vote, 41% of all voters nationally favored the overall health care plan, while 54% opposed it. These figures have changed very little for months.

Most voters still believe cost, not the lack of universal coverage, is the biggest problem with health care in America today, but most also think passage of the health care plan will drive costs even higher.

A sizable majority of Republicans and most unaffiliated voters think states should have the right to opt out of some or all of the health care plan passed by Congress. Most Democrats oppose opting-out in any fashion.

More than 80% of the Political Class is opposed to allowing states to opt out of any part of the health care plan. Over 60% of mainstream voters favor opting-out.

Forty-three percent (43%) of Americans expect the cost of prescription drugs to go up if the health care plan becomes law. Only 23% think the cost of prescription drugs will go down, while 17% expect drug costs to stay about the same.

The Congressional Budget Office says the president’s health care plan will reduce the deficit over 10-years’ time, but voters are skeptical of the official government projections. Eighty-one percent (81%) believe the health care plan will cost more than projected.Voters overwhelmingly believe passage of the plan will increase the deficit and is likely to mean higher middle class taxes.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters say passage of the health care plan will hurt the U.S. economy.

That’s one reason why 50% say they are less likely to vote this November to reelect a member of Congress who votes for the health care plan.

Just 11% of voters rate Congress’ performance as good or excellent in a survey taken right before the House vote. Sixty-four percent (64%) say Congress is doing a poor job.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...alth_care_plan
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-23-2010, 05:28 PM
jriley1349's Avatar
jriley1349 jriley1349 is offline
Member
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 58
Thumbs down Rasmussen??

Are you serious? Quoting Rasmussen as a credible source?

Scott Rasmussen is a rabidly partisan hack and joined at the hip with FoxNews, which cites his polls as the only ones worth mentioning.

According to the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity, Rasmussen has been a paid consultant for the RNC and President Bush’s 2004 campaign. The RNC paid Rasmussen $95,500 between 2003 and 2004 for items listed as “survey,” “survey cost” and “voter data.” Bush’s campaign paid Rasmussen $45,500 for “survey research.”
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-23-2010, 08:45 PM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

You quote your
Quote:
rabidly partisan hack
and I'll quote mine.
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-23-2010, 09:16 PM
82Rigger's Avatar
82Rigger 82Rigger is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Fort Walton Beach, Florida
Posts: 3,591
Send a message via AIM to 82Rigger
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default

Fourteen states now suing:




Florida, Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota Texas, Utah and Washington.

Virginia is suing separately.
__________________
""Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln,how did you like the play?"

Steve / 82Rigger
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-03-2010, 05:04 PM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Lightbulb liberty-in-action-first-private-lawsuit-challenging-obamacare-filed-in-mississippi

by K. Douglas Lee

Mississippi State Senator Chris McDaniel and I have filed a class action lawsuit today, Good Friday 2010, challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as “ObamaCare” and a variety of other less polite euphemisms.



We believe that the PPACA is DOA for several equally important reasons, but only one of which has received much attention. Most folks know by now that Congress has invoked the Commerce Clause to justify this massive expansion of governmental power. Our “Good Friday” Complaint spends many pages discussing how Congress has clearly exceeded the limits of its power under the Commerce Clause. I strongly urge you to read the entire Complaint. What I really want to point out, though, are some things you probably don’t know, and definitely will not like — even if you consider yourself a “Liberal.”

Consider for a moment that you have now been commanded to enter into a contract with an insurance corporation, whether you want to or not, whether you need to or not. Yes, there are many who actually choose to be uninsured. For most, it is simply an economic decision that often works out to the uninsured’s economic advantage. Not always, of course, but that’s the beauty of liberty — you get to make the decisions, and live with the good or bad that comes of them.

Now that you realize that a dictate has been handed down, compelling you to contract with an insurance corporation or else, consider what you have to do. It’s not like you can go to a vending machine, swipe your debit card and pull out a policy. You still have to apply. True, they cannot turn you down, but so what? You still have to give a big, scary, mean corporation a lot of private medical and psychological information about yourself and your family. Then, forever after, the insurance corporation’s bureaucrats will gather this private information without even bothering to let you know. As our Complaint states:
Moreover, compelling Plaintiffs to enter into a private contract to purchase insurance from another entity will legally require them to share private and personal information with the contracting party. Specifically, by requiring Plaintiffs to abide by the Act’s individual mandate, Congress is also compelling Plaintiffs to fully disclose past medical conditions, habits and behaviors. Not only will the insurer be privy to all past medical information, Congress’s individual mandate will, by necessity, allow the compelled insurer access to Plaintiffs’ present and future medical information of a confidential nature. If judicially enforceable privacy rights mean anything, then private and confidential medical details certainly merit Constitutional protection. Plaintiffs should not be forced to disclose the most intimate details of their past, present and future medical information.
Do you have an STD? How many abortions have you had? How about a sexual dysfunction? Did your father or mother have cancer? Do you have a birth defect? Have you ever been prescribed drugs for a mental condition, such as anxiety or depression? There are many reasons people have concerns over their medical privacy. The desire to keep one’s medical history private is universal.

Privacy, choice, and Roe v. Wade

Medical privacy is so important that we have enshrined it as fundamental right in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution — just ask the Supreme Court, which even allows women to kill unborn children in order to protect their constitutional right to medical privacy.

If you want health insurance badly enough, you’ll probably choose to give up your medical privacy rights to an insurance corporation. But perhaps you are indifferent to buying health insurance in the first place, and really, you don’t want it in writing anywhere that you’ve had two abortions, or eat Viagra like popcorn. You’ve decided that it would just be better to pay for your healthcare directly and avoid the entire insurance hassle. What’s wrong with this choice? Nothing, if you believe in the concept of liberty.
Forcing citizens to enter into a contract to buy insurance is a bit different than requiring them to buy a loaf of bread. Congress cannot conceivably be said to have the power to force you to buy a loaf of bread, even though that would indeed have some effect on interstate commerce.

Think about how much more egregious a denial of liberty it is to force people to contract with an insurance corporation. Those contracts create rights and obligations for both parties, but guess who gets to write the contract? Hint: insurance corporation lawyers. It’s an actual contract that you will actually be forced to sign by your government. You will not have any bargaining power to alter the contract; it’s not even a “take it or leave it” situation, it’s “take it or face the legal consequences.”

Which brings us to another important but poorly understood issue: Just what are the consequences? Exactly how will the mandate will be enforced? Unfortunately, this is something that none of us really know. Congress states outright that there will be a “penalty” assessed for citizens who disobey their command. These lawbreakers will have to pay an amount that will be assessed as a tax. Yes, we all know Congress has the power to tax, but remember, Congress itself has called this tax a “penalty.” As we explain in our Complaint,
Central to the definition of penalty is the “idea of punishment” – “[p]unishment imposed on a wrongdoer . . . in the form of imprisonment or fine. Though usually for crimes, penalties are also sometimes imposed for civil wrongs.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1153 (7th ed. 1999).
Yes, you wrongdoers who decide to go without insurance will be punished by the federal government. You will have to pay a special tax that applies only to wrongdoers like you. The Complaint points out that this “constitutes a capitation and a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states according to census data,” which is unconstitutional in itself. But this does not make great bedtime reading, so I’ll let you in on a secret: It’s a tax that they cannot make you pay.

A plain reading of the individual mandate shows that Congress first sets forth a penalty for failure to buy insurance, then says that regardless of anything written anywhere else in any other law, there can be no criminal penalty:
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any
criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
Then, to make it even very difficult (perhaps impossible) to civilly enforce the penalty/tax, Congress denied the government any power to file liens or levy any wrongdoer’s property:
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary
shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property
of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the
penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to
such failure.’’.
If the feds cannot levy or lien you, then what can they do to get your money? Write scary letters to you? Just what happens to the authority of the federal government when people laugh at these scary letters?
What indeed. We have demanded in our Complaint that if the government has some trick up its sleeve, that we be told what it is. If we are to be punished for not buying something, we deserve to know ahead of time what that punishment might be. That’s not just an old American tradition, it’s a constitutional principle.

The alternative, of course, is for the feds to admit that there is no enforcement mechanism. Consider what that means for a minute: the pièce de résistance of the PPACA is the individual mandate. Without an enforcement mechanism, the individual mandate fails; without the mandate, the entire legislative act fails utterly.

If the government admits, or the federal judiciary declares, that there is no enforcement mechanism for the individual mandate, millions will be free to ignore it. We believe, though, that the lack of an enforcement mechanism makes the individual mandate unconstitutional for reasons that we will discuss further with the federal court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

A call to service

We’ve got Mississippi covered. Now we need for you to do your part to take back your liberty. This lawsuit can be filed in every state in the greatest nation on earth, and it should be. Wherever this abomination applies, there is at least one federal court, often many. Find them, take our lawsuit, change the names and file it. Add to it if you have more arguments. If you are serious about doing so and need information, we are easy to find.

We have much more to say about the unconstitutionality of this abominable act of Congress, and we’re looking forward to your comments. God bless America!

Full Complaint below:

http://biggovernment.com/kdlee/2010/...n-mississippi/

PPACA class action Complaint filed 4-2-10

http://biggovernment.com/kdlee/2010/...n-mississippi/
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-07-2010, 04:26 PM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Lightbulb States suing over ObamaCare now reaches 18

The joint lawsuit led by Florida and now grouping 18 states was filed on March 23. It claims the sweeping reform of the $2.5 trillion healthcare system violates state-government rights in the U.S. Constitution and will force massive new spending on hard-pressed state governments.

South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, and South Dakota had previously joined Florida’s lawsuit.

“We welcome the partnership of Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada and Arizona as we continue fighting to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens and the sovereignty of our states,” Bill McCollum said.
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
States take aim to block healthcare plan darrels joy Political Debate 0 03-21-2010 03:57 PM
Update on Vets Healthcare sfc_darrel Veterans Concerns 1 09-22-2009 10:37 AM
New Format on US HealthCare Boats General Posts 1 08-13-2009 05:29 PM
VA healthcare cuts deltamedic General Posts 5 03-24-2003 07:59 PM
Gulf War veterans suing companies for che (sorry if already posted) MORTARDUDE Veterans Concerns 0 01-18-2003 07:29 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.