Health Care Reform Hangs In Balance As Legal And Political Challenges Mount

The New York Times:

The battle over health care is poised to move swiftly from Congress back to the country as Democrats, Republicans and a battery of interest groups race to define the legislation and dig in for long-term political and legal fights.

Read the whole story: The New York Times

Comments

[Durango]

12:23 PM on 03/24/2010

How can these states attorney generals have standing?

For one thing courts are not allowed to issue advisory opinions. Someone must have been injured in order to establish standing.

And since the particulars of the Health Care Bill do not take effect for a number of years, how can anyone have been harmed?

And how can the states be harmed by provisions that apply to individuals?

And if Health Care is not an interstate commerce issue, why do the insurance companies require anti trust exemptions?

In the case of Florida I hope the taxpayers there realize their attorney genmeral is using their tax dollars to support his political campaign.

Want to bet that is the case in every other state as well?

[joeinvt]

06:32 AM on 03/24/2010

We already require health care facilities to treat people whether they can pay for treatment or not unlike any other goods or services. If I go to Best Buy, I don't get my flat screen TV unless I have cash or credit card in had. "I left my wallet at home" or "don't worry, I'll pay you later" will not get me far. On the other hand, if I show up at the ER, they are not allowed by law to turn me away just because I don't have the cash on me. In other words, we already recognize in law that health care services are not like any other commodity. Requiring people to purchase insurance is consistent with that view. Let those Republican AGs go after people who elect not to buy health insurance (or to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets or whatever) and expect MDs and the rest of us to pick up the tab for their health care, rehab, and nursing home care when they get in trouble.

[ResearchtheFacts]

12:34 AM on 03/24/2010

The GOP is planning an all out push back because of the passage of HCR reform.

Do we just sit on our hands until they push one of their own to exercise their second amendment right and catch us at the mall, grocery store, beach or park and act on their GOP programing? It's getting warmer and greater crowds of tea baggers will happen and rallies. They got aggressive enough to spit on someone, so what's next?

It's time to confront Republican leadership and force them to take responsibility for the atmosphere they've helped create. Please join me in signing ColorOfChange's petition confronting Republican leaders about hate and fear-mongering in their party, and ask your friends and family to do the same:

http://www.colorofchange.org/hate/?id=1691-1128364

We're calling on RNC Chair Michael Steele, House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to publicly do two simple things:

- Unequivocally condemn bigotry and hate among their supporters, and make clear that those who embrace it have no place in their party.

- Make clear that they will not tolerate fear-mongering and coded appeals to racism from officials in the Republican party, at any level.

[wutzurbeef]

09:42 PM on 03/23/2010

In Calif. everyone who drives the public road has to have liability insurance and BUY it. And as posted here by others, there are many other instances of where the government requires the buying of licenses, policies, certifications, etc. So what is the difference of requiring people who want to use medical systems to buy insurance? This is sharing the economic load and distributing the costs more evenly amidst the citizenry. What could be more democratic than that? People who make less than 88k a year will get vouchers towards the costs of those new policies. And people who make more than 88k a year should be able to afford insurance at what will be a most definitely reduced rate. The people have spoken via the votes of their representatives FOR HCR. Those trying to repeal it through legal means are not only dishonoring the will of the people, but are wasting huge amounts of resources for not.

[Durango]

12:28 PM on 03/24/2010

I would guess they would say there is a difference between state mandates and federal mandates.

But doesn't the Federal Government already mandate Social Security and Medicare?

They will come back and say SS and Medicare don't mandate buying private insurance.

So don't you forget these are the same fools who wanted to privatize Social Security.

And also don't parts of Medicare part D, the Drug Bill signed by Bush, require folks to pay private insurers?

Nice precedent isn't it?

[T-Hold]

08:53 PM on 03/23/2010

The basic argument by these guys (mostly Republican't) is the government cannot legally require us to buy anything, including health insurance.

So if they manage to get a Supreme Court ruling in their favor (not likely), then it also overturns EVERY state law requiring us to buy auto insurance, fire insurance, flood insurance, etc.

So when there is any car accident or fire, or flood, the state and federal government will pay for everything, right?

Keep it up...

[HHarvey]

09:25 PM on 03/23/2010

Actually, in Massachusetts didn't Mitt Romney introduce health care legislation requiring every Massachusetts resident to buy health care or pay a fine? Something like 250.00 a year? Am I wrong about that?

I think the republicans want to make it a state by state mandate, New Hampshire, for instance, doesn't require you to have auto insurance. Did you know that? What I don't get about it is the republicans total objection to anything in which they deem "The Nanny State". It's only convenient to use that term when it's something they don't like. They seem to want their cake and to eat it too, but it doesn't work that way. It's either state by state or the Feds, take your pick.

[HHarvey]

09:25 PM on 03/23/2010

Sorry, I didn't mean my earlier statement to actually respond to you. Posting error.

[amaboss52]

07:22 PM on 03/23/2010

The grandstanding AG @$$holes are going to waste millions of taxpayer money only to have their lawsuits thrown out. But typical to the reTHUGS they dont mind wasting our money on frivolous lawsuits when they dont get their way. Hey what about that tort reform thingy, I think it would come in handy right about now.

[Durango]

12:36 PM on 03/24/2010

And in the case of Florida, at least, the waste of taxpayers to support the Attorney Generals political campaign for Governor.

[riverhouse]

05:32 PM on 03/23/2010

This is a nonsensical idea. The federal government, state governments, and local governments can require citizens to buy all sorts of things from federal firearm licenses to drivers' licenses to hunting and fishing licenses. The government can require business to buy all sorts of liability insurance. If you have a mortgage, you are required to buy homeowner's insurance. If you finance or lease a car, you are required to buy insurance. Divorce courts routinely order one party to buy and provide insurance for the other party.

[Angelus2007]

06:38 PM on 03/23/2010

Big difference, I have a choice to buy a firearm, or to drive, or to hunt or fish. I can choose to own a business or not, I can rent instead of buying a house, I don't need to finance my car.

My point is, all those things you mention are not required by everyone, just those who choose to. I don't have a choice when it comes to the mandate.

[AvgPlumber]

08:41 PM on 03/23/2010

You're splitting hairs, which hardly qualifies as a big difference. For example, "having a choice" is an odd way to describe driving. Most places in this country do not have mass transit (which is largely funded with dollars from the federal government, something else I'd wager you're against), so having use of an automobile is hardly "a choice" for many people. Try getting a decent job without use of a vehicle (next you'll argue having a job is a choice, then bash people who don't work). In my state auto liability insurance is mandatory for registered vehicles along with annual safety and emissions inspections (annual registration fees too). But ask most people without access to mass transit if driving/owning a vehicle is a necessity for them or something they can choose to do without. As for some of your other examples, to some folks, hunting and fishing is a necessary way to put food on the table, does that make it a choice for all? If it does it's by definition only, hardly the "big difference" you define it as and basically a hollow argument against government mandating health insurance. I notice you didn't even touch Riverhouse's divorce court order to provide insurance assertion, but I guess a person can choose to ignore such an order and end up in a mandatory jail cell.

[Durango]

12:37 PM on 03/24/2010

And your choice to buy Social Security?

How about Medicare Part D which requires you to sign up with private insurance companies for the drug benefit?

[mikegriffith]

03:38 PM on 03/23/2010

If the Supreme Court has any regard for the Constitution, there's no way this bill will pass constitutional muster.

[Mahi Joe]

03:12 PM on 03/23/2010

Let's applaud the GOP especially Texas for fighting to get this Bill repealed. Of course Texas has the highest number of uninsured people of any State in the Nation (6,000,000) and has shown great intelligence by trying to take away their chance to get decent coverage. What a great group of legislators the GOP has become. You Texans, support your legislators who already are receiving their socialist backed healthcare plans. You show the world how smart one is to rebel against your own self interests.

[bannorhill]

04:51 PM on 03/23/2010

Texas also has one of the lowest bankruptcy rates. You would think with more uninsured bankruptcies would be higher.

[AvgPlumber]

08:22 AM on 03/24/2010

Please put the rates you are referring to in context. If we are talking about, "as a percentage of population," Texas is one of the most populous states, therefore would have higher numbers of people than smaller states if the percentage were translated to actual numbers of people filing. Population size of a sample makes a big difference if statistics are derived from them. Smaller populations tend to skew higher or lower making the comparisons virtually pointless. Don't forget the bankruptcy laws were changed in 2005 so I'm sure that had an impact on the rates before and after the changes. Clearly there are less on average per quarter than prior to 2006 in Texas.

The American Bankruptcy Institute's website lists quarterly filings by state since 1980. Texas averaged over 20,000 filings per quarter in 2001-2005 definitely in the top ten states for the time period, though California is frighteningly far and away the state with the most filings as a raw number. Some states like Florida, Georgia and Michigan have seen filings skyrocket since the bottom fell out of the subprime market in late-2007-through-2008, when nearly every state has seen an increase in bankruptcy filings. Yikes!

[DosGatos2]

02:29 PM on 03/23/2010

All the money spend on litigation could be better spent on healthcare, what a waste.

If the reform bill is unconstitutional according to the AGs arguments, then so is Medicare. How much you want to bet that the Florida AG would never bring a lawsuit to repeal Medicare?

[bannorhill]

04:53 PM on 03/23/2010

How much money was spent "bribing" Senators to vote for this bill?

[savroD]

01:11 PM on 03/23/2010

Let them go ahead and challenge this. then, let's see how quickly they run away when Obama starts removing federal funding! Not to mention..... if they drive their populations of low and middle income folks away because the next state over is more profitable, they will lose congressional representation. Their states will become a gated community of whatever rich is left, and the illegals. Good luck with that!

[keepemhonest]

10:58 AM on 03/23/2010

The GOP know, full well, that their lawsuits will get tossed because there IS legal precedent for the government to "force" us to buy health insurance ... and legal precedent that if we don't buy health insurance we will have the IRS on our tails ... MEDICARE.

Knowing full well what I know, those GOPers are only wasting the taxpayer's money in their states so THEY can raise money during this election year.

Hey, I thought the GOP were supposed to be the fiscal responsible dudes? I thought they wanted to end wasteful spending of tax dollars?

I guess deep down those GOPers LOVE SPENDING YOUR TAX MONEY on frivolous lawsuits as a means to FUNDRAISE for campaigns.

[glockman]

11:44 AM on 03/23/2010

Your stretching of medicare as being a forced insurance purchase is really laughable.

[keepemhonest]

12:06 PM on 03/23/2010

Man

Your lack of ability to understand REALITY - that Medicare is a FORCED Insurance purchase - is laughable.

Tell ya what, you go tell you employer you refuse to buy Medicare and therefore YOU refuse to pay the portion of FICA that buys YOUR Medicare ... see how far that gets you.

[Angelus2007]

06:43 PM on 03/23/2010

Big difference, I am gving my money to the government as a tax for medicare, not being forced to buy medicare from a privately owned company.

[ClareP]

10:45 AM on 03/23/2010

Calling all Minnesotans: Please call or write to your state senators and reps and get them to block the state AG's use of taxpayer money to challenge healthcare in court! I sincerely doubt Pawlenty and the AG represent what most of Minnesota wants on this. The dem majority in the legislature ought to do something to stop them-- if only by passing a law affirming the reform.

[keepemhonest]

10:55 AM on 03/23/2010

And... remind them the government has forced us to buy health insurance, Medicare, for DECADES -- where were their lawsuits then?

[glockman]

11:44 AM on 03/23/2010

Um, so how exactly are we being forced to buy Medicare if we never use it? Your argument is ridiculous.

[brt929]

07:34 PM on 03/23/2010

Actually, I don't think that you ARE forced to sign up for Medicare if you don't want it.

But you are right, you can't opt out of the payroll tax that funds it.

[normalintexas]

09:51 AM on 03/23/2010

The various State Attorney Generals preparing to file a suit claiming the HCR bill is unconstitutional have no case. All hospitals, clinics and private practices are federally subsidized in one form or the other. Therefore, simply, put the HCR once signed into law is not unconstitutional. If an individual steps forward and files suit I suppose they would have to prove they never once availed themselves of health care.

[keepemhonest]

10:41 AM on 03/23/2010

Norm

I agree. David Shuster had the AG from Utah on his show today and the AG INCORRECTLY told Shuster that the government has NEVER forced the “people” to buy health insurance.

The AG from Utah also INCORRECTLY told Shuster that the government has never said they would send the IRS after people if they didn’t buy health insurance.

That is false. Medicare IS insurance that the government forces us to “buy” via FICA. Even though we may never want to use Medicare - we are still forced to “buy” Medicare - HEALTH INSURANCE via FICA.

IF: any person refuses to pay their share of FICA
THEN: The IRS does, in deed, impose a penalty & interest on the person ... and if the person continues to refuse to pay their share of FICA they are jailed.

[normalintexas]

10:45 AM on 03/23/2010

Exactly. Thanks for further expounding on the facts.

[ClareP]

10:50 AM on 03/23/2010

The unchallengable way to do this might have been to put a tax on everyone and to give a credit in the amount of premiums paid. But that would make things tough for people in the first year. Of course I suppose they could have addressed this by putting in a provision that would allow people to apply for an early credit when they pay the premiums. That they didn't do things the long way around suggests that they didn't feel that it was really likely to be overturned.

All the same, so long as dems keep a majority, if this does get struck down (due to the Bush weighted activist court) it could get revised in that direction. Or just ditch it and go to single payer all at once. Medicate for all.

[UofOLaw]

04:29 PM on 03/23/2010

There is a considerable difference between the government forcing a person to buy a product from a private company, and the government taxing a person to provide a governmental service. It is a wonderful talking point to say that Medicare is insurance that we are forced to pay for, so the health care reform bill is constitutional, however that view is incorrect and does a disservice to anyone who is not fully informed.

As an example, the government can tax you to build a road, and tax you to provide bus service. The government cannot force you to buy a car...

[brt929]

08:26 PM on 03/23/2010

That is quite a red-herring argument you just presented. Too bad it is wrong.

However, people are not being forced to buy a product from a private company- they can if they so choose - but they also have the option pay the excise tax instead. The individual gets to decide.

You do agree that Congress has the right to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises..." ?

http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2764

[ProfessorDuh]

09:02 AM on 03/23/2010

Ginned up on lles from Limbaugh and Fox News, frightened by the Democrats' success and frustrated in their own limited intelligence, the Tea Bigots will now turn to violence. It's the familiar fasclst pattern.