RMRK General => General Chat => Topic started by: Zylos on March 22, 2010, 11:53:54 PM
Title: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Zylos on March 22, 2010, 11:53:54 PM
Quote
(CNN) -- Ten states plan to file a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new health care reform bill, Florida's attorney general announced Monday.
Bill McCollum, the Republican attorney general under fellow Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, told a news conference that the lawsuit would be filed once President Obama signs the health care bill into law. He said he'll be joined by his counterparts in Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
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.
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.
Source (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/health.care.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T1) - Video included.
This is just one of several possible articles about the health care reform bill. I'm willing to bet that the newspapers aren't going to shut up about this for a long long LONG time.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Jules on March 23, 2010, 01:23:07 AM
Well I've wanted to move for a long time, no time like the present, eh? :D
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Holkeye on March 23, 2010, 02:55:35 AM
Whoa, wait. Pennsylvania? This isn't my opinion! How can they just do this?
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Moss. on March 23, 2010, 03:02:23 AM
Well, it's our opinion now! We'd better just own up to it!
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Sophist on March 23, 2010, 03:04:30 AM
Doesn't surprise me that the big ol' oil-rigs-guns-and-cows state is against this.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: haloOfTheSun on March 23, 2010, 03:21:12 AM
Irock is :mad: that his state isn't a part of this.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Irock on March 23, 2010, 03:21:50 AM
I'm glad several states are willing to enforce the constitution. :police:
I believe Tennessee said it was going to sue as well yesterday when I was watching C-Span.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: firerain on March 23, 2010, 03:39:43 AM
Irock, have I ever told you you're a mindless fucking drone?
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Irock on March 23, 2010, 03:42:13 AM
Have I ever told you that your politics are flawed? :]
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Zylos on March 23, 2010, 09:03:58 PM
Whoa, wait. Pennsylvania? This isn't my opinion! How can they just do this?
Exactly my thought when I first read it.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Roph on March 23, 2010, 10:20:42 PM
God wants it, his will be done =o
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Irock on March 23, 2010, 10:45:54 PM
The majority of US citizens are opposed to this health care bill. This country is *supposed* to be a democracy.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Holkeye on March 23, 2010, 10:50:57 PM
Which would be fine if there were a citizen's vote.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Irock on March 23, 2010, 11:05:55 PM
The point is, the representatives are supposed to represent the United States people and uphold the constitution. This bill never should have passed, and I think it's great that so many states are lining up to fight the bill.
Best case scenario, this bill is shot down and we get a better health reform bill.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: haloOfTheSun on March 24, 2010, 12:24:28 AM
Irock is an expert on politics and how to best run the country because he's 16.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Irock on March 24, 2010, 12:26:54 AM
HaloOfTheSun has a brainwashed mind because he's a 19 year old college student who listens to liberal professors.
Uphold the constitution. Represent the citizens of the United States. Why are you so against that?
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Sophist on March 24, 2010, 01:28:43 AM
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Holkeye on March 24, 2010, 02:52:20 AM
Owner of that site:
The Center for Public Integrity listed his firm as having been paid $95,500 by the Republican National Committee and $45,500 by the George W. Bush presidential campaign in 2003-4. He has had at least one article published by the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of centrist Democrats whose goal is to make the "Democratic party more moderate, rather than more liberal.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: haloOfTheSun on March 24, 2010, 03:05:16 AM
See, the problem with polls like that are that the results can easily be made to fit the pollster's agenda. Most of the time their data is gathered from people who share the same opinion as them, not an actual random polling which would be more accurate, although still not very. You can ask 100 random people if they like bubblegum, and if only 20 say yes, does that mean only 20% of all people like bubblegum? If you're running an anti-bubblegum website, then yes it does.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Irock on March 24, 2010, 03:22:37 AM
See, the problem with polls like that are that the results can easily be made to fit the pollster's agenda. Most of the time their data is gathered from people who share the same opinion as them, not an actual random polling which would be more accurate, although still not very. You can ask 100 random people if they like bubblegum, and if only 20 say yes, does that mean only 20% of all people like bubblegum? If you're running an anti-bubblegum website, then yes it does.
That's why I didn't bring up polls in the first place.
A more reliable source to consider would be the election of conservative Scott Brown as a Massachusetts senator. He was the first republican elected into the senate in Massachusetts in nearly 40 years. Massachusetts is known as one of the most left-wing states, yet they elected a conservative into the senate. This got rid of the democrat's supermajority in the senate, which many thought would prevent the health bill from passing. This is eye opening and reliable; it tells you way more than any third party poll could.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: tSwitch on March 24, 2010, 03:27:09 AM
A more reliable source to consider would be the election of conservative Scott Brown as a Massachusetts senator. He was the first republican elected into the senate in Massachusetts in nearly 40 years. Massachusetts is known as one of the most left-wing states, yet they elected a conservative into the senate. This got rid of the democrat's supermajority in the senate, which many thought would prevent the health bill from passing. This is eye opening and reliable; it tells you way more than any third party poll could.
Who gives a fuck about right or left, Scott Brown actually went out and campaigned, and his competitor was a total bitch. Vote for the Politician, not for the party. People like you who focus on this Party bullshit is why our nation's government has degraded into the stupid sheep herd that it is today.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Irock on March 24, 2010, 03:43:59 AM
A more reliable source to consider would be the election of conservative Scott Brown as a Massachusetts senator. He was the first republican elected into the senate in Massachusetts in nearly 40 years. Massachusetts is known as one of the most left-wing states, yet they elected a conservative into the senate. This got rid of the democrat's supermajority in the senate, which many thought would prevent the health bill from passing. This is eye opening and reliable; it tells you way more than any third party poll could.
Who gives a fuck about right or left, Scott Brown actually went out and campaigned, and his competitor was a total bitch. Vote for the Politician, not for the party. People like you who focus on this Party bullshit is why our nation's government has degraded into the stupid sheep herd that it is today.
I don't focus on the party, I focus on the views. Though, views are generally associated with a party, and if most republicans have views closer to mine, I'm more likely to support that republican.
Views are associated as being either more right or more left, and aren't political parties at all. :\
Here (http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/1563-20-ways-obamacare-will-take-away-our-freedoms). Source is the health care reform bill.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Grafikal on March 24, 2010, 04:15:33 AM
Also how is it Unconstitutional? taking away your right to not have healthcare or something? (which they aren't doing)
From what the source said and literally was said from the video in the source, is a tax for living. lol. Basically, if you don't buy health insurance, you're going to get fees or taxed. That and something about making the states pay money they don't have or w/e. Something about the 10th amendment. I don't care enough to look up all this. But that was just what was said in the source.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: chewey on March 24, 2010, 04:21:58 AM
So essentially these people are complaining about a lack of choice in their healthcare?
Which essentially means these people want greater (or cheaper) care than others because they lead a different lifestyle.
Go America :)
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Irock on March 24, 2010, 04:25:24 AM
\:)/
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: chewey on March 24, 2010, 04:30:24 AM
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Grafikal on March 24, 2010, 04:34:53 AM
i feel like the issue would probably be taxing the poor in this case, considering you only get hit with it if you don't buy it, and generally you don't buy it because you can't afford it.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: chewey on March 24, 2010, 04:40:04 AM
Talking about this, mostly
Quote
19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).
That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: tSwitch on March 24, 2010, 04:50:11 AM
I just have one question. How much more or less will it cost for the government mandated blanket-plan that invades on my personal liberties cost me? Because that's the one point that nobody seems to be bringing up. I don't give a fuck if my insurance plan covers shit I don't need if the price doesn't change, or even goes down. If it's an affordable blanket plan for people who aren't rolling in money like the Health Industry seems to expect us to be, I don't give a shit if I have to have pediatrics listed on my plan or something just because I won't have a kid, if it costs less it fucking costs less and covers what I need, so why should I care?
Also, it's not hard to say that the person who wrote the article Irock linked to is obviously biased against the bill. Can I get a neutral report on it instead of some leftist or rightist propaganda in here, or is that too much to ask?
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: chewey on March 24, 2010, 04:52:32 AM
Also, it's not hard to say that the person who wrote the article Irock linked to is obviously biased against the bill. Can I get a neutral report on it instead of some leftist or rightist propaganda in here, or is that too much to ask?
That cites exactly where in the bill everything it is referring to is.
If you want to ensure you're getting true statements, find HR 3590 and read it or fact check.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: chewey on March 24, 2010, 05:06:59 AM
It's still biased, even if it cites lines. The writer has used extreme examples and projected their feelings on the matter as if they are right.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Irock on March 24, 2010, 05:32:08 AM
But all 20 cases are completely valid and true.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: chewey on March 24, 2010, 05:40:20 AM
The writer has used extreme examples and projected their feelings on the matter as if they are right.
For example:
Quote
2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).
Great, an extreme example to make it look like they have a point. It is a good thing that insurance companies cannot charge people more for being old/having prior illnesses/having illnesses in the family/leading a different lifestyle. Everybody should be given equal care. Now consider the fact that this all-encompassing healthcare will cost
Quote
1. ... $750 annually (Section 1501)
a grand total of $62.50 per month (which is apparently too much for some [shitty] business owners), I'm not sure what there is to complain about.
You missed my point entirely. This person is projecting their views as if they're 100% correct, and people like you eat it up.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Grafikal on March 24, 2010, 05:52:51 AM
OM NOM NOM NOM
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: haloOfTheSun on March 24, 2010, 06:02:41 AM
The point is, the representatives are supposed to represent the United States people and uphold the constitution. This bill never should have passed, and I think it's great that so many states are lining up to fight the bill.
Best case scenario, this bill is shot down and we get a better health reform bill.
But the fact is, they usually represent whoever lines there pockets most. And here's a news flash for you, it ain't me. And it ain't you. :)
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: modern algebra on March 24, 2010, 04:42:47 PM
@chewey - From what I understood, the $750 isn't the cost of health insurance, it's the cost of foregoing health insurance. I assume the cost of actually having medical insurance is probably much higher if they're charging nearly $1000 not to have it
Anyway, I think universal health care is probably a good thing for the US. I think it would be better to provide healthcare for everyone and distribute cost through taxation rather than require people to buy insurance, which sort of sounds like what they're doing.
I hope that the absence of a market doesn't stagnate medical technologies development though, considering most medical advances I know of come out of the US.
Ultimately, I have no idea what I'm talking about though because I have done absolutely no research on the subject whatsoever, I don't live there, and this bill has no possibility of ever affecting me in any meaningful way. I do know I like having government subsidized healthcare though.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Grafikal on March 24, 2010, 04:54:20 PM
Anyway, I think universal health care is probably a good thing for the US. I think it would be better to provide healthcare for everyone and distribute cost through taxation rather than require people to buy insurance, which sort of sounds like what they're doing.
From what the *source said and literally was said from the video in the *source, is a tax for living. lol. Basically, if you don't buy health insurance, you're going to get fees or taxed. ...that was just what was said in the *source.
*(The actual source, not irock's random sites)
Just noting that I'm pretty sure they're requiring you to buy health insurance not by saying you have to, but by either taxing you much harder or hitting you with fees. Logically, you don't want to get hit with fees, so you'd buy healthcare. (Which people should do anyways.)
Not that I'm arguing this. I'm just saying that I got a different impression. I don't really care if the bill gets sued or not.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Moss. on March 24, 2010, 05:14:25 PM
HaloOfTheSun has been going after me ever since I told him iPod Touches have good solid build quality. :police:
They do!
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Roph on March 24, 2010, 05:18:06 PM
You guys should just copy England. Or maybe France. Or even Germany. There is literally no industrialised country in the world that has worse healthcare than America does, and no country pays anywhere even remotely near as much either. I don't have any "plan" or any paperwork, anything like that. I don't have to worry about any money in regards to healthcare, no matter how much or how little I make. If I require care, I get it. It's really that simple.
Private healthcare exists in the UK, companies like Bupa or this other one whose name I forget exist, but nobody uses them. Why pay, when the NHS is free and is brilliant?
I'm sure now Irock would like to step in and link a news story about a random English citizen who died or had late treatment or something, to which I say - welcome to the laws of averages. When you're dealing with millions, of course perfection is impossible. The current American death toll though is unacceptable and indeed possible to remedy, and those who literally go and protest healthcare should be ashamed of themselves.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: firerain on March 24, 2010, 06:46:31 PM
or even Canada
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: tSwitch on March 24, 2010, 07:02:48 PM
I don't get the tax for not having healthcare for the individual, but I -do- understand the tax for businesses who want to cut costs by not providing healthcare.
Also what's the price already?
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Grafikal on March 25, 2010, 12:45:38 AM
LOOOOOOOOOL
straight from my friend's facebook. Mostly my roomates and a brother are commenting, but then there's that one guy, who just keeps going and going.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Irock on March 25, 2010, 01:04:24 AM
You guys should just copy England. Or maybe France. Or even Germany. There is literally no industrialised country in the world that has worth healthcare than America does, and no country pays anywhere even remotely near as much either. I don't have any "plan" or any paperwork, anything like that. I don't have to worry about any money in regards to healthcare, no matter how much or how little I make. If I require care, I get it. It's really that simple.
Private healthcare exists in the UK, companies like Bupa or this other one whose name I forget exist, but nobody uses them. Why pay, when the NHS is free and is brilliant?
I'm sure now Irock would like to step in and link a news story about a random English citizen who died or had late treatment or something, to which I say - welcome to the laws of averages. When you're dealing with millions, of course perfection is impossible. The current American death toll though is unacceptable and indeed possible to remedy, and those who literally go and protest healthcare should be ashamed of themselves.
One of the big issues with your healthcare are price controls that are set. You say you're only going to spend x% of money on health care. There's a cap on it. Most pharmaceutical drugs and medical technology that save lives are produced in the United States because it costs an immense amount of money for research and development. The reason companies produce these drugs is for profit. In European countries, they set price controls. There's no profit and there's not enough money to spend on it. The very reason drugs are developed here is because we don't have your system.
Life expectancy, which you've brought up several times before, is not determined by the health care. There are many factors, such as auto accident rates, murder rates and personal health decisions such as obesity. You're essentially saying that because we have a lower life expectancy, the cause is our healthcare.
A better thing to look at is from the time you're diagnosed with an illness to the time you're likely to be cured. In most cases, the time is simply lower in the United States.
I'm sure Roph would now bring up infant mortality rates. The reason infant mortality rates are higher in the United States is because babies with birth defects are born in the US that wouldn't be born in other countries. That's because our care is better, we have better resources, and we have better doctors. The irony of having better care and birthing more infants who are less likely to be born alive is that they're counted in infant deaths whenever they do die. The babies in your country who are never born due to serious birth defects aren't counted as infant mortality.
I don't see how healthcare is a right. I don't understand how you can have a right to somebody else's services. If a doctor refuses to treat you, that's their choice. You're essentially wanting to force them to treat you, which is the equivalent of enslavement. Nobody has the right to somebody else's services.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: haloOfTheSun on March 25, 2010, 01:19:13 AM
Until you're actually old enough to have to pay for health insurance your opinion doesn't matter.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Irock on March 25, 2010, 01:24:53 AM
Great argument, Bobby!
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Roph on March 25, 2010, 04:32:49 AM
You guys should just copy England. Or maybe France. Or even Germany. There is literally no industrialised country in the world that has worth healthcare than America does, and no country pays anywhere even remotely near as much either. I don't have any "plan" or any paperwork, anything like that. I don't have to worry about any money in regards to healthcare, no matter how much or how little I make. If I require care, I get it. It's really that simple.
Private healthcare exists in the UK, companies like Bupa or this other one whose name I forget exist, but nobody uses them. Why pay, when the NHS is free and is brilliant?
I'm sure now Irock would like to step in and link a news story about a random English citizen who died or had late treatment or something, to which I say - welcome to the laws of averages. When you're dealing with millions, of course perfection is impossible. The current American death toll though is unacceptable and indeed possible to remedy, and those who literally go and protest healthcare should be ashamed of themselves.
One of the big issues with your healthcare are price controls that are set. You say you're only going to spend x% of money on health care. There's a cap on it.
And yet it is still much, much better, no matter which way you rate it.
Quote
Most pharmaceutical drugs and medical technology that save lives are produced in the United States because it costs an immense amount of money for research and development. The reason companies produce these drugs is for profit. In European countries, they set price controls. There's no profit and there's not enough money to spend on it. The very reason drugs are developed here is because we don't have your system.
That is incorrect. "Source"? And I don't have to pay for drugs. I would pay a simple administration fee (something like £1.50) for them to be fetched and delivered to me, no matter if they "cost" £5 or £500. If my healthcare requires that I have them, then I can get them. I just get a prescription. You get laughed at on the news here by ridiculous prices you have to pay for arbitrary drugs / equipment. And England does have a private healthcare system, that works just like America's. Nobody uses it.
Quote
Life expectancy, which you've brought up several times before, is not determined by the health care. There are many factors, such as auto accident rates, murder rates and personal health decisions such as obesity. You're essentially saying that because we have a lower life expectancy, the cause is our healthcare.
Not THE, but definitely one of. Your own government has this stance also.
Quote
A better thing to look at is from the time you're diagnosed with an illness to the time you're likely to be cured. In most cases, the time is simply lower in the United States.
Source? There is no bothering about whether or not you can afford it, your insurance company does not need to be contacted. You just get diagnosed and then treated / prescribed, just like that. Even a nation as grumpy as Britain is generally happy with waiting list times.
Quote
I don't see how healthcare is a right. I don't understand how you can have a right to somebody else's services. If a doctor refuses to treat you, that's their choice. You're essentially wanting to force them to treat you, which is the equivalent of enslavement. Nobody has the right to somebody else's services.
It isn't "somebody else's" services. It is your service. The NHS is MY service, and automatically the service of other English citizens also :). If you refuse to do your job, you get fired. If you don't want to help / treat people, don't be a doctor. In the NHS as a doctor your job is to treat people, and you are paid by the NHS, by taxpayers, the people whose back you have covered in case they get sick or injured. How is this slavery?
I don't know why you seem reluctant to acknowledge problems in America's healthcare system. Perhaps because you're too young, and have little/no experience. I'm happy for your government for trying to fix your terrible problem, not without you, but in spite of you :)
What is your issue with social medicine? I really can't get my head around how you could take such an arrogant stance on it. Fuck the policeman who guards you and your property? And the fireman who will protect your house from fire? And the soldiers out there who are (supposedly) protecting your country? Your country is so backwards that private fire insurance actually existed. The firemen would come, and if you didn't have a plan with their group, you were fucked. Watch your house burn down (unless it was adjacent to somebody's who was with them).
Would you prefer a tax system where you could pick and choose what your tax money is spent on? Your country would crumble to the ground. Your false war would instantly collapse. The supreme irony of those demanding the "right" to not have their tax money go to women's health (primarily abortion) yet who still want everyone to pay for their bullshit war is just astounding.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: chewey on March 25, 2010, 05:29:40 AM
straight from my friend's facebook. Mostly my roomates and a brother are commenting, but then there's that one guy, who just keeps going and going.
Jason Katz won that argument. Everybody else involved was retarded.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Grafikal on March 25, 2010, 05:43:49 AM
I guess I'd have to read it to know lol. I read like the first 5 or 6 replies and they got progressively longer and longer so I stopped. Figured it was relevant to this, so I posted it =o
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: chewey on March 25, 2010, 05:45:58 AM
Basically it's just this Jason fellow making logical arguments, and the rest resorting to ad hominem arguments.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Grafikal on March 25, 2010, 05:52:15 AM
Oh, I forgot to post this sooner.
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: tSwitch on March 25, 2010, 06:48:54 AM
I don't see how healthcare is a right. I don't understand how you can have a right to somebody else's services. If a doctor refuses to treat you, that's their choice. You're essentially wanting to force them to treat you, which is the equivalent of enslavement. Nobody has the right to somebody else's services.
since when was that part of this discussion?
Title: Re: 10 states line up to sue over health bill
Post by: Roph on March 28, 2010, 11:48:21 AM
Alan Grayson and the new object of Irock's desires have a short back and forth.