Health Care Lawsuits

[Brothern]

Even though the lawsuit will probably prove futile in the end, it'll be interesting to follow it.

Here's the introduction:

CNN

Officials from 14 states have gone to court to block the historic overhaul of the U.S. health care system that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, arguing the law's requirement that individuals buy health insurance violates the Constitution.

Thirteen of those officials filed suit in a federal court in Pensacola, Florida, minutes after Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The complaint calls the act an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states" and asks a judge to block its enforcement.

"The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage," the lawsuit states.

The case was filed by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and joined by 11 other Republican attorneys general, along with one Democrat. McCollum said the new law also forces states "to do things that are practically impossible to do as a practical matter, and forcing us to do it without giving any resources or money to do it."

McCollum's lawsuit was joined by his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington. Virginia's attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, filed a separate case in his state Tuesday afternoon.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/23/health.care.lawsuit/index.html




States Involved: 22

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

Joined: Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Nevada, and North Dakota

Separate Lawsuit: Virginia

Amicus Curiae w/ Feds: Minnesota

[Brothern]

Mito's Docker Tracker Links (So you know they're good wink )
Docket Tracker for State of Florida et al v. U. S. Dept. of Health and Human Services et al
Docket Tracker for Virginia ex rel. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II v. Sebelius
Physician Hospitals of America, et al v. Sebelius

Does the lawsuit have merit?
Is Government Health Care Constitutional? -- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562948992235831.html
Illegal Health Reform -- Florida counsel -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103033.html
Is the Health Care Law Unconstitutional? -- 5 Opinions -- http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/is-the-health-care-law-unconstitutional/
(Other links?)

[Brothern]

The status so far:

State of Florida et al v. US Dep. of H&HS

Summary Judgment - Judge Vinson ruled with Florida, striking down ObamaCare in its entirety.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/013111healthcareruling.pdf

Lawsuit was appealed; US Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit

Commonwealth of Virginia, Ex Rel. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II v. Sebelius
Summary Judgment - Judge Hudson ruled with Virginia, striking down the individual mandate.
http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/virginiaone.pdf

Lawsuit was appealed; US Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Brothern, can you take these topics to the health care reform subforum they set up? Not trying to be an a**, but anyone that wants to discuss health care can go there and have one hell of a time. We get so many new topics on this subject every day, it's not about politics. This is about partisanship and what can I get.

[lostathome]

Ok, taxing without receiving anything is unconstitutional, requiring someone to do something or them being arrested however is not. Require health insurance to be bought or face jail time would be constitutional in this case. (How else would selective service be legal really.)

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

lostathome

Ok, taxing without receiving anything is unconstitutional, requiring someone to do something or them being arrested however is not. Require health insurance to be bought or face jail time would be constitutional in this case. (How else would selective service be legal really.)

You don't pay for selective service, and it is a military requirement that we really don't need. SSN's are all they really need.

[Herobane]

Dumbest ******** idea ever.

If it works, all hope for the US will die a horrible death, and revolution will be the only option left.

[Bento the spazcat]

@Brothern: Mind giving me the "simple enough for a kitty on two tramadol pills to understand" version of why they're suing?

And why is was not brought up till now?

[Brothern]

AngelSlayer The Elder

Brothern, can you take these topics to the health care reform subforum they set up? Not trying to be an a**, but anyone that wants to discuss health care can go there and have one hell of a time. We get so many new topics on this subject every day, it's not about politics. This is about partisanship and what can I get.

I didn't even know there was a subforum that they had set up. Secondly, I would rather particularly in some minute obscure fashion ... not post in that particular subforum.

The subforum isn't long-term, whereas I'm going to be on this until the end of the lawsuit, until I stop posting on Gaia, or until I croak - whatever happens to occur first.

[lostathome]

AngelSlayer The Elder

lostathome

Ok, taxing without receiving anything is unconstitutional, requiring someone to do something or them being arrested however is not. Require health insurance to be bought or face jail time would be constitutional in this case. (How else would selective service be legal really.)

You don't pay for selective service, and it is a military requirement that we really don't need. SSN's are all they really need.

You don't pay to apply for Insurance (loophole) That's all I'm getting at is the act itself. Apply for insurance or be jailed. Yes it is a weak argument. Still what I was getting at is you can jail someone for not doing something, but if you're fining them the same amount as they would be paying there is no point. Fining them at all is wrong.

Oh and by the way. (Slightly off-topic)

Supply = Demand, no change in price.
Supply > Demand, decrease in price.
Supply < Demand, increase in price.

Guess which one occurs when everyone is thrown into the "I need health insurance or I'm going to be fined" boat.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Bento the spazcat

@Brothern: Mind giving me the "simple enough for a kitty on two tramadol pills to understand" version of why they're suing?

And why is was not brought up till now?

Actually, they've been threatening to do this since the start. It violates the constitution is their reasoning.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

lostathome

AngelSlayer The Elder

lostathome

Ok, taxing without receiving anything is unconstitutional, requiring someone to do something or them being arrested however is not. Require health insurance to be bought or face jail time would be constitutional in this case. (How else would selective service be legal really.)

You don't pay for selective service, and it is a military requirement that we really don't need. SSN's are all they really need.

You don't pay to apply for Insurance (loophole) That's all I'm getting at is the act itself. Apply for insurance or be jailed. Yes it is a weak argument. Still what I was getting at is you can jail someone for not doing something, but if you're fining them the same amount as they would be paying there is no point. Fining them at all is wrong.

Oh and by the way. (Slightly off-topic)

Supply = Demand, no change in price.
Supply > Demand, decrease in price.
Supply < Demand, increase in price.

Guess which one occurs when everyone is thrown into the "I need health insurance or I'm going to be fined" boat.

It's buy, not apply. Big difference.

[Bento the spazcat]

AngelSlayer The Elder

Bento the spazcat

@Brothern: Mind giving me the "simple enough for a kitty on two tramadol pills to understand" version of why they're suing?

And why is was not brought up till now?

Actually, they've been threatening to do this since the start. It violates the constitution is their reasoning.

Where in the constitution? I don't see anywhere that it does.....the equal protection clause may even be interpreted as supportive of it.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Bento the spazcat

AngelSlayer The Elder

Bento the spazcat

@Brothern: Mind giving me the "simple enough for a kitty on two tramadol pills to understand" version of why they're suing?

And why is was not brought up till now?

Actually, they've been threatening to do this since the start. It violates the constitution is their reasoning.

Where in the constitution? I don't see anywhere that it does.....the equal protection clause may even be interpreted as supportive of it.

Bento, I'm not being a smart a**, but I have given up on this issue, other than providing some basic answers. I had two lawyers with me at lunch today and I didn't even get to finish. NEVER eat lunch with a liberal and a conservative lawyer when they get into a constitutional battle.
I am still trying to figure out how one ******** sentence can have five different meanings.

[Bento the spazcat]

AngelSlayer The Elder

Bento the spazcat

AngelSlayer The Elder

Bento the spazcat

@Brothern: Mind giving me the "simple enough for a kitty on two tramadol pills to understand" version of why they're suing?

And why is was not brought up till now?

Actually, they've been threatening to do this since the start. It violates the constitution is their reasoning.

Where in the constitution? I don't see anywhere that it does.....the equal protection clause may even be interpreted as supportive of it.

Bento, I'm not being a smart a**, but I have given up on this issue, other than providing some basic answers. I had two lawyers with me at lunch today and I didn't even get to finish. NEVER eat lunch with a liberal and a conservative lawyer when they get into a constitutional battle.

gonk I'm sorry.......I'd make you a sammich if you were local.

Quote:

I am still trying to figure out how one ******** sentence can have five different meanings.

*resists the urge to make a marriage joke*