• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Utah may sue over national health care reform

leanin' H

Well-known member
I know this ought'a go in PB but I couldn't bring myself to wade in there again. But i did want to post this somewhere as it is an interesting read. Sorry if I come across like a hypocrit but I'm staying out of PB. Move it if you'd like Moderator.

Utah may sue over national health care reform
December 29th, 2009 @ 6:00pm
SALT LAKE CITY -- Utah's attorney general is preparing to joins a lawsuit that challenges the Senate's massive health care reform bill. Utah is one of 10 conservative states prepared to challenge the health care bill.

The reasoning behind the suit goes way beyond the cost of the legislation. The attorneys general, including Utah's Mark Shurtleff, say there are constitutional questions. Even more, they say the so-called Nebraska compromise part of the deal smells of corruption.

What is… the "Nebraska Compromise?"
The "Nebraska Compromise" is the political deal that secured Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson's vote on the massive health care package passed Christmas Eve. The compromise exempts Nebraska from paying billions in Medicaid expansion costs, forcing other states to shoulder a bigger burden for the low-income insurance program. Under the provision, 100 percent of Nebraska's cost of all newly eligible Medicaid enrollees, a cost the 49 other states are required to pay, will be covered indefinitely by the federal government. "There weren't enough votes to get the bill to the floor of the Senate, so the president cut a deal with Ben Nelson, the senator from Nebraska," says Utah Chief Deputy Attorney General John Swallow.
The deal with Nelson was made in exchange for a "yes" vote on the bill. The estimated cost: $100 million.

It's just one aspect of the Senate's health care reform bill that has motivated 10 states to start researching legal action.

The states are researching a constitutional challenge of whether requiring every American to buy something -- in this case health insurance -- is legal. They also have constitutional questions about mandating state legislatures to enact portions of the bill.

"That's unprecedented. State legislatures can't be mandated by the federal government to do anything," Swallow says.

For health care advocates, those specific questions are not an issue. The federal government already requires auto insurance, says Judi Hilman, with the Utah Health Policy Project.

"The federal government already has all kinds of regulation going on around Medicare and Medicaid, and we don't blink an eye," Hilman says. "So why should this be any different?"
But there's also a bill pending in the Utah Legislature would require Utah to opt out of any federally mandated health care reform. That will likely get attention this year, in addition to the possible multi-state lawsuit.

"We have to be careful in trying to solve a problem that's immediate today, not give up our rights as people and our rights as a state," Swallow says.

In spite of differences about the federal mandates, there is widespread agreement in Utah about the Nebraska compromise: Most people KSL News spoke with feel it's a bad deal and sets a bad precedent

Potential lawsuit participants
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has joined a group of conservative Attorneys General in researching a lawsuit over federal health care reform. Other Attorneys General include:
- South Carolina (Henry McMaster)
- Alabama (Troy King)
- Colorado (John Suthers)
- Michigan (Mike Cox)
- North Dakota (Wayne Stenehjem)
- Pennsylvania (Tom Corbett)
- Texas (Greg Abbott)
- Virginia (Bill Mims)
- Washington (Rob McKenna)
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
“The several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government.”

~ Thomas Jefferson



Nullification – state-level resistance to unconstitutional federal laws – is the way forward.

When a state “nullifies” a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or “non-effective,” within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.

It’s peaceful, effective, and has a long history in the American tradition. It’s been invoked in support of free speech, in opposition to war and fugitive slave laws, and more. Read more on this history here.

Regarding nullification and health care, there’s already a growing movement right now. Led by Arizona, voters in a number of states may get a chance to approve State Constitutional Amendments in 2010 that would effectively ban national health care in their states. Our sources here at the Tenth Amendment Center indicate to us that we should expect to see 20–25 states consider such legislation in 2010.

http://www.lewrockwell.com:80/spl/health-care-nullification.html
 

Tam

Well-known member
Skelos: State Should Consider Lawsuit Over Health-Care Deal
December 23 Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos, R-Nassau County, sent a letter today to Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and Gov. David Paterson, asking them to consider joining a potential lawsuit with other states over a deal in Washington to provide Nebraska financial breaks on its Medicaid costs.

Paterson and Mayor Michael Bloomberg have been critical of the health-care reform bill that they say would cost New York about $1 billion a year in new Medicaid expenses. He said other states received breaks, but New York got nothing—and already pays about $87 billion more to Washington than it receives.

Attorney generals in seven states—all Republicans—are considering suing over a deal cut to get Sen. Ben Nelson’s vote on the health-care reform bill that protects Nebraska from any additional costs from expanding Medicaid.

“If such an action is pursued, New York should join with these states to protect the best interests of our taxpayers who stand to lose more than $1 billion from the proposed health care reform legislation,” Skelos wrote.

“An unfair federal Medicaid reimbursement level already shortchanges our state. And now, because of a questionable vote-buying deal, that burden could increase significantly. If it takes legal action by the states to prevent such clear discrimination then I urge both of you to support such a suit.”

Sens. Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, both Democrats, have been under pressure for not doing more to help New York in the health-care deal.

Schumer said yesterday he will “fight as hard as we can” to soften the blow on New York, but rejected criticism that he hasn’t done more.

The New York Post ripped Gillibrand for not doing anything to help New Yorkers with the higher costs in the bill.

State by state will find a reason to sue this Administration over Health Care and the Feds will stuff it through anyway.
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
And the lawyers win

Need to have a State simply stand up and say "No"

Cheaper and more effective.

Then the feds actually have a problem.

Otherwise it is simply one lawyer against another and State tax dollars fighting fed tax dollars - lose lose.

BC
 

Tam

Well-known member
Broke Cowboy said:
And the lawyers win

Need to have a State simply stand up and say "No" - cheaper and more effective.

BC

The Health Care Bill is all about the lawyers winning. They win in the bill with the refusal by the Dems to include tort reform and now they win when the lawsuits start rolling in to stop the bill.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
AP

- December 30, 2009
13 Republican Attorney Generals Threaten Lawsuit Over Health Care

Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska's political deal from the federal health care reform bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska's political deal from the federal health care reform bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday.

"We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed," South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and the 12 other attorneys general wrote in the letter to be sent Wednesday night to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

"As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision," they wrote.

In a rare Christmas Eve vote, Senate Democrats pushed sweeping health care legislation to the brink of Senate passage, crushing a year-end Republican filibuster against President Barack Obama's call to remake the nation's health care system. The 60-39 vote marked the third time in as many days Democrats posted a supermajority needed to advance the legislation.

The letter was signed by top prosecutors in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington state. All are Republicans, and McMaster and the attorneys general of Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania are running for governor in their respective states.

Last week, McMaster said he was leading several other attorneys general in an inquiry into the constitutionality of the estimated $100 million deal he has dubbed the "Cornhusker Kickback."

Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint of South Carolina raised questions about the legislation, which they said was amended to win Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson's support.

"Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation's legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation," the attorneys general wrote.

A conference committee begins meeting next year to work out a compromise between House and Senate versions of the bill. Experts expect those talks will likely last into February, and a spokeswoman for U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., did not immediately comment on the letter.

McMaster says if the bill goes through to final approval with the benefit to Nebraska, taxpayers in the other 49 states will have to pay for it.

Meanwhile, Nelson is taking his message on health care reform directly to his constituents. In a television ad beginning during Wednesday night's Nebraska-Arizona Holiday Bowl football game, the Democrat says he stuck by his principles throughout the debate and doesn't want Nebraskans to be confused on his position.

While it's not uncommon for states to challenge federal laws in court, one legal expert said political bluster was likely behind the letter.

"I do think that it is some combination of the losers just complaining about the officiating, or complaining about how the game was played, in combination with trying to make the bill look as seedy and inappropriate as possible, for political purposes," says Andy Siegel, a former University of South Carolina School of Law professor now teaching at Seattle University School of Law.

"It is smart politics to try to tarnish it and make it look less like an achievement and more like some sort of corrupted bargain," he said.
 
Top