(26) States ask US court to overturn health overhaul

[Viva_La_Revolution]

Source: AP

ATLANTA (AP) -- More than two dozen states challenging the health care overhaul urged a U.S. appeals court on Wednesday to strike down the Obama administration's landmark law, arguing it far exceeds the federal government's powers.

The motion, filed on behalf of 26 states, urges the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to uphold a Florida federal judge's ruling that the overhaul's core requirement is unconstitutional. The judge, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, said Congress cannot require nearly all Americans to carry health insurance.

Allowing the law to go forward, the states argued in the 69-page filing, would set a troubling precedent that "would imperil individual liberty, render Congress's other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states."

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_LAWSUIT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-05-04-21-19-39

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[christx30]

2. Because you can choose not to drive

to get out of the health care requirement, the only option is suicide.

[freshwest]

5. States can opt out.

[christx30]

9. What's the point of the law

when a state can opt out? I mean, i was against the Cumpulsion for the Benefit of Insurance Companies Act from the beginning. But what's the point of having the law when someone can just move to another state to get out of it? I mean... I hope Texas opts out of it. I can't afford $300 or more to be taken from each paycheck.

[freshwest]

10. It's a choice that's in the law itself. This has been discussed here before. That's why the lawsuits

Failed earlier because the state can choose. Some states have opted to stay in because small businesses wanted it to reduce their costs from the insurance companies now. This is old stuff here.

[eomer]

17. That's a bit misleading.

States can't just opt out. They have to implement an alternative that meets certain requirements that are specified in the reform law and they have to make the case to federal agencies that they've met those requirements so they can get a waiver approved. The federal agencies are not permitted under the law to grant a waiver unless the requirements are met. I believe the requirements are that the state's plan must cover at least as many people as would be covered under the federal rules, and in a comprehensive and affordable way that would not add to the federal deficit.

No state has yet gotten to the point of applying for such a waiver so we don't know yet what kinds of alternatives would be accepted. Vermont intends to get a waiver by implementing a single-payer public plan, but they haven't yet gotten to the point of applying and getting a waiver approved. It seems pretty obvious that such a plan would meet the requirements, but we don't yet know whether it may be a Republican administration that gets to make approval decision and, if so, whether they would play games and essentially ignore the requirements.

Under current law the earliest such a waiver can take effect is 1/1/2017. There is legislation pending to move that date earlier so that these waivers can take effect on 1/1/2014.

There is also another type of waiver so it is easy for this subject to get confusing. The other type is a temporary waiver of the 80% minimum loss ratio requirement that is otherwise already in effect. Lots of these waivers have been granted to individual insurers and to at least one entire state (Maine) but they are temporary. Eventually all these insurers will have to comply.

[christx30]

18. So when insurance

is mandated, and I'm losing $300 per check for a plan that will basically do nothing, and I may never use, who is going to help make up that difference so I can pay rent and buy food for my kids and keep the lights on?

Don't really care about anything Washington says from up on their high horses. I just want them to leave me alone.

[Hestia]

19. So you come to this particular board to whine about it? I guess you got lost trying to find

Freeperville?

FYI - that's what insurance is - hedging a bet that you'll never have to use it. But with health care and children, odds are great that you will be visiting a clinic and/or hospital. No one comes out of childhood unscathed, unless you are the bubble boy.

[christx30]

20. My kids have medicaid

so they're covered. I don't really care about myself. So I don't think I should have to buy insurance until I get a much better job. It's my money. And it should be MY choice. Not some dick in Washington.

[eomer]

21. $300 per month doesn't sound correct. Was that just an example?

You provided a link to your Myspace page, which says you're a family of 4 and your income is less than $30,000.

The new law has a federal subsidy for people at that income level; the subsidized premium to be paid by an individual with those facts would be less than 3% of gross income so the monthly premium for you would be less than $75 per month.

(Caveat: The above is based on a quick reading of the new law Sec. 243 Affordability Premium Credit. Please correct me if I've made a mistake in reading or applying it.)

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[UpInArms]

4. only the public option would work -

the government cannot mandate that an individual pay money to a privately owned corporation regardless of the corporation's business.

[No Elephants]

8. Single payer

[Roland99]

14. +1!

[RC]

6. Yes, repeal it!

Replace it with Single Payer, Universal Health Care like civilized countries have.

[valerief]

7. Ah, to be a developed, civilized country! nt

[freshwest]

11. Which would require worker protection in terms of wages for less of an income gap.

The freedom they gain by working in a cooperative society is that small businesses have less start up obligations. And they have a more healthy and motivated workforce instead of one scared shitless of every piece of rightwing propaganda tossed at them.

They don't work at jobs they hate and ruin their health like we do because of fear of losing insurance. Our people don't follow their real talents, they are little better than slaves in this divided society.

As long as people keep their minds full of fear and hatred of other groups in society, they are liable to any anxiety that keeps them from thinking clearly. They get stampeded into whatever TPTB wants them to think and scream like cornered chickens.

There is no crisis except income disparity and the lack of will to change it, fed by right wing radio and cable. To keep the eyes of the people off that very basic thing.

If the people took a deep breath and looked at the system with a cool head, all we'd hear from the right would be crickets chirping.

[valerief]

12. Agreed. Brainwashing works. nt

[freshwest]

13. Europeans often support general strikes in solidarity. It's seen as treason to capitalism here.

We've been trained to support paper wealth more than life. This has been such an ugly lesson, I just hope we'll learn at last.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. At least one of those attorneys general is working without the backing of his governor.

So "the State of Washington" isn't asking.

[mountainlion55]

16. Medi-care for all!

Fuck the middleman insurance mafia's profit for blood!:smoke: