Skip to comments.INDIANA BECOMES 16th STATE TO JOING LAWSUITS AGAINST HEALTH CARE BILL
Posted on 03/29/2010 6:35:35 PM PDT by MrChips
Indiana Joins Health Care Reform Lawsuit
Attorney General Greg Zoeller says Indiana is joining at least 13 other states in a legal challenge to the new federal health care law. He says it is in the best interests of all to raise constitutional questions about the reform package to the United State Supreme Court. Many of Zoeller's concerns are in a 55 page report on the changes, put together at the request of U.S. Senator Richard Lugar. . . . (more)
All the states should joing in the lawsuits, we must keep a united front against odorkocare.
Here in WI, our AG has to ask the Governor or one chamber of the legislature. He's chomping at the bit though.
Gov. Mitch was not pleased with the HC bill.
Way to go, Indiana!
I’m glad our AG in Michigan didn’t have to get permission from the fiscal genius of a governor.
She’s disappointed. LOL
The 9th Cir. (San Francisco, of course) has ruled that States cannot cut Medicaid spending because that denies "equal access to healthcare to the poor." So who owns a State's budget process and budget priorities? The feds? Do the feds also directly own the wealth of a State's citizens, through a newfound power to impose individual mandates? If the above are "yes," -- if States have a limited pot of money and the federal government has the power to come in and TAKE ALL OR MOST OF IT -- do States exist in any real way except as administrative pass-throughs for the federal government?
I really hope the Obamacare lawsuits include a discussion of the implications of how the rationale of the 9th Circuit + unlimited unfunded federal mandates, even imposed directly on a state's citizens = TOTAL FEDERAL CONTROL OF A STATE'S BUDGET PRIORITIES.
In fact, Obamacare is forcing Arizona to walk back Medicaid cuts it had scheduled for this year to help stem its budget gap. Arizona wants to spend its money elsewhere. The feds are saying "TOUGH." So who owns Arizona?
What about YOUR state?
In AZ, the AG refused to join the suit. The Governor said since the AG “would not protect the citizens of Arizona, I will.” She then took action on her own in her capacity as Governor.
She was just on FOX talking about it this afternoon.
Oh thank God. I’m proud to be a Hoosier.
We should ID the states not involved and try to get to at least 35 and maybe 40. A Tea Party project maybe.
Wish my state would join them! When is Ohio going to stand up for her citizens?
Alabama AG Troy King
INDIANAPOLIS - If the Senate health care bill before Congress became law, Indiana would bear substantial costs. The bill would add roughly half a million more Hoosiers to the Medicaid rolls and create unintended consequences for patients, taxpayers and Indiana's medical-device industry, according to the Indiana Attorney General's report on the proposal.
Attorney General Greg Zoeller today submitted his report on the Senate version of the federal health care legislation to Senator Richard Lugar and other members of the Indiana congressional delegation. Under a state law, Indiana Code 4-6-8-2, the Attorney General -- at the request of a member of the delegation -- can prepare a report on existing or proposed federal legislation. Lugar on January 5 submitted a request to Zoeller triggering that law and seeking a specific review of the version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that the U.S. Senate passed December 24.
"Our state statute authorizes the Attorney General to provide a report from the perspective of the sovereign State of Indiana on significant federal legislation. Our report to Senator Lugar and the Indiana delegation identifies the legal and constitutional challenges likely to be litigated should this health care bill be enacted into law; and it also highlights the significant impact of this proposed legislation on Indiana. The sheer scope of the bill and some of the provisions that are of an unprecedented nature are examined in our report," Zoeller said.
The 55-page report Zoeller released was researched and drafted in-house, overseen by Solicitor General Thomas M. Fisher, with existing attorney and staff resources and without substantial additional costs for the Attorney General's Office. The report examines the constitutionality of the legislation and explores its impact on Indiana.
Among the findings of the Attorney General's report:
1. Constitutionality at issue. Several provisions of the Senate bill raise serious constitutional issues and might be struck down in a court challenge:
. The bill's "individual mandate" requiring everyone to buy health insurance or face a penalty would be unprecedented; never before has the federal government required Americans to purchase any good or service, nor has it regulated inactivity.
. The bill's "Nebraska Compromise" amendment would expand the number of Medicaid participants in all states but fully fund the expansion for Nebraska only, while the other 49 states (including Indiana) would have to absorb additional costs. While courts are properly reluctant to second-guess legislative deal-making, such disparate treatment of one state appears to violate Article I of the U.S. Constitution, the report says.
Zoeller, who worked on Capitol Hill as an aide to then-Senator Dan Quayle in the 1980s, noted that compromises and concessions to appease key lawmakers are an unfortunate reality in getting legislation passed in Congress. "But even allowing for wide latitude in congressional deal-making, the unfairness and favoritism of the Nebraska Compromise goes too far," Zoeller said.
2. Insurance exchanges problematic. The bill would require states to create insurance "exchanges" and require for-profit health insurers to offer certain types of coverage, making private insurers essentially highly-regulated entities similar to public utilities, the report says. Before insurance exchanges are available, states would have to administer a temporary reinsurance program for high-risk patients. That mandatory obligation on the part of state officials might be found unconstitutional, according to the report.
3. Indiana Medicaid costs. For Indiana, the bill would expand the Medicaid program by approximately 500,000 recipients, increasing Indiana's Medicaid costs by $2.4 billion over 10 years, according to the actuary for the Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA). Moreover, the bill would divert pharmaceutical rebate savings from the states to the federal government, potentially resulting in a loss to Indiana of $750 million by 2019. FSSA estimated it ultimately would cost Indiana $60 million to $80 million to implement the insurance exchange to accommodate program growth. The influx of new patients at reduced reimbursement rates could drive medical providers out of the Medicaid system. Indiana's health insurance plans for state government employees would have to be reconfigured, the report says.
4. State insurance plans preempted. The Senate bill likely would spell the end of the popular Healthy Indiana Plan (HIP) where low-income Hoosiers now are able to purchase state-run health coverage -- funded partially through cigarette tax - that emphasizes preventive care. The report predicts HIP would have to be shut down as its participants were shifted to the federal plan. Some state insurance regulations and licensing requirements also would be preempted by the federal legislation.
5. Economic impact. With new excise taxes imposed on pharmaceutical manufacturers and medical device manufacturers, the Senate bill would have a substantial negative impact on two Indiana industries that employed a combined 35,500 Hoosiers in 2007.
The report concludes that the Senate version of the health care bill is unlikely to achieve one of its major goals, reducing the cost of health care. It would instead subsidize rising health care costs through an expansion of Medicaid and through the proposed insurance exchange system. At the same time, the Senate's proposed cuts to Medicare reimbursement rates would likely lead to fewer physicians willing to see Medicare patients. And, by mandating that insurance plans sold on exchanges or offered by large employers offer specified benefits, the Senate bill is likely to cause a steep increase in insurance premiums, the report concludes.
While the status of the Senate version of the bill is uncertain, the health care proposal still is before Congress and the Attorney General's report is one more piece of information for the Indiana congressional delegation to consider in light of the state impact.
The SC Lt. Gov was just on Greta and he is starting the ball rolling to try and get a constitutional convention with the sole purpose of killing Obamacare.
It’s NOT going to be NY, that’s for sure.
That would take legal type freepers. I could read tons of suits all day long and would never know a good one from a bad one. Plus I’d go into a coma probably after an hour or two.
God Bless the Hoosiers!!
Thanks for keeping us up on this.
I’d love to see fifty states taking the federal government on, but even sixteen is quite impressive.
California stands to lose big-time on this, but Jerry Brown is our AG. He’s not going to buck Il Douche’.
National constitutional convention? I think he may be jumping the gun a little but the saber rattling can't hurt. ;^)
We conservatives have GOT to keep banging the drum LOUDLY for putting the feral government back in its cage. It not only gives us the feeling we're accomplishing something, it gives the States cover to go to battle on our behalf. It should be obvious by now that DC could care less what We The People want. The States making demands on the other hand are a different matter altogether...
I just reported the facts from what he stated on the program... he said it would be for the sole purpose of Obamacare and nothing else.
Id love to see fifty states taking the federal government on, but even sixteen is quite impressive.
Just so! I suspect there may be several more before the dust settles. Any noise we conservatives can make at this point I hope would give some wobbly States additional backbone.
California stands to lose big-time on this, but Jerry Brown is our AG. Hes not going to buck Il Douche.
I saw moonbeam being interviewed a day or two ago on the subject. He hasn't a clue. His ONLY prayer at this point is his reliance on the current resident of the White House bailing his and his Sacramento commies' sorry A$$E$ out. Pardon my French...
They will (the left), but that is what happens when one party tries to overreach. I don't think it will go very far (yet) but Obama and the Democrats are not finished. This is a very scary thing they are doing and there is absolutely no telling what the unintended consequences will be from all of this.
What happens when we get to 25 states, much less 40+ or all 57?
I agree, and I hope smart freepers can post the Dummies’ Version for the likes of me.
What happens when we get to 25 states, much less 40+ or all 57?
Never with the Dems in charge.
We have to CHANGE that!
Let it be noted, relevant to your list, that Rob McKenna, the AG for the state of Washington intends to file on his own volition and his decision to do so is being hotly contested by lady Guv, Christine Gregoire (better known as “Fraudoire” to non-supporters in her state).
The whizzing match has only just begun to get interesting; I imagine the same may occur in a few other states.
The sad thing is, it is quite simple to join in once the decision has been filed. I am a lawyer and we call it the “me too” brief. I basically wait for a really smart lawyer to spend a ton of time writing a brief requesting the same relief that I am seeking. I then write “For all the reasons set forth in Ms. X’s brief, I hereby join in her request.”
Is that something that we, as individuals, could do?
Yeah, I'd heard he was catching holy hell from the barking moonbats. Steppin' out there ain't he??? A man of some substance it would seem.
Oh shore it is. NY will be right on up there with CA!
Fighting for last place.....
Yep. I reeeeaaaaaealllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyy need to move.
A Constitutional convention would be an opportunity for the LEFT to cause all forms of mayhem with insane proposals and by inserting versions of social engineering into the Constitution and lastly is unnecessary. Lastly, I am very suspicious from where calls for Constitutional conventions are ORIGINATING. The Constitution is NOT a “living document”.
Constitutional lawsuits will suffice to kill Obamacare if the supportive arguments are clear and the documentation is not shoddy. See post # 17.
A Constitutional Convention should only be used if all other legislative and judicial efforts fail. However, it is the little-known 4th rail of the system of checks and balances.
Read this thread about the procedures that have already been put in place by Congress - it shows that it is a highly regulated process that WOULD NOT allow for the devolution into chaos.
FYI: I have not been able to find this procedure at any government web sites ...
If a targeted, concise petition were circulated to the states - limited to between 1-5 amendments, each having a 75%-80% popularity, there would be a strong possibility that they would pass.
The ONE amendment that should be put in would be the prohibition of the use of eminent domain in order to transfer private ownership of land from one citizen to another [just for the sake of increased tax revenue]. See Kelo v. New Haven. This amendment would probably have a better than 90% approval rating.
A bonus from having a small, targeted amendment pass would be that Congress would then be aware that the states can [and will] take control from them - if they do not perform their duties in accordance with the wishes of the people ...
Meanwhile, the MI gov. is forcing the AG to put in a counter claim, because he is her attorney, and she represents the state. So he has to argue for both sides. What a croc o’ crap!
I’m sure Queen Christine (WA) will follow very soon. She’s just probably mad that she didn’t think of it first.
He’s surprising us all in this state. We really didn’t think he had it in him. The Queen is fighting him every step of the way.
I will pray that California will be next. May God convict Brown that this needs to be done. It's not impossible.
It won’t be Delaware. Beau Biden has refused to file suit. I guess Daddy is more important than the people who voted for him.
When more and more state taxes - eventually a sales tax - it will be his fault. I have called his office. I suggest everyone in Delaware (and anyplace else) call the office and give them what for.
AG Civil Division (302)577-8400
I’m very proud to be a Hoosier, originally from VA, proud of both.
I’m proud of Attorney General Greg Zoeller and Governor Mitch!
Paging Doug Gansler...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.