Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Anyone want to predict the 17th?
1 posted on 03/29/2010 6:35:35 PM PDT by MrChips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
To: MrChips

All the states should joing in the lawsuits, we must keep a united front against odorkocare.


2 posted on 03/29/2010 6:37:40 PM PDT by HerrBlucher (END THE WAR ON LIBERTY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ForGod'sSake

PING!


3 posted on 03/29/2010 6:38:44 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MrChips
Anyone want to predict the 17th?

Here in WI, our AG has to ask the Governor or one chamber of the legislature. He's chomping at the bit though.

4 posted on 03/29/2010 6:41:15 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Islam is incompatible with American traditions and values)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MrChips
YES - GO HOOSIERS! (Psst: GO BULLOGS in the Final Four!)

Gov. Mitch was not pleased with the HC bill.

5 posted on 03/29/2010 6:41:50 PM PDT by AFreeBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MrChips

Way to go, Indiana!


6 posted on 03/29/2010 6:44:08 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Are you a Twitter activist? Freepmail me & let's talk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All
Hey, the rest of youse guys! All Governors and States Attorney Generals need to check this out:

From #50 on another thread: Obamacare = Huge State Tax Hikes,

and

From #48 on another thread:

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?

Arizona Speaker: Health care has huge impact,

and

Arizona Faces Initial $3.8 BILLION Medicaid Cost Hike.

What about YOUR state?

8 posted on 03/29/2010 6:52:43 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Are you a Twitter activist? Freepmail me & let's talk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MrChips

Oh thank God. I’m proud to be a Hoosier.


10 posted on 03/29/2010 7:00:56 PM PDT by CommieCutter ("You wanted the presidency, you got it, now FIX THE DAMN ECONOMY!!!!" ----YankeeReb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MrChips

Wish my state would join them! When is Ohio going to stand up for her citizens?


12 posted on 03/29/2010 7:03:48 PM PDT by GloriaJane (Pro-Choice = Pro-Death........ Pro-Life = Pro-LIFE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MrChips
Indiana AG Zoeller's press release on his REPORT TO SENATOR LUGAR:

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.


16 posted on 03/29/2010 7:14:45 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have just two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All
I, and I hope many other FReepers, will be keeping a very close eye on who is bringing about these Constitutional suits and the actual supportive arguments that are being included in the lawsuits.

The several Constitutional lines Obamacare crosses is very clear.If the LEFT wants this insane legislation upheld, then very weak legal challenges will be put forward under the pretense of, 'We're doing something about it." None-the-less, it will be a pretense. I, and again I hope other FReepers, will be watching for any phony or shoddy legal presentations which would indicate a legal sham.


17 posted on 03/29/2010 7:19:27 PM PDT by pyx (Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE, IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MrChips

It’s NOT going to be NY, that’s for sure.


20 posted on 03/29/2010 7:23:58 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MrChips

God Bless the Hoosiers!!


22 posted on 03/29/2010 7:31:35 PM PDT by Kartographer (".. we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MrChips

What happens when we get to 25 states, much less 40+ or all 57?


30 posted on 03/29/2010 8:21:51 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I am the Sumo Ninja! Fear me or feed me. Hey, come back here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MrChips

What happens when we get to 25 states, much less 40+ or all 57?


32 posted on 03/29/2010 8:29:14 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I am the Sumo Ninja! Fear me or feed me. Hey, come back here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MrChips

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.”


35 posted on 03/29/2010 8:46:47 PM PDT by MattinNJ (Yes, they did. Now, what are we going to do about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MrChips
Yeah for my peeps!
39 posted on 03/29/2010 9:17:34 PM PDT by Earthdweller (Harvard won the election again...so what's the problem.......?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MrChips

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
Attorney.General@state.de.us


47 posted on 03/30/2010 1:01:14 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MrChips

I’m very proud to be a Hoosier, originally from VA, proud of both.


48 posted on 03/30/2010 3:58:23 AM PDT by gattaca (Great things can be accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MrChips

I’m proud of Attorney General Greg Zoeller and Governor Mitch!


49 posted on 03/30/2010 4:18:41 AM PDT by caver (Obama: Home of the Whopper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MrChips

http://www.in.gov/portal/news_events/files/IN_Atty_Gen_Impact_Analysis_of_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act.pdf

Link to a 55 page report written by the Indiana AG to Senator Lugar.


51 posted on 03/30/2010 5:04:25 AM PDT by IamConservative (Liberty is all a good man needs to succeed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson