Health Care

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it.

By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms, as "enthusiastic" or "pleased," while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

The largest single group, 48%, calls the bill "a good first step" that should be followed by more action on health care. An additional 4% also have a favorable view, saying the bill makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system.

And as the months go by and people see that all the lies about healthcare were just that and they begin to see all the positives about this, poll numbers will reflect this.

Republicans who run on repealing this do it at their own peril. Perhaps it will be their waterloo. I will sure do my part to make sure it is.

[ariscus99 1]

Ten states (so far) have lined up to sue over obamacare, florida AG says,

"There's no way we can do what's required in this bill and still provide for education, for foster care."

--Bill McCollum, Florida attorney general

All of the attorneys general in the 10 states mentioned by McCollum are Republican, but McCollum said the lawsuit would be about the law and not politics.

Also Monday, Virginia's Republican attorney general said his state would file a lawsuit challenging the health care bill. It was unclear if Virginia would join the other states or proceed on its own. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill on Sunday night, and Obama intends to sign it Tuesday, according to Democratic sources.

What will health care reform mean to you?

McCollum said the lawsuit would challenge the bill's provision requiring people to purchase health insurance, along with provisions that will force state government to spend more on health care services.

"This is a tax or a penalty on just living, and that's unconstitutional," he said of the mandate to purchase health coverage. "There's no provision in the Constitution of the United States giving Congress the power to do that."

McCollum also said that portions of the bill would force states to spend money they don't have, which he called a violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

"There's no way we can do what's required in this bill and still provide for education, for foster care, for the incarceration of prisoners, all the other things that are in this bill," he said.

McCollum said he expected the lawsuit to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Later Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the Obama administration expected to win any lawsuits filed against the health care bill.

The Democratic governor of Washington criticized her state's attorney general, Rob McKenna, for being part of the planned lawsuit.

Gov. Chris Gregoire issued a statement that said she disagreed with McKenna's decision and that the attorney general was not representing her. Gregoire's statement also said she would actively oppose the lawsuit.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Ten states (so far) have lined up to sue over obamacare, florida AG says,

Rather than file a lawsuit that they will lose, perhaps a better use of Florida's taxpayer's money would be for that foster care. Estimates in my state is that it would cost $950 million to file the lawsuit. I guess they think they can afford THAT!

[ariscus99 1]

Rather than file a lawsuit that they will lose, perhaps a better use of Florida's taxpayer's money would be for that foster care. Estimates in my state is that it would cost $950 million to file the lawsuit. I guess they think they can afford THAT!

That probably would be a better appropriation of the funds, are the guaranteed to lose though? I don't know. We shall see, lots of laws and case law to look at here.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

White House, experts: Health care suit will fail

By BRENDAN FARRINGTON, AP

4 hours ago

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The White House says it isn't worried that 13 state attorneys general are suing to overturn the massive health care overhaul, and many legal experts agree the effort is futile.

But the lawsuit, filed in federal court seven minutes after President Barack Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill, underscores the divisiveness of the issue and the political rancor that has surrounded it.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum led the effort to file the suit that claims Congress doesn't have the constitutional right to force people to get health coverage. It also says the federal government is violating the Constitution by forcing a mandate on the states without providing resources to pay for it.

"To that I say, 'Bring it on,'" said White House domestic policy chief Melody Barnes, who cited similar suits filed over Social Security and the Voting Rights Act when those were passed. "If you want to look in the face of a parent whose child now has health care insurance and say we're repealing that ... go right ahead."

A 14th state, Virginia, did not join the bigger lawsuit, but filed its own, which other states are also considering.

McCollum, a Republican running for governor, has been talking about suing to overturn the bill since December. This month he invited other attorneys general to join him. So far South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Colorado and Louisiana have agreed.

All the attorneys general are Republican except James "Buddy" Caldwell of Louisiana, a Democrat, who said he signed on because Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal asked him to and he felt the effort had merit.

The lawsuit, filed in Pensacola, asks a judge to declare the bill unconstitutional because "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."

Robert Sedler, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit, said the effort isn't going anywhere.

"This is pure, pure political posturing and they have to know it," he said.

But South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley disputed that characterization, saying his state will have to cut education and other programs to make up for increased Medicaid costs under the overhaul.

"This isn't about attorneys general trying to break into the realm of telling what needs to happen with health care reform," he said. "This is attorneys general saying you went too far with unfunded federal mandates. You exceeded your power under the Constitution."

Not so, said Bruce Jacob, a constitutional law professor at Stetson University in Florida, who said the suit seems like a political ploy and is unlikely to succeed.

"The federal government certainly can compel people to pay taxes, can compel people to join the Army," he said.

Some more states, including Missouri, may join the multistate suit. Still others are looking at other ways to avoid participating, like passing legislation to block requirements in the bill.

McCollum predicted his suit would eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The health care bill "is not lawful," he said. "It may have passed Congress, but there are three branches of government."

The lawsuit claims the health care bill violates the 10th Amendment, which says the federal government has no authority beyond the powers granted to it under the Constitution, by forcing the states to carry out its provisions but not reimbursing them for the costs.

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, a Democrat, said she strongly disagrees with Attorney General Rob McKenna's decision to sue, calling the lawsuit an effort to "gut the bill."

"There is no reason why we need to spend taxpayer money in the state of Washington to join this suit, when it's going to be litigated no matter what," she said.

The lawsuit also says the states can't afford the new law. Using Florida as an example, it says the overhaul will add almost 1.3 million people to the state's Medicaid rolls and cost the state an additional $150 million in 2014, growing to $1 billion a year by 2019.

"We simply cannot afford to do the things in this bill that we're mandated to do," McCollum said at a press conference after filing the suit. He said the Medicaid expansion in Florida will cost $1.6 billion, including administrative and other costs.

Under the bill, starting in six months, health insurance companies would be required to keep young adults as beneficiaries on their parents' plans until they turn 26, and companies would no longer be allowed to deny coverage to sick children.

Other changes would not kick in until 2014.

That's when most Americans will for the first time be required to carry health insurance — either through an employer or government program or by buying it themselves. Those who refuse will face tax penalties.

No Republicans in the U.S. House or Senate voted for the bill, which Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller in Washington said his agency will vigorously defend.

"We are confident that this statute is constitutional and we will prevail when we defend it," he said.

___

Edited March 24, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[tdslf1 0]

I got an interesting question to ask about the new health care. One of my clients asked me today and I really had no answer. If a mother is on welfare and she has a child that is 24 and lives with her, can that child get back on her welfare insurance? I thought this was interesting and if not what does a kid who lives at home do to get insurance if they got kicked off that welfare insurance at 18 and that is the only insurance she has? Is this the group of people that won't be able to get the insurance even if they are poor? Those not connected to mom and pop insurance but still live at home ecause they don't make enough to pay for it?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I got an interesting question to ask about the new health care. One of my clients asked me today and I really had no answer. If a mother is on welfare and she has a child that is 24 and lives with her, can that child get back on her welfare insurance? I thought this was interesting and if not what does a kid who lives at home do to get insurance if they got kicked off that welfare insurance at 18 and that is the only insurance she has? Is this the group of people that won't be able to get the insurance even if they are poor? Those not connected to mom and pop insurance but still live at home ecause they don't make enough to pay for it?

I don't know. I will try to find out because that is an interesting question. My first thought is that if children can stay on their parent's health insurance that is paid by an employer, why wouldn't the child be able to stay on their mother's medicaid that is paid for by the government? I really don't know.

[ariscus99 1]

I don't know. I will try to find out because that is an interesting question. My first thought is that if children can stay on their parent's health insurance that is paid by an employer, why wouldn't the child be able to stay on their mother's medicaid that is paid for by the government? I really don't know.

In CA, a child is not covered by their parents medicade(medi-cal in CA), if the parent qualifies the child always qualifies on there own for medi-cal. So when they turn 18 they would have to re-apply for medi-cal. I don't know how it works else where but that is how it works, pre-obamacare, in CA.

[pattygreen 5]

When the CBO supports reps point of view, theyre all for it. When it goes against theyre beliefs its a "biased extension of the left wing!

I only bring up what they have to say on this issue because YOU trust what they say.

[pattygreen 5]

He didn't protect this country when it counted. Under no other president did 3000 people die from a terrorist attack. So it is hardly something to brag about that he kept us safe from 9/11 on. So what? So did all the other presidents under whom 3000 people didn't die.

A terrorist attack is an act of war. Pearl Harbor killed 2400 people under Roosevelt's term.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

A terrorist attack is an act of war. Pearl Harbor killed 2400 people under Roosevelt's term.

And FDR declared war on the right country - Japan. He didn't invade Mexico, unlike bush who invaded the wrong country (Iraq).

[pattygreen 5]

Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it.

By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms, as "enthusiastic" or "pleased," while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

The largest single group, 48%, calls the bill "a good first step" that should be followed by more action on health care. An additional 4% also have a favorable view, saying the bill makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system.

And as the months go by and people see that all the lies about healthcare were just that and they begin to see all the positives about this, poll numbers will reflect this.

Republicans who run on repealing this do it at their own peril. Perhaps it will be their waterloo. I will sure do my part to make sure it is.

Obama made certain that all of the "wonderful" things that this bill entails will be acted upon within the first 6 months of its signing. (how convenient, right before the November elections) These" wonderful" things are the same things that the majority of the nation wanted. Even so, they did not want this bill to pass for all the other things that are in it, and it's COST to us and especially the GIANT stepping stone that it brings to our government for their full control of our HC decisions in the future.

We will NOT forget to vote the democrats out of office in November. They might as well start packing right now. I know that most of them are aware of thier fate.:thumbup:

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Obama made certain that all of the "wonderful" things that this bill entails will be acted upon within the first 6 months of its signing. (how convenient, right before the November elections) These" wonderful" things are the same things that the majority of the nation wanted. Even so, they did not want this bill to pass for all the other things that are in it, and it's COST to us and especially the GIANT stepping stone that it brings to our government for their full control of our HC decisions in the future.

We will NOT forget to vote the democrats out of office in November. They might as well start packing right now. I know that most of them are aware of thier fate.:thumbup:

Mid term elections have historically shown a loss for the majority party and who's in the white house. Even without healthcare the democrats have known they would lose seats. This isn't some big revelation. It happened to the republicans in 2006.

It's not like any of those people you see protesting were going to vote for democrats anyway. Or you either.

The cost of this healthcare will be born largely by the rich and deservedly so since they have been given a free ride since reagan.

The pre-tax incomes of the wealthy have soared since reagan while their tax rates have fallen more than the rates for the middle class and poor.

When the middle class votes for republicans they vote against their own economic self-interests because the republicans have never done anything for the middle class.

Here is their agenda: tax cuts for the rich and corporations and war at any cost.

[pattygreen 5]

portions of the bill would force states to spend money they don't have, which he called a violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

"There's no way we can do what's required in this bill and still provide for education, for foster care, for the incarceration of prisoners, all the other things that are in this bill," he said.

This is just one of the many "invisible" costs of the bill that were not added into it by the CBO. Once the states are made to spend money that they don't have, the people will have to be taxed by their states in order for them to come up with the funds that are needed. The liberals just don't get the "real" cost of this. They say, "It doesn't matter what it costs. We neeeeeed it." Well, it does matter what it costs.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

portions of the bill would force states to spend money they don't have, which he called a violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

"There's no way we can do what's required in this bill and still provide for education, for foster care, for the incarceration of prisoners, all the other things that are in this bill," he said.

This is just one of the many "invisible" costs of the bill that were not added into it by the CBO. Once the states are made to spend money that they don't have, the people will have to be taxed by their states in order for them to come up with the funds that are needed. The liberals just don't get the "real" cost of this. They say, "It doesn't matter what it costs. We neeeeeed it." Well, it does matter what it costs.

If the states don't have the money where are they getting the money to pursue these lawsuits? The estimate for my state is $950 million. And they will lose. Talk about an abuse and waste of taxpayer money. :thumbup: