Healthcare Reform Thread II

[Imran Siddiqui]

One of the components of the reform is that members of Congress are forced to get health care from the exchanges that will be created by the bill. Republicans added that amendment thinking it would be a poison pill; inadvertently, they strengthening the legislation both politically and substantively.

Which, as a federal employee, is really the way it works already. I choose from a number of health care providers like the proposed exchange. Kind of a red herring.

I'm really happy this bill passed! Will take 4 years to get everything phased in, but the end to pre-existing conditions and lifetime limits is going to be a God send to many people.

[The Mad Monk]

(Reuters) - As the Congress once again rallies to pass healthcare reform legislation, momentum is growing in many states to pass laws to block the changes -- a move that could lead to a legal battle over states' sovereignty.

U.S. | Healthcare Reform

Bills and resolutions have been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures seeking to limit or oppose various aspects of the reform plan through laws or state constitutional amendments, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

"There's going to be a big free-for-all lawsuit about this," said Michael Bird, legislative counsel for the NCSL.

The House of Representatives is to due vote on Sunday on a sweeping healthcare overhaul that would require all Americans to have health insurance, but would give subsidies to help low- and middle-income workers. It would also ban insurance practices like refusing coverage to those with pre-existing medical conditions.

Opposition efforts at the state level "in general ... seek to make or keep health insurance optional, and allow people to purchase any type of coverage they may choose," the NCSL said.

Democratic House leaders on Friday voiced growing confidence of winning a close vote. If the bill passes the House, it would then only have to pass the Senate by a simple majority under the planned procedure on the legislation.

Mirroring the partisan politics that have dogged the federal legislation, state measures to block healthcare reform are more likely to arise and succeed in states where Republicans control at least one legislative chamber and the governor's office.

So far, only two states, Idaho and Virginia, have enacted laws, while an Arizona constitutional amendment is seeking voter approval on the November ballot. No anti-health care reform legislation has emerged in Democrat-dominated states like Illinois and New York, according to the NCSL.

Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter signed a bill on Wednesday allowing the state's attorney general to file a lawsuit opposing federal healthcare legislation requiring individuals to buy medical insurance.

Otter sees federal legislation as overreaching and bound to add to medical expenses of state governments, spokesman Jon Hanian said .

"He's concerned we can't afford it," Hanian said, adding that Otter, a Republican, is disappointed in how the Democrat-led U.S. Congress is handling the legislation.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Thursday dismissed as political positioning the complaints by states that the healthcare overhaul may endanger their independence or be too costly.

In the latest version of the bill, all states would receive extra funding to cover Medicaid costs that are expected to rise under the reform, including 100 percent federal coverage for new enrollees under the plan through 2016. Medicaid is the healthcare program for the poor jointly administered by the states and federal government.

Still, states are concerned that the burden of providing healthcare will fall to them without enough federal support and that the reforms infringe on their powers under the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.

For example, Texas Governor Rick Perry, a Republican, says the proposal will double the number of Medicaid recipients in his state and cost an additional $24.3 billion over the next decade.

TENTH AMENDMENT ARGUMENT

Many states cite the 10th Amendment, which says "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states," as proof that the U.S. government cannot set their healthcare laws.

Gibbs did not accept that complaint. "What we're about to pass and sign into law will meet Constitutional muster," he said.

Robert Natelson, a constitutional law professor at the University of Montana School of Law, said it would be easier for states to argue for standing to file a lawsuit that claims the federal government has overstepped its constitutional powers.

"The legal question is, Does this health care bill exceed the federal government's powers or it is invalid for other reasons?" he said.

Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, a think-tank on the relationships of the states and federal government, pointed to previous state movements to nullify federal laws in areas such as medical marijuana and Real ID, a federal standard for driving licenses. In the case of marijuana, Boldin said 14 states allow its use for medical purposes despite a prohibition in federal law that has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A similar situation may arise with healthcare reform, where there could be mass noncompliance with the law without any real consequences, Boldin said.

(Additional reporting by Jim Christie in San Francisco and Joan Gralla in New York; Editing by Leslie Adler)

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62I37920100319

[Thorn]

States launch lawsuits against healthcare plan
1 hr 14 mins ago



CHICAGO (Reuters) – Less than 24 hours after the House of Representatives gave final approval to a sweeping overhaul of healthcare, attorneys general from several states on Monday said they will sue to block the plan on constitutional grounds.

Republican attorneys general in 11 states warned that lawsuits will be filed to stop the federal government overstepping its constitutional powers and usurping states' sovereignty.

States are concerned the burden of providing healthcare will fall on them without enough federal support.

Ten of the attorneys general plan to band together in a collective lawsuit on behalf of Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

"To protect all Texans' constitutional rights, preserve the constitutional framework intended by our nation's founders, and defend our state from further infringement by the federal government, the State of Texas and other states will legally challenge the federal health care legislation," said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, in a statement.

The Republican attorney generals say the reforms infringe on state powers under the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who plans to file a lawsuit in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, said Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. The bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance, he added.

"If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce," Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"

In addition to the pending lawsuits, bills and resolutions have been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures seeking to limit or oppose various aspects of the reform plan through laws or state constitutional amendments, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

So far, only two states, Idaho and Virginia, have enacted laws, while an Arizona constitutional amendment is seeking voter approval on the November ballot. But the actual enactment of the bill by President Barack Obama could spur more movement on the measures by state lawmakers.

As is the case on the Congressional level, partisan politics is in play on the state level, where no anti-health care reform legislation has emerged in Democrat-dominated states like Illinois and New York, according to the NCSL.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican candidate running for governor, said the mandate would cost Florida at least $1.6 billion in Medicaid alone.

All states would receive extra funding to cover Medicaid costs that are expected to rise under the reform, including 100 percent federal coverage for new enrollees under the plan through 2016.

Medicaid is the healthcare program for the poor jointly administered by the states and federal government.

(Reporting by Karen Pierog, additional reporting by Michael Connor in Miami, Jonathan Stempel in New York, Joan Gralla in New York, Lisa Lambert in Washington and Michael Peltier in Tallahassee; Editing by Andrew Hay)

Probably won't matter but at least the party of "NO" will be blamed if it fails to do anything for anyone.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's a model of efficiency, due to its size providing bargaining leverage with providers and pharmaceutical companies and lack of fee for service (no incentive for doctors to over-prescribe treatment). Similar to, say, the British NHS. I don't think it's the best model, but the British system is much cheaper than ours (among the cheapest in the developed world) with comparable outcomes.

Ramo is exactly right. The British system, for all its obvious flaws, is still vastly preferable to the terrible reform Ramo just spent a year shilling for.

[MrFun]

Which, as a federal employee, is really the way it works already. I choose from a number of health care providers like the proposed exchange. Kind of a red herring.

I'm really happy this bill passed! Will take 4 years to get everything phased in, but the end to pre-existing conditions and lifetime limits is going to be a God send to many people.

All the pork and back-handed deals that allowed for this bill to pass did not leave a bad taste in your mouth?

[MrFun]

From Dashi's quoted article:

And on the other side, here’s what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation.

So Gingrich said that civil rights legislation of 60s was wrong?

[Imran Siddiqui]

All the pork and back-handed deals that allowed for this bill to pass did not leave a bad taste in your mouth?

You really think that there is any controversial bill passed that never had pork or back handed deals...

[Kidlicious]

All the pork and back-handed deals that allowed for this bill to pass did not leave a bad taste in your mouth?

Pork is always with us, but now we have healthcare reform.

At least it's a start.

[-Jrabbit]

If nothing else, this bill has opened a lot of eyes to the sausage-making process in Washington.

[BlackCat]

I 'm a bit worried about the future of the american economy. What will happen when there will be a surge of healthy poor people that normally would have died of curable diseases ?

[chequita guevara]

I wonder if I can sue my state's attorney to stop him from suing the Feds.

[Solomwi]

From Dashi's quoted article:


So Gingrich said that civil rights legislation of 60s was wrong?

No, MrFun, he didn't. He said it had disastrous political consequences for the Democrats. He didn't say anything about the substantive merits of the legislation.

[Theben]

I 'm a bit worried about the future of the american economy. What will happen when there will be a surge of healthy poor people that normally would have died of curable diseases ?

Assuming you're not being sarcastic, they'll probably get jobs and contribute to the economy.

[MrFun]

You really think that there is any controversial bill passed that never had pork or back handed deals...

Two wrongs do not make a right. Or, in course of our entire country's history . . .

one thousand wrongs do not make a right.

[BlackCat]

Assuming you're not being sarcastic, they'll probably get jobs and contribute to the economy.

Honestly, I was deeply sarcastic, but you got my gist