Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/ ... a=e_du_pub" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seven more states have joined Texas and 13 others in a lawsuit against the federal government, questioning the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or the health care reform bill, according to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's Office.

The complaint has been amended to include 20 plaintiffs, with the states of Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia and Alaska joining Texas and others to fight the health care bill.

“The new federal health care law violates the U.S. Constitution and unconstitutionally infringes upon Texans’ individual liberties,” Attorney General Abbott said. “Our nation’s founding fathers had the wisdom to limit the federal government’s authority by specifically enumerating the powers given to Congress – and Congress does not have the authority to force individuals to buy a service from a private insurance company as a condition of being a law-abiding American.”

Here is an interesting piece of info about the health care bill that could make the constitutionality challenge more interesting...maybe Pelosi should have read the bill first...

However, Greg Scandlen, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, says due to a little-known legal concept the entire law would unravel if a single part was found to be outside the Constitution.

"Apparently there was no 'severability' clause written into this law, which shows how amateurish the process was," he wrote. "Virtually every bill I've ever read includes a provision that if any part of the law is ruled unconstitutional the rest of the law will remain intact. Not this one. That will likely mean that the entire law will be thrown out if a part of it is found to violate the Constitution."

No argument from us. The bill writers and lawmakers who voted for it without reading it were unprofessional.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... ?id=534458" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These are the same states that probably have mandatory car insurance laws. I know South Carolina has it. Oh the hypocrisy. On one side, i agree with the idea that the Federal Gov't should not force a citizen to buy a product. But, there are cases, such as the Civl Rights Amendment, when the Federal Gov't should overstep the line. I'm not sure if this is an acceptable time for that. I'm so torn...

AZGrizFan wrote:http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/ ... a=e_du_pub

Seven more states have joined Texas and 13 others in a lawsuit against the federal government, ...
The complaint has been amended to include 20 plaintiffs...

If seven more states joined Texas and 13 others, doesn't that make 21?

7 + 1 + 13 = 21.

Cluck U wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/ ... a=e_du_pub

If seven more states joined Texas and 13 others, doesn't that make 21?

7 + 1 + 13 = 21.

Ibanez wrote:These are the same states that probably have mandatory car insurance laws. I know South Carolina has it. Oh the hypocrisy. On one side, i agree with the idea that the Federal Gov't should not force a citizen to buy a product. But, there are cases, such as the Civl Rights Amendment, when the Federal Gov't should overstep the line. I'm not sure if this is an acceptable time for that. I'm so torn...

We have discussed the difference in auto insurance and health numerous times. Auto insurance is not mandatory if you don't own a car and there is no requirement to do so. Also, the constitution limits the federal government in this regard not the state governments. No hypocrisy here.

OL FU wrote:

Ibanez wrote:These are the same states that probably have mandatory car insurance laws. I know South Carolina has it. Oh the hypocrisy. On one side, i agree with the idea that the Federal Gov't should not force a citizen to buy a product. But, there are cases, such as the Civl Rights Amendment, when the Federal Gov't should overstep the line. I'm not sure if this is an acceptable time for that. I'm so torn...

We have discussed the difference in auto insurance and health numerous times. Auto insurance is not mandatory if you don't own a car and there is no requirement to do so. Also, the constitution limits the federal government in this regard not the state governments. No hypocrisy here.

No but there are many cases where the Gov't forces you to buy something (licenses, passports, insurance). That is the basic idea, the Gov't has no right to tell me that I must buy something.

This isn't my POV, per se, but I do see where others are coming from.

Ibanez wrote:

OL FU wrote:

We have discussed the difference in auto insurance and health numerous times. Auto insurance is not mandatory if you don't own a car and there is no requirement to do so. Also, the constitution limits the federal government in this regard not the state governments. No hypocrisy here.

No but there are many cases where the Gov't forces you to buy something (licenses, passports, insurance). That is the basic idea, the Gov't has no right to tell me that I must buy something.

This isn't my POV, per se, but I do see where others are coming from.

That's fine as long as we understand that the constitution intended states to have such abilities and also understand that the states are only requiring you to acquire a license if you are pursuing an activity. Big difference in saying you have to buy something even if you have no interest in wanting it or are not pursuing an activity. My point was not that your opinion was wrong, my point is there is no hypocrisy in what the states are doing.

Well, with Beau "So What If I Failed the Delaware Bar 3 Times" Biden in office, the First State is not among them.

The Feds have the right to regulate interstate commerce. I'm pretty sure they'll rely on that and win these cases.

OL FU wrote:

Ibanez wrote:

No but there are many cases where the Gov't forces you to buy something (licenses, passports, insurance). That is the basic idea, the Gov't has no right to tell me that I must buy something.

This isn't my POV, per se, but I do see where others are coming from.

That's fine as long as we understand that the constitution intended states to have such abilities and also understand that the states are only requiring you to acquire a license if you are pursuing an activity. Big difference in saying you have to buy something even if you have no interest in wanting it or are not pursuing an activity. My point was not that your opinion was wrong, my point is there is no hypocrisy in what the states are doing.

Agreed. In this case, people are being told to buy insurance just because they exist. When people are "forced" to get licenses, passports, insurance, etc, they are doing so in order to do something else (drive, leave the country, buy a house, etc).

danefan wrote:The Feds have the right to regulate interstate commerce. I'm pretty sure they'll rely on that and win these cases.

Of course, the other side will be trying to prove that there is no commerce, interstate or otherwise, if someone doesn't want to buy insurance. Regulating interstate commerces does not necessarily mean Congress can create interstate commerce and force people to engage in it. These cases are not slamdunks either way.

GannonFan wrote:

danefan wrote:The Feds have the right to regulate interstate commerce. I'm pretty sure they'll rely on that and win these cases.

Of course, the other side will be trying to prove that there is no commerce, interstate or otherwise, if someone doesn't want to buy insurance. Regulating interstate commerces does not necessarily mean Congress can create interstate commerce and force people to engage in it. These cases are not slamdunks either way.

Well, healthcare is certainly interstate commerce isn't it? Insurance companies, while licensed and regulated differently in each state, are multi-state operations. What happens to Cigna in NY effects Cigna policies in Illinois doesn't it?

Additionally, the penalty for not buying health insurance is baked into the tax code. Case law is clear that Congress has the power to tax as an incentive mechanism.

danefan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Of course, the other side will be trying to prove that there is no commerce, interstate or otherwise, if someone doesn't want to buy insurance. Regulating interstate commerces does not necessarily mean Congress can create interstate commerce and force people to engage in it. These cases are not slamdunks either way.

Well, healthcare is certainly interstate commerce isn't it? Insurance companies, while licensed and regulated differently in each state, are multi-state operations. What happens to Cigna in NY effects Cigna policies in Illinois doesn't it?
Additionally, the penalty for not buying health insurance is baked into the tax code. Case law is clear that Congress has the power to tax as an incentive mechanism.

Actually, DF, I'm not sure that's true. The underwriting, cost structures, and actuarial tables are different for each state they do business in...at least with the major healthcare organizations I've negotiated with (Humana, United Healthcare, BCBS, and Aetna).

AZGrizFan wrote:

danefan wrote:
Well, healthcare is certainly interstate commerce isn't it? Insurance companies, while licensed and regulated differently in each state, are multi-state operations. What happens to Cigna in NY effects Cigna policies in Illinois doesn't it?
Additionally, the penalty for not buying health insurance is baked into the tax code. Case law is clear that Congress has the power to tax as an incentive mechanism.

Actually, DF, I'm not sure that's true. The underwriting, cost structures, and actuarial tables are different for each state they do business in...at least with the major healthcare organizations I've negotiated with (Humana, United Healthcare, BCBS, and Aetna).

Yes, because they're based on state regulations. But the bottom line is not a state-by-state analysis. Its one company with one consolidated P&L isn't it? That's my point.

danefan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Actually, DF, I'm not sure that's true. The underwriting, cost structures, and actuarial tables are different for each state they do business in...at least with the major healthcare organizations I've negotiated with (Humana, United Healthcare, BCBS, and Aetna).

Yes, because they're based on state regulations. But the bottom line is not a state-by-state analysis. Its one company with one consolidated P&L isn't it? That's my point.

Oh, I'm sure the financials roll up to the parent company, but the individual state performances are separately calculated and analyzed. Thus, I'm not sure what happens in NY affects policies in Illinois, at least not directly.

danefan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Of course, the other side will be trying to prove that there is no commerce, interstate or otherwise, if someone doesn't want to buy insurance. Regulating interstate commerces does not necessarily mean Congress can create interstate commerce and force people to engage in it. These cases are not slamdunks either way.

Well, healthcare is certainly interstate commerce isn't it? Insurance companies, while licensed and regulated differently in each state, are multi-state operations. What happens to Cigna in NY effects Cigna policies in Illinois doesn't it?

Additionally, the penalty for not buying health insurance is baked into the tax code. Case law is clear that Congress has the power to tax as an incentive mechanism.

I have no idea whether it is a slam dunk or not but I don't blame the states for testing it. It does as far as I know introduce a new concept which is forced participation in a commercial activity and even the layperson can see that the penalty in the tax code is form over substance.

OL FU wrote:

danefan wrote:
Well, healthcare is certainly interstate commerce isn't it? Insurance companies, while licensed and regulated differently in each state, are multi-state operations. What happens to Cigna in NY effects Cigna policies in Illinois doesn't it?

Additionally, the penalty for not buying health insurance is baked into the tax code. Case law is clear that Congress has the power to tax as an incentive mechanism.

I have no idea whether it is a slam dunk or not but I don't blame the states for testing it. It does as far as I know introduce a new concept which is forced participation in a commercial activity and even the layperson can see that the penalty in the tax code is form over substance.

Its definitely an extetnion on current law and it could be considered new ground, but its based on recent Supreme Court history (Lopez in 1995, Morrison in 2000 and Raich 2005), including law that actually limits the Commerce power (Lopez).

And yes, its clear that the tax provisions is form over substance, but that doesn't necessarily change Congresses ability to do it. The power to tax and spend has been very broadly interpretted. The power to tax includes the power to do so to achieve regulatory goals as well as the power to provide tax incentives to people for doing something.

And I'm not in the camp saying its a frivilous lawsuit or even a waste of time. I just think they're going to lose. More power to them though if they want to sue.

danefan wrote:

OL FU wrote:
I have no idea whether it is a slam dunk or not but I don't blame the states for testing it. It does as far as I know introduce a new concept which is forced participation in a commercial activity and even the layperson can see that the penalty in the tax code is form over substance.

Its definitely an extetnion on current law and it could be considered new ground, but its based on recent Supreme Court history (Lopez in 1995, Morrison in 2000 and Raich 2005), including law that actually limits the Commerce power (Lopez).

And yes, its clear that the tax provisions is form over substance, but that doesn't necessarily change Congresses ability to do it. The power to tax and spend has been very broadly interpretted. The power to tax includes the power to do so to achieve regulatory goals as well as the power to provide tax incentives to people for doing something.

And I'm not in the camp saying its a frivilous lawsuit or even a waste of time. I just think they're going to lose. More power to them though if they want to sue.

They have no choice but to sue, it's an election year

OL FU wrote:

danefan wrote:
Its definitely an extetnion on current law and it could be considered new ground, but its based on recent Supreme Court history (Lopez in 1995, Morrison in 2000 and Raich 2005), including law that actually limits the Commerce power (Lopez).

And yes, its clear that the tax provisions is form over substance, but that doesn't necessarily change Congresses ability to do it. The power to tax and spend has been very broadly interpretted. The power to tax includes the power to do so to achieve regulatory goals as well as the power to provide tax incentives to people for doing something.

And I'm not in the camp saying its a frivilous lawsuit or even a waste of time. I just think they're going to lose. More power to them though if they want to sue.

They have no choice but to sue, it's an election year

Very true.

Something interesting I was just thinking about. It looks like 43 states have elected Attorney Generals, with the rest coming through some form of appointment (by governor, legislature or even the highest court in the state).

Should the US Atty General be an elected position?

Or for that matter, should the State Atty Generals be appointed?

Interesting issue. I can't stand elections for Judges, but I have never really thought about the Atty General issue.

Reading this thread left me thinking that it is more enlightening than anything I'm likely to get from any of the networks. Thanks all, particularly danefan. FCS.com political forum > political talk shows.

I have to give the website here some credit to. I don't know if it is Chris or Google Adsense but the advertisements are very very pertinent to the topic. On the one about Rand Paul, the Libertarian party was advertised. On this thread, Henry McMasters is advertising since he is the SC AG that is suing. I have to look some more at this but I am impressed

OL FU wrote:I have to give the website here some credit to. I don't know if it is Chris or Google Adsense but the advertisements are very very pertinent to the topic. On the one about Rand Paul, the Libertarian party was advertised. On this thread, Henry McMasters is advertising since he is the SC AG that is suing. I have to look some more at this but I am impressed

The ads on this site are amazing. I think they even follow your posting points of view.

You get the McMasters ad (someone agaisnt Obamacare).
I get one for http://www.gohealthcare.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; promoting Obamacare.

I bet Alphie gets one for the NRA even in this thread.

danefan wrote:

OL FU wrote:I have to give the website here some credit to. I don't know if it is Chris or Google Adsense but the advertisements are very very pertinent to the topic. On the one about Rand Paul, the Libertarian party was advertised. On this thread, Henry McMasters is advertising since he is the SC AG that is suing. I have to look some more at this but I am impressed

The ads on this site are amazing. I think they even follow your posting points of view.

You get the McMasters ad (someone agaisnt Obamacare).
I get one for http://www.gohealthcare.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; promoting Obamacare.

I bet Alphie gets one for the NRA even in this thread.

I wondered if I got McMasters because my computer address says South Carolina, but after what you said I am really impressed

OL FU wrote:I have to give the website here some credit to. I don't know if it is Chris or Google Adsense but the advertisements are very very pertinent to the topic. On the one about Rand Paul, the Libertarian party was advertised. On this thread, Henry McMasters is advertising since he is the SC AG that is suing. I have to look some more at this but I am impressed

I mentioned the advertising issue in another thread a couple weeks ago. It is quite impressive...Big Brother (advertisers) is watching.