KY State Leaders Weigh Suit Over Health Care Bill

[LiberalNation]

way to waste taypaper money on doomed to fail lawsuits KY>

http://www.wlky.com/politics/22923070/detail.html

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- There's a push for Kentucky and Indiana to join several other states in a lawsuit against the federal government's new health care reform package.

Much like the debate in Washington, D.C., that push is split along partisan lines.

Kentucky Republican state House Minority Leader Jeff Hoover sent a letter to Attorney General Jack Conway in January requesting the state sue over the issue.

Hoover said with the measure signed into law, he will send another letter signed by all the Republicans in the state House requesting Conway to look at the constitutionality of health care reform.

Hoover said the new measure will cost Kentucky about $300 million a year at a time when lawmakers are cutting the state's budget.

"The other concern that many of us have with the legislation Congress has passed is that the government is requiring, mandating that individuals buy insurance. This is troubling," Hoover said.

[Kathianne]

Actually win or lose with this stab at the courts, the groundwork is being primed for a state called constitutional convention for amendment, not a bad thing, not at all.

[Little-Acorn]

way to waste taypaper money on doomed to fail lawsuits KY>

I'm sure Rosa Parks' friends said the same.

[Missileman]

way to waste taypaper money on doomed to fail lawsuits KY>

http://www.wlky.com/politics/22923070/detail.html

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- There's a push for Kentucky and Indiana to join several other states in a lawsuit against the federal government's new health care reform package.

Much like the debate in Washington, D.C., that push is split along partisan lines.

Kentucky Republican state House Minority Leader Jeff Hoover sent a letter to Attorney General Jack Conway in January requesting the state sue over the issue.

Hoover said with the measure signed into law, he will send another letter signed by all the Republicans in the state House requesting Conway to look at the constitutionality of health care reform.

Hoover said the new measure will cost Kentucky about $300 million a year at a time when lawmakers are cutting the state's budget.

"The other concern that many of us have with the legislation Congress has passed is that the government is requiring, mandating that individuals buy insurance. This is troubling," Hoover said.

As has been explained, if the feds can make you buy an insurance policy, they can make you buy anything, from a Chevy to a Wells Fargo credit card. The new legislation will not stand up to judicial scrutiny.

[avatar4321]

As has been explained, if the feds can make you buy an insurance policy, they can make you buy anything, from a Chevy to a Wells Fargo credit card. The new legislation will not stand up to judicial scrutiny.

I suppose that depends who controls the Court doesn't it? If people who actually follow the law control the Court, then no it wont stand up.

But if it's idealogues who don't care about the law then this legislation will easily stand up to it. It's only going to take 1 Justice to change it all. You think the left is beyond murder at this point to secure their power? They've already sentences tons of Americans to death by passing this bill.

[bullypulpit]

LOL...Yeah...Let the GOP die on that hill. Rolling back the denial of coverage to children with preexisting conditions...Allowing insurers to continue with recisions ...Stopping no life-time or annual caps...not fixing the "donut hole" for senior citizens...Not requiring insurance companies to post their balance sheets on line...

Heh.

[DragonStryk72]

LOL...Yeah...Let the GOP die on that hill. Rolling back the denial of coverage to children with preexisting conditions...Allowing insurers to continue with recisions ...Stopping no life-time or annual caps...not fixing the "donut hole" for senior citizens...Not requiring insurance companies to post their balance sheets on line...

Heh.

You realize this "reform" bill did nothing about any of that, right?

[red states rule]

LOL...Yeah...Let the GOP die on that hill. Rolling back the denial of coverage to children with preexisting conditions...Allowing insurers to continue with recisions ...Stopping no life-time or annual caps...not fixing the "donut hole" for senior citizens...Not requiring insurance companies to post their balance sheets on line...

Heh.

Where can I find any of those items in the Obamacare bill BP?

I do hope conservatves run in November on repealing Obamacare. they will be on the side of a majority of voters




55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill

Thursday, March 25, 2010


Just before the House of Representatives passed sweeping health care legislation last Sunday, 41% of voters nationwide favored the legislation while 54% were opposed. Now that President Obama has signed the legislation into law, most voters want to see it repealed.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the first two nights after the president signed the bill, shows that 55% favor repealing the legislation. Forty-two percent (42%) oppose repeal. Those figures include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal and 35% who Strongly Oppose it.

In terms of Election 2010, 52% say they’d vote for a candidate who favors repeal over one who does not. Forty-one percent (41%) would cast their vote for someone who opposes repeal.

Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly favor repeal while most Democrats are opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 59% favor repeal, and 35% are against it.

Most senior citizens (59%) also favor repeal. Earlier, voters over 65 had been more opposed to the health care plan than younger adults. Seniors use the health care system more than anyone else. But 58% of those 18 to 29 also support repeal of the plan which requires all Americans to have health insurance.

A number of states are already challenging the constitutionality of that requirement in court, and polling data released earlier shows that 49% of voters nationwide would like their state to sue the federal government over the health care bill.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/55_favor_repeal_of_health_care_bill

[Monkeybone]

LOL...Yeah...Let the GOP die on that hill. Rolling back the denial of coverage to children with preexisting conditions...Allowing insurers to continue with recisions ...Stopping no life-time or annual caps...not fixing the "donut hole" for senior citizens...Not requiring insurance companies to post their balance sheets on line...

Heh. then why couldn't it have just been that and then seen how it works and then added on as we need it? Why pass something that no one has read at all and that was against everything they said how they were going to do it?

you work in Healthcare (is it in a big city Bully?), what about the extra cuts to the Medi's? That won't hurt the hospitals at all?

like I have said before... you don't fix a broken window and a stuck door by bulldozing the house.

[red states rule]

then why couldn't it have just been that and then seen how it works and then added on as we need it? Why pass something that no one has read at all and that was against everything they said how they were going to do it?

you work in Healthcare (is it in a big city Bully?), what about the extra cuts to the Medi's? That won't hurt the hospitals at all?

like I have said before... you don't fix a broken window and a stuck door by bulldozing the house.

If Dems would let the people read the bill before they voted on it, opposition would be about 80%

[avatar4321]

LOL...Yeah...Let the GOP die on that hill. Rolling back the denial of coverage to children with preexisting conditions...Allowing insurers to continue with recisions ...Stopping no life-time or annual caps...not fixing the "donut hole" for senior citizens...Not requiring insurance companies to post their balance sheets on line...

Heh.

Well, it's better than giving people false hope and letting them die when you cant fulfill your promises.

And let's face it, you can't. We will be bankrupt soon.

[LiberalNation]

he decided against it on the grounds of not wasting taxpayer money for a political stunt. My faith in the AG is restored.

[red states rule]

he decided against it on the grounds of not wasting taxpayer money for a political stunt. My faith in the AG is restored.

Obamacare will not stand in court LN




This question is at the root of lawsuits filed by 14 states challenging Obamacare's requirement that those without health insurance must obtain it or face fines of $2,085 per household or 2.5 percent of income - whichever is greater.

Defenders of the new law point to the constitutional provision empowering Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has long interpreted the Commerce Clause to extend well beyond what a common-sense reading would support. In the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn, the high court ruled that farmer Roscoe Filburn could not grow wheat in excess of limits set by the 1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act. It did not matter that the wheat was grown on his own land for his own use - in this case feeding his chickens. According to the court, "control of total supply ... depends upon the control of individual supply." If enough farmers like Filburn grew their own chicken feed, they would not buy it, and this would have an impact on commerce nationwide. The Congress that can regulate Roscoe Filburn's chicken feed can regulate anything.

Still, Congress never claimed it could force people to take up farming or any other vocation. This is the radical interpretation of the Commerce Clause embedded in the health care bill. It is not a power to regulate commercial activity, but to compel it.

The change is unprecedented. All previous Commerce Clause cases have dealt with regulating pre-existing activity, but if someone is not buying health insurance, there is no commerce to regulate. The clause has never been used to compel private citizens not engaged in commerce to spend money on a government-mandated program. This is a new, extreme and potentially dangerous interpretation.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/24/obamas-constitutional-malpractice/?feat=home_showcase

[Kathianne]

It may well stand. I really will be surprised if the SCOTUS were to clip the federal wings. Now is the time to contact your state reps, calling for a constitutional convention amongst the states to add an amendment to address the century of expansion of the fed. States have budgets that are going to be blown out of the water by this and just wait until the financial reforms get going.

[red states rule]

It may well stand. I really will be surprised if the SCOTUS were to clip the federal wings. Now is the time to contact your state reps, calling for a constitutional convention amongst the states to add an amendment to address the century of expansion of the fed. States have budgets that are going to be blown out of the water by this and just wait until the financial reforms get going.

I do not see why the SC would not overturn Obamacare. It is clearly unconstitutional

The other option is to send as many conservatives to DC in November, and while they may not be able to overturn Obama's veto - they could simply not fund Obamacre

A majority wants this bill repealed, and conservatives running on repealing it will do well in the election

[Kathianne]

I do not see why the SC would not overturn Obamacare. It is clearly unconstitutional

The other option is to send as many conservatives to DC in November, and while they may not be able to overturn Obama's veto - they could simply not fund Obamacre

A majority wants this bill repealed, and conservatives running on repealing it will do well in the election

Roe v Wade ring bells? Lots of things are against the Constitution, but are not ruled on or ruled in favor of the wrong. When was the power of the Fed last rolled back?

I agree that the elections may well help regarding funding, but the bill will not be repealed at least until 2012 and by then 'entitlementism' will have kicked in.

[red states rule]

Roe v Wade ring bells? Lots of things are against the Constitution, but are not ruled on or ruled in favor of the wrong. When was the power of the Fed last rolled back?

I agree that the elections may well help regarding funding, but the bill will not be repealed at least until 2012 and by then 'entitlementism' will have kicked in.

I agree with your point on Roe, but the non funding tactic is the only thing that will stop the damage of Obamacare should the anger continue over the next eight months leading up to the election

Obama has over a year to "sell" his reform, and I doubt if he will imporve the numbers as more and more about what is in the bill comes to light

[Kathianne]

I agree with your point on Roe, but the non funding tactic is the only thing that will stop the damage of Obamacare should the anger continue over the next eight months leading up to the election

Obama has over a year to "sell" his reform, and I doubt if he will imporve the numbers as more and more about what is in the bill comes to light

The Republicans will not be able to stop funding anything the Democrats want to get through until Jan. 2011.

If the states are going to put some controls over unfunded mandates and the ever growing grasp of the Federal government, an amendment is needed and will never come from the US Congress. There was a reason the founders added that second, never used, method.

[CSM]

I am betting that the Dems firmly believe that the states cannot afford to hold a convention and the Feds would tie such an effort in knots just fighting the legal battles.

[Kathianne]

I am betting that the Dems firmly believe that the states cannot afford to hold a convention and the Feds would tie such an effort in knots just fighting the legal battles.

Get smart people. It really is the only long term solution.