It's still not too late States are filing Lawsuits as we Read.

[big turkey]

Stop Socialist Healthcare - Keep America Free	powered by Aeva

[Popeye]

Thirteen states so far.  Will more follow?


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-ap-us-health-overhaul-lawsuit,0,7455477.story

[Bob E.]

I live in one of those states (PA), but everything I've seen indicates that these lawsuits have little to no standing and are nothing but a waste of taxpayer money for the sake of politics.

[JimL]

I live in one of those states (PA), but everything I've seen indicates that these lawsuits have little to no standing and are nothing but a waste of taxpayer money for the sake of politics.

Bob I have been listening to the pundits on this topic and what I have heard is somewhat consistent with what you are saying.  I suppose whether or not these lawsuits have any legal standing appears to hinge on what will be the interpretation of a single Supreme Court Justice (Kennedy).  I am a little optimistic since he tends to lean ever so slightly to the conservative side than the "progressive" (oxymoron) side.

Much like the reverse discrimination case involving the New Haven, CT firefighters, I think it is important at any cost to send this case to the Supreme Court for a ruling.  The decision that is handed down from it will have enormous impact on what freedoms (we think) we still have.  Hopefully the Supreme Court will rule that the Congress overstepped their powers given under the Interstate Commerce clause and strike down this bill in it's entirety.  If the ruling is unfavorable, hopefully it will waken enough people out of their ignorant, ambivalent stupor to clean up this mess in 2010 and 2012.

[sugarbee]

some websites you might want to check out:

http://www.freedomworks.org/
This one shows where and when the rallys are being held in each state

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
This one has a live counter, of how many people have signed their petition so far\

http://www.redcounty.com/kill-bill/37833
Has additional links that have very good reading

[Bob E.]

I live in one of those states (PA), but everything I've seen indicates that these lawsuits have little to no standing and are nothing but a waste of taxpayer money for the sake of politics.

Bob I have been listening to the pundits on this topic and what I have heard is somewhat consistent with what you are saying.  I suppose whether or not these lawsuits have any legal standing appears to hinge on what will be the interpretation of a single Supreme Court Justice (Kennedy).  I am a little optimistic since he tends to lean ever so slightly to the conservative side than the "progressive" (oxymoron) side.

Much like the reverse discrimination case involving the New Haven, CT firefighters, I think it is important at any cost to send this case to the Supreme Court for a ruling.  The decision that is handed down from it will have enormous impact on what freedoms (we think) we still have.  Hopefully the Supreme Court will rule that the Congress overstepped their powers given under the Interstate Commerce clause and strike down this bill in it's entirety.  If the ruling is unfavorable, hopefully it will waken enough people out of their ignorant, ambivalent stupor to clean up this mess in 2010 and 2012.

I actually agree that interstate commerce clause arguement is rather sketchy.  The arguement against it is that while the government has the authority to regulate commerce, they do not have the authority (or maybe they do??) to force individuals to participate in said commerce...like the arguement that they cannot require citizens to purchase a new GM car to help the government since they own a major stake that company.  On the other hand, the arguement for it is that when uninsured individuals go to the hospital, and the bills are picked up by everyone else who has insurance, this actually affects commerce...so therefore the government has the authority.  It is certainly a gray area of the laws that the Supreme Court would have to interpret.  Given the conservative leanings of the court these days, I don't know that I'd want that to be the only thing I have to hang my hat on if I were the government.

I believe the stronger arguement is that the requirement to purchase insurance is essentially a tax.  In other words, the penalty for not having insurance is the tax...and you get a tax credit for this amount if you can provide proof of insurance.  This is also likely why this is being handled by the IRS.  I believe this arguement is more cut and dry and will be the real deciding factor in the ruling.

[G-Man]

[quote author=Bob E. link=topic=14160.msg118638#msg118638 date=1269437444This is also likely why this is being handled by the IRS.  I believe this arguement is more cut and dry and will be the real deciding factor in the ruling.
[/quote]


I believe it has been handed over to the IRS for enforcement because the IRS is NOT a governmental agency.  Is still is a priavate agency, hired to collect taxes for the government.  This takes the gov't out of the picture when they come calling for the "tax" you must pay because you don't have insurance.  Can't afford it....let's see, your returns show that you own a home and bought a new car.  Hmmmmmm, sell your home and car or jail time. 

I know, I know........over dramatic, scare tactics, etc.  Is it really?  Isn't this what happens when you don't pay what the IRS says you should pay.  They audit, come to collect, garnish wages, and jail you for not complying. 

[JimL]

I live in one of those states (PA), but everything I've seen indicates that these lawsuits have little to no standing and are nothing but a waste of taxpayer money for the sake of politics.

Bob I have been listening to the pundits on this topic and what I have heard is somewhat consistent with what you are saying.  I suppose whether or not these lawsuits have any legal standing appears to hinge on what will be the interpretation of a single Supreme Court Justice (Kennedy).  I am a little optimistic since he tends to lean ever so slightly to the conservative side than the "progressive" (oxymoron) side.

Much like the reverse discrimination case involving the New Haven, CT firefighters, I think it is important at any cost to send this case to the Supreme Court for a ruling.  The decision that is handed down from it will have enormous impact on what freedoms (we think) we still have.  Hopefully the Supreme Court will rule that the Congress overstepped their powers given under the Interstate Commerce clause and strike down this bill in it's entirety.  If the ruling is unfavorable, hopefully it will waken enough people out of their ignorant, ambivalent stupor to clean up this mess in 2010 and 2012.

I actually agree that interstate commerce clause arguement is rather sketchy.  The arguement against it is that while the government has the authority to regulate commerce, they do not have the authority (or maybe they do??) to force individuals to participate in said commerce...like the arguement that they cannot require citizens to purchase a new GM car to help the government since they own a major stake that company.  On the other hand, the arguement for it is that when uninsured individuals go to the hospital, and the bills are picked up by everyone else who has insurance, this actually affects commerce...so therefore the government has the authority.  It is certainly a gray area of the laws that the Supreme Court would have to interpret.  Given the conservative leanings of the court these days, I don't know that I'd want that to be the only thing I have to hang my hat on if I were the government.

I believe the stronger arguement is that the requirement to purchase insurance is essentially a tax.  In other words, the penalty for not having insurance is the tax...and you get a tax credit for this amount if you can provide proof of insurance.  This is also likely why this is being handled by the IRS.  I believe this arguement is more cut and dry and will be the real deciding factor in the ruling.

Bob this might be the only part where we see it differently.  Ultimately it will end up being an interpretation by the Supreme Court...on that we agree.  A big part of that decision will be whether this fine for not purchasing insurance it is a de facto tax.  However, if it is really a tax...IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN AS A TAX.  I can understand why the Democrats obfuscated the matter and resisted spelling it out as a tax in the bill....it has everything to do with breaking yet another campaign promise in addition to full disclosure, no earmarks, etc.

It appears to me that Supreme Court should not make that convenient interpretation for them, and uphold the bill accordingly.  However the ugly part of where this country currently finds itself is that the Supreme Court is every bit as politically divided as Capital Hill and the nation as a whole.

No one knows what will happen, not even the best legal scholars (they appear to be divided)  An interpretation is an interpretation; and interpretations are influenced by individual biases.  We will simply have to stay tuned to see how it plays out......

[G-Man]

[quote author=Bob E. link=topic=14160.msg118638#msg118638 date=1269437444This is also likely why this is being handled by the IRS.  I believe this arguement is more cut and dry and will be the real deciding factor in the ruling.

I believe it has been handed over to the IRS for enforcement because the IRS is NOT a governmental agency.  Is still is a priavate agency, hired to collect taxes for the government.  This takes the gov't out of the picture when they come calling for the "tax" you must pay because you don't have insurance.  Can't afford it....let's see, your returns show that you own a home and bought a new car.  Hmmmmmm, sell your home and car or jail time. 

I know, I know........over dramatic, scare tactics, etc.  Is it really?  Isn't this what happens when you don't pay what the IRS says you should pay.  They audit, come to collect, garnish wages, and jail you for not complying. 
[/quote]

Sorry, forgot to add......

They'll jail you unless you are a Democrat, in which case they give you the title of Czar.[size]

[Bob E.]

They'll jail you unless you are a Democrat, in which case they give you the title of Czar.[size]

I guess I have nothing to worry about then...except my new promotion...WOOOHOOO!! 

[Bob E.]

Bob this might be the only part where we see it differently.  

I doubt it Jim...but at least you seem like a reasonably rational and level-headed fellow.  I like reading your posts...even if I don't always agree with them. 

[JimL]

Bob this might be the only part where we see it differently.  

I doubt it Jim...but at least you seem like a reasonably rational and level-headed fellow.  I like reading your posts...even if I don't always agree with them.  

LOL...Bob at least your nicer about it than my ex-wife....she always told me to just shut up and stick it where the sun doesn't shine!    

[alph]

What scares me is that after social security was enacted, and Medicare, the democrats held both the house and senate for 40 years.  Now, since they’ve given more money to those that know how to abuse the system, they’re more likely to vote for a democrat then for those evil republicans that just want people to EARN their own way through life.

I know a girl that has four kids; she collects social security for one of them ‘cause his father shot himself.  She’s had three other kids from the same guy that she’s been dating (he’s her dead husbands best friend).  They won’t get married because if they do, she’ll lose the $650 per month for social security for the one kid, and she won’t be able to get food stamps because he’s got a good county job that has excellent healthcare benefits, not to mention the fact that she earns cash tips as a beautician that would put her into a high enough wage bracket to take her off of food stamps if she clamed the tips.   

And now, she gets free healthcare. 

Thanks obama.

[JimL]

What scares me is that after social security was enacted, and Medicare, the democrats held both the house and senate for 40 years.  Now, since they’ve given more money to those that know how to abuse the system, they’re more likely to vote for a democrat then for those evil republicans that just want people to EARN their own way through life.

I know a girl that has four kids; she collects social security for one of them ‘cause his father shot himself.  She’s had three other kids from the same guy that she’s been dating (he’s her dead husbands best friend).  They won’t get married because if they do, she’ll lose the $650 per month for social security for the one kid, and she won’t be able to get food stamps because he’s got a good county job that has excellent healthcare benefits, not to mention the fact that she earns cash tips as a beautician that would put her into a high enough wage bracket to take her off of food stamps if she clamed the tips.   

And now, she gets free healthcare. 

Thanks obama.

Thanks alph....that story just made my day! 

[Moonshot_1]

Sure, on the one hand, and assuming the best, it is great that 30 milion people will have better access to health care.

To bad it will be offset by the 45 million who have just been given a 1000 new ways to scam the system.

Let the games begin