Virginia files suit against healthcare bill

[targus]

"Within minutes of President Obama's signature on a sweeping health care reform bill Tuesday, the Commonwealth of Virginia filed a lawsuit that argues the law unconstitutional."

"In court documents filed Tuesday, the attorney general's office says the health care act "imposes immediate and continuing burdens on Virginia and its citizens" and, attorneys argue, the mandates "would create powers indistinguishable from a general police power..."

"Attorneys general from at least 13 other states have filed similar lawsuits."

http://www.nbc29.com/Global/story.asp?S=12190261

It will interesting to see how quickly this gets to the Supreme Court and whether any court issues an order against the bill in the mean time.

 

[donnA]

hopefully many states will follow and defend their citizens from this take over and collapse of freedom in our country

 

[Robert Snow]

After all the grandstanding, mostly by the republicans, this law will be decided by the Supreme Court, which is how it should be.

 

[rbell]

So RS, you don't think this bill is unconstitutional? It is constitutional to force people to buy health insurance?

 

[carpro]

After all the grandstanding, mostly by the republicans, this law will be decided by the Supreme Court, which is how it should be.

Didn't have to be.

It's just a bad bill. Genuine reform could have been accomplished without running afoul of the Constitution. Democrats refused to try.

 

[Robert Snow]

I guess the Supreme Court will decide as to this law's constitutionality.

BTW, we do a lot of things that are not specifically addressed in the Constitution. Seat belts are not mentioned, but we all wear them. Having automobile insurance is another, but we can't drive without it.

 

[Salty]

I guess the Supreme Court will decide as to this law's constitutionality.

BTW, we do a lot of things that are not specifically addressed in the Constitution. Seat belts are not mentioned, but we all wear them. Having automobile insurance is another, but we can't drive without it.

1. Seat belt laws have been passed by State or Commonwealth's - they are not federal laws.

2. Individuals are not mandated to have auto insurance, only if you own a car- and only for liability. "Full coverage" is only required by banks that have a financial interest in your vehicle. Note that liability insurance is to protect others from your stupidity, not to protect you from yourself.

That, my friend is one of the few actual purposes of govt.

Salty

 

[Robert Snow]

1. Seat belt laws have been passed by State or Commonwealth's - they are not federal laws.

Are there any states where you do not have to wear a seat belt?

2. Individuals are not mandated to have auto insurance, only if you own a car- and only for liability. "Full coverage" is only required by banks that have a financial interest in your vehicle. Note that liability insurance is to protect others from your stupidity, not to protect you from yourself.

You are still mandated by government to have insurance if you drive. I have a motorcycle and I am required to have liability insurance. Seem like this would go against your beliefs of personal responsibility.

My point is that there are many things the governments, both local and federal, require today. We do not live in the 18 century and our laws have changed along with the times. To continually bemoan this fact is pointless and a waste of time. Jesus did not spend His time complaining about the unjust laws of Rome, in fact He said very little about it. Even the Apostles did not say much about government, other than to obey the governing authorities. Too much time is spent in complaining and griping about the things our government does. God has allowed us to have one of the best countries this world has ever known, and to hear Christians continually complain about it is wrong, in my opinion.

 

[targus]

Are there any states where you do not have to wear a seat belt?

That does not change the fact that they are State laws - not Federal.

You are still mandated by government to have insurance if you drive. I have a motorcycle and I am required to have liability insurance. Seem like this would go against your beliefs of personal responsibility.

No - it is consistent with personal responsibilty. As was already said - liability insurance protects others against harm by your actions. It does not protect you against harming yourself. Your are still responsible for yourself.

My point is that there are many things the governments, both local and federal, require today.

A mandate to purchase medical insurance is (in the opinion of many) unconstitutional because it is a form of tax that is based on no action that you take but merely upon your existence.

For example:
Income is taxed because you choose to work.
Sales tax is based on the choice that you make to purchase something.

An insurance mandate allows for no choice to do/not do the action that results in the tax.

Further the disguised tax carries the force of law with monetary penalties and the possibilty of jail for not buying insurance.

The supposed argument for the mandate is that young healthy people do not always buy medical insurance because they do not need it - thereby causing higher premiums for older and less healthy people. The mandate is justified under the banner of "good for all".

Would you feel the same way if the government expanded this "good for all" theory to other areas such as requiring you to purchase a new car every two years from a government approved automobile company to improve the national economy?

 

[windcatcher]

Are there any states where you do not have to wear a seat belt?

Even if all 50 states have such a law... it is still a power permitted by the constitution for the states to control and enforce and restricted from the Federal government.

You are still mandated by government to have insurance if you drive. I have a motorcycle and I am required to have liability insurance. Seem like this would go against your beliefs of personal responsibility.

Again the requirement and the interpretation of what is required is within the power of each state to determine and control. It is not a function of the Federal government.

My point is that there are many things the governments, both local and federal, require today. We do not live in the 18 century and our laws have changed along with the times.

The only powers of the Federal government are those specified by the constitution. All others belong to the states or to the people. That is where these laws are best adapted to the needs and the behavior of the people upon which they are enforced.... and the (people) who have the power to determine what is important to control and remove what they regard as unimportant from control.

To continually bemoan this fact is pointless and a waste of time.

You are right. If a person who reads these threads is both ignorant and also unteachable, then and only then would I consider truly it is a waste of time. BTW, do you fit? (Regard the question as redundant... no answer needed)

Jesus did not spend His time complaining about the unjust laws of Rome, in fact He said very little about it. Even the Apostles did not say much about government, other than to obey the governing authorities. Too much time is spent in complaining and griping about the things our government does. God has allowed us to have one of the best countries this world has ever known, and to hear Christians continually complain about it is wrong, in my opinion.

In a participatory government which depends upon citizen input..... not only is it a Christian's right to speak..... but to inform, correct and criticize as he feels led, but it is his duty. This does not diminish his responsibility to Christ and the gospel...... nor does that calling diminish his requirement to be salt and light in this world. Think about it!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I guess the Supreme Court will decide as to this law's constitutionality.

And thankfully we have a Republican appointed majority Supreme Court, so everything should be okay, right? (general comment - not necessarily in reply to Robert's post)

 

[targus]

And thankfully we have a Republican appointed majority Supreme Court, so everything should be okay, right?

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?

From me??

I am shocked

 

[pinoybaptist]

I have health insurance, but no savings that I can pull money out of for deductibles, which I guess could be a regular situation for most wage earners.
Deductible is $1500.00 combining doctors' visits, lab work, prescription and all the other fancy stuff that needs dollars.
The company I work for pays half of the deductible, after which I pay the other half, and only then is it the insurance company's turn.
I cancelled my last lab work because I don't have the money to pay for it, and am cancelling my next doctors' visits until my wife and I can scrape up enough funds to afford it.
I pay my generic and brand prescriptions out of pocket because I order them on a weekly, 7 tablet request because then I can afford to pay for my prescriptions and still have enough money for the bills and some food on the table and the ever-rising cost of gas.

There used to be a time not too long ago when all I needed was my insurance card and no deductibles in all of the companies I've worked for, but now that time is gone and I don't know why.

Can someone explain why it is now standard for insurance company plans to have deductibles even if the company they cover employs 500 people.

I'm not an Obama fan, but I'm glad for the common man who cannot afford all these fancy capitalist schemes, IF it will work for them, and I'm glad for the temporary worries this bill gives the profit-oriented, profit-centered stockholders of these health insurance companies.

Call me dim-witted, I don't care.

 

[rbell]

After all the grandstanding, mostly by the republicans, this law will be decided by the Supreme Court, which is how it should be.

It's not "grandstanding" to sue against an unconstitutional law.

How on earth do you think a case gets to the SC? Of course someone has to sue.

 

[donnA]

theres a difference between state and federal laws, the constution protects the states from intrussive federal laws being forced on them.

 

[carpro]

Are there any states where you do not have to wear a seat belt?


You are still mandated by government to have insurance if you drive. I have a motorcycle and I am required to have liability insurance. Seem like this would go against your beliefs of personal responsibility.

You live in Texas.

You are NOT required by the state to purchase liability insurance , nor any other type of insurance.

Instead, you are required to show proof of financial responsibility. Most people purchase insurance because they can't prove they have ready access to $20,000. But it's your choice , not the state's.

 

[carpro]

And thankfully we have a Republican appointed majority Supreme Court, so everything should be okay, right? (

I certainly hope so.

What you really have is a court, the majority of which interprets, and applies the Constitution. They don't make policy and they don't legislate from the bench by inventing fictitional "rights".

 

[carpro]

Can someone explain why it is now standard for insurance company plans to have deductibles even if the company they cover employs 500 people.

I'm not an Obama fan, but I'm glad for the common man who cannot afford all these fancy capitalist schemes, IF it will work for them, and I'm glad for the temporary worries this bill gives the profit-oriented, profit-centered stockholders of these health insurance companies.

Call me dim-witted, I don't care.

Deductibles and co-pays are not going away, my friend. Instead , as the government gets further into this and has more and more difficulty paying for the program, deductibles and Co-pays are likely to increase, along with the rewriting of coverage in general to lower benefits.

Of course, rationing will have to begin somewhere in there.

Obamacare is not a magic bullet, it is a deadly one, and it's going to cost everyone a fortune and lower the quality and access of care that we are used to having.

Enjoy it. When you need it most, it will eventually fail you.

 

[matt wade]

Are there any states where you do not have to wear a seat belt?

New Hampshire