Half of All States Now Suing to Stop Obamacare

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2011 5:35 PM GMT
    http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/12/half-of-all-states-now-suing-to-stop-obamacare/

    If it is allowed to be implemented, Obamacare will eventually do deep and irreparable harm to our nation’s budget deficit. But while Obamacare is more of a long-term threat to fiscal health at the federal level, it is a clear and present danger to the states. Of the 34 million Americans who gain health insurance through Obamacare, over half (18 million) will receive it through Medicaid.

    While Obamacare will pay for all of the benefit expansion for the first three years of the law, and 90% of it after that, Obamacare never pays for any of the state administrative costs for adding those 18 million Americans to their welfare rolls. That amounts to billions in unfunded federal mandates for states to absorb. That is why 33 Republican governors signed a letter to the White House and Congress making an emphatic appeal that Obamacare’s Medicaid provisions be repealed.

    It is also why the newly elected governors of Ohio, Oklahoma, Maine, and Wisconsin have all decided to sue the Obama administration in hopes of stopping Obamacare. Specifically, Gov. Mary Fallin of Oklahoma has announced that the Sooner State will pursue its own case against the law, while Govs. John Kasich (R) and Scott Walker (R) (of Ohio and Wisconsin respectively) will add their states to Florida’s multi-state suit. And yesterday, newly sworn-in state Attorney General William Schneider announced Maine would also join the the Florida litigation. That brings the number of states on the Florida suit to 23 and the total number of states suing to stop Obamacare (which includes Virginia and Oklahoma) to 25.


    Obamacare-medicaid.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2011 6:14 PM GMT
    This is an exercise in futility similar to the House Republicans trying to put through a repeal bill.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2011 6:37 PM GMT
    It will be stopped. 1) Good chance Supreme Court will throw out individual mandate, then entire thing will collapse. 2) House will defund specific activities to implement, 3) Complete repeal with the next president in a couple of years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2011 6:42 PM GMT
    1) No chance Supreme Court will throw out individual mandate, not because it's unconstitutional or not, but because it give insurance companies 32 million new customers.

    2) Yes. The House republican will try to defund parts of it but that's really dangerous politically because it will open up a huge vulnerability and put them int eh position of defending their policies instead of just attacking the Democrats.

    3) Obama will be reelected in 2012 so you're looking at at least 2016 and you'd require a majority in both houses - which despite the "tidal wave" in November you don't have - and it's unlikely there will be between now and 2012 or 2016.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2011 7:26 PM GMT
    Christian73 said1) No chance Supreme Court will throw out individual mandate, not because it's unconstitutional or not, but because it give insurance companies 32 million new customers.

    2) Yes. The House republican will try to defund parts of it but that's really dangerous politically because it will open up a huge vulnerability and put them int eh position of defending their policies instead of just attacking the Democrats.

    3) Obama will be reelected in 2012 so you're looking at at least 2016 and you'd require a majority in both houses - which despite the "tidal wave" in November you don't have - and it's unlikely there will be between now and 2012 or 2016.


    On #2, the question will be who are they afraid of more? Tea party activists and primaries or the fabricated views of media punditry. On #3 I think it's far too early to tell. And as for #1, it looks like it will be thrown out by most objective standards. These are some of your weakest arguments Christian - and that's saying something.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2011 7:55 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said1) No chance Supreme Court will throw out individual mandate, not because it's unconstitutional or not, but because it give insurance companies 32 million new customers.


    And there you have it. Proof that Christian (and many of the other rabid leftists on here) have no understanding of the role of the Supreme Court.

    "not because it's unconstitutional or not..." icon_eek.gif

    And further proof that the left doesn't care whether laws passed by Congress are constitutional or not... so long as the law accomplishes their goal.




    I studied constitutional law in college and worked for a legal defense fund. I understand the role of the Supreme Court better than it's current Chief Justice who has invented from whole cloth the right of corporations to spend unlimited funds in political campaigns.

    And, as I said, the Roberts' Court will keep the individual mandate because it benefits big business. That's who they rule in favor of. Studies have shown how tilted toward big business this current court is.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37618291/ns/politics-supreme_court/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2011 8:24 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said1) No chance Supreme Court will throw out individual mandate, not because it's unconstitutional or not, but because it give insurance companies 32 million new customers.


    And there you have it. Proof that Christian (and many of the other rabid leftists on here) have no understanding of the role of the Supreme Court.

    "not because it's unconstitutional or not..." icon_eek.gif

    And further proof that the left doesn't care whether laws passed by Congress are constitutional or not... so long as the law accomplishes their goal.




    I studied constitutional law in college and worked for a legal defense fund. I understand the role of the Supreme Court better than it's current Chief Justice who has invented from whole cloth the right of corporations to spend unlimited funds in political campaigns.

    And, as I said, the Roberts' Court will keep the individual mandate because it benefits big business. That's who they rule in favor of. Studies have shown how tilted toward big business this current court is.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37618291/ns/politics-supreme_court/


    *its (in honor of Tim) - besides, being so well versed in law,you've heard of the million dollar comma?

    Right. Darn those first amendment rights that you apparently missed. Incidentally, oh my arrogance. Hopefully you're being somewhat facetious. I'm guessing Roberts' legal scholarship somewhat exceeds yours.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2011 8:27 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said1) No chance Supreme Court will throw out individual mandate, not because it's unconstitutional or not, but because it give insurance companies 32 million new customers.


    And there you have it. Proof that Christian (and many of the other rabid leftists on here) have no understanding of the role of the Supreme Court.

    "not because it's unconstitutional or not..." icon_eek.gif

    And further proof that the left doesn't care whether laws passed by Congress are constitutional or not... so long as the law accomplishes their goal.




    I studied constitutional law in college and worked for a legal defense fund. I understand the role of the Supreme Court better than it's current Chief Justice who has invented from whole cloth the right of corporations to spend unlimited funds in political campaigns.

    And, as I said, the Roberts' Court will keep the individual mandate because it benefits big business. That's who they rule in favor of. Studies have shown how tilted toward big business this current court is.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37618291/ns/politics-supreme_court/


    *its (in honor of Tim) - besides, being so well versed in law,you've heard of the million dollar comma?

    Right. Darn those first amendment rights that you apparently missed.


    The first amendment applies to individuals, not multinational corporations. But please review the other anti-patent, pro-corporate decisions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2011 8:31 PM GMT
    Healthcare reform is needed before mandating it for everyone. It will be mandated though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2011 8:42 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said1) No chance Supreme Court will throw out individual mandate, not because it's unconstitutional or not, but because it give insurance companies 32 million new customers.


    And there you have it. Proof that Christian (and many of the other rabid leftists on here) have no understanding of the role of the Supreme Court.

    "not because it's unconstitutional or not..." icon_eek.gif

    And further proof that the left doesn't care whether laws passed by Congress are constitutional or not... so long as the law accomplishes their goal.




    I studied constitutional law in college and worked for a legal defense fund. I understand the role of the Supreme Court better than it's current Chief Justice who has invented from whole cloth the right of corporations to spend unlimited funds in political campaigns.

    And, as I said, the Roberts' Court will keep the individual mandate because it benefits big business. That's who they rule in favor of. Studies have shown how tilted toward big business this current court is.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37618291/ns/politics-supreme_court/


    *its (in honor of Tim) - besides, being so well versed in law,you've heard of the million dollar comma?

    Right. Darn those first amendment rights that you apparently missed.


    The first amendment applies to individuals, not multinational corporations. But please review the other anti-patent, pro-corporate decisions.


    And a corporation is just a group of individuals. Besides, why should corporations have less power than say the corporate media who are allowed to spew their views unrestricted? Not sure I saw any anti-patent decisions - but insofar as patents go, being presumably liberal, you do realize that patents are provisional monopolies on intellectual property balanced against the benefits of society? There are many who believe patents have gone too far particularly with the patent trolling that's been going on and especially software patents that it is stiffling innovation.

    As for pro corporate - you're tainting decisions with guilt by association with decisions tilting in the way of the Chamber of Commerce as being automatically "pro corporation" despite decisions only going that way 2/3rds of the time. Ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe the arguments were right and justified? Also - just because it is a position supported by the Chamber of Commerce doesn't mean that it isn't supported by left wing organizations (and I'm unconvinced that the Chamber is automatically right wing). You're contributing to the deeply partisan climate with your ad hominem accusations Christian.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2011 9:07 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidAnd a corporation is just a group of individuals. Besides, why should corporations have less power than say the corporate media who are allowed to spew their views unrestricted? Not sure I saw any anti-patent decisions - but insofar as patents go, being presumably liberal, you do realize that patents are provisional monopolies on intellectual property balanced against the benefits of society? There are many who believe patents have gone too far particularly with the patent trolling that's been going on and especially software patents that it is stiffling innovation.

    As for pro corporate - you're tainting decisions with guilt by association with decisions tilting in the way of the Chamber of Commerce as being automatically "pro corporation" despite decisions only going that way 2/3rds of the time. Ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe the arguments were right and justified? Also - just because it is a position supported by the Chamber of Commerce doesn't mean that it isn't supported by left wing organizations (and I'm unconvinced that the Chamber is automatically right wing). You're contributing to the deeply partisan climate with your ad hominem accusations Christian.


    A corporation is a group of individuals who largely cannot be held responsible for their collective actions through the establishment of said corporation, LLP or LLC. I would actually be fine with unions also be held to the same standards. But, then again, I'm for complete public financing of all elections and establishing an actual campaign season of 3-6 months as they do in many European countries. The influence of money in politics if one of the worst impediments to our achievement of good politics.

    Crap. My brother is here to take us to the airport.

    Suffice it to say that it's the increasing in the number of pro-corporate decisions and nature of same that is the issue with the Roberts Court.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2011 9:14 PM GMT
    This assumes that the states currently pay nothing for uncompensated care and on mental health care. I've quoted this before from the Urban Institute:

    http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1001480-Affordable-Care-Act.pdfTo place these costs in context, this paper analyzes potential savings states can achieve under the
    Affordable Care Act. In sum, we find the following results for 2014-2019:
    By eliminating optional Medicaid coverage for adults over 133 percent of FPL, thus shifting
    them to federally-funded subsidies in the exchange, states can save between $21.3 billion and
    $28.2 billion.
    By replacing state and local spending on uncompensated care with federal Medicaid dollars,
    states and localities can save between $42.6 billion and $85.1 billion.
    By replacing state and local spending on mental health services with federal Medicaid
    dollars, states and localities can save between $19.9 billion and $39.7 billion.
    A worst-case scenario will thus see states realizing net budgetary savings of $40.6 billion
    during 2014-2019. In a best-case scenario, those gains will reach $131.9 billion (Table 1).


    2 other studies have come to the same conclusion that states will save money when ACA is fully implemented:

    http://www.theshriverbrief.org/tags/affordable-care-act/The Urban Institute study is consistent with earlier findings by the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) and the Lewin Group that, on balance, states will realize significant net budgetary gains from the legislation. The contrary analyses, among other flaws, recognize or describe only state costs and not potential state gains.

    The CEA report profiled 16 states, finding that each would experience net fiscal gains from the Affordable Care Act, totaling between $3 billion and $4 billion a year for all 16 states combined. The states were Arkansas, California, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Wyoming.

    The Lewin report found that, on balance, the Affordable Care Act will save states $106.8 billion during 2010-19, including $100.6 billion in 2014-19.


    http://www.lewin.com/content/publications/LewinGroupAnalysis-PatientProtectionandAffordableCareAct2010.pdf
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/cea-statelocal-sept15-final.pdf
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2011 9:54 PM GMT
    let's see...who to believe, riddler or Q?.........

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2011 10:20 PM GMT
    meninlove said let's see...who to believe, riddler or Q?.........



    You always seem to like deferring to ad hominem attacks. The question should be whose sources to believe and to examine the sources unless you don't posess the capabilities to do so. I mean the data is all right there. It's just a question of parsing it and clearly there are existing biases from all parties.

    When it comes to government expenditures, there's never any free lunch because innovation is rare to non existent. When it comes to markets, that free lunch and surplus comes from innovation - that is something those like you don't seem to understand - and that's also why I suspect that the white house interpretation of the data is far more suspect.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2011 10:34 PM GMT
    But it's Lewin.COM!icon_lol.gif

    http://www.lewin.com/WhyLewin/AboutUs/The Lewin Group is an Ingenix company. Ingenix, a wholly-owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, was founded in 1996 to develop, acquire and integrate the world's best-in-class health care information technology capabilities. For more information, visit www.ingenix.com. The Lewin Group operates with editorial independence and provides its clients with the very best expert and impartial health care and human services policy research and consulting services.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2011 11:43 PM GMT
    riddler78 said When it comes to markets, that free lunch and surplus comes from innovation - that is something those like you don't seem to understand - and that's also why I suspect that the white house interpretation of the data is far more suspect.


    And this is not innovation? Remember the US government pays for 50% of all health care and yet does not use its 1/2 monopoly to examine what it should pay for. Every other developed country has done so, and has kept medical expenses down.

    wiki on ACAA non-profit Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is established, independent from government, to undertake comparative effectiveness research.[14] This is charged with examining the "relative health outcomes, clinical effectiveness, and appropriateness" of different medical treatments by evaluating existing studies and conducting its own. Its 19-member board is to include patients, doctors, hospitals, drug makers, device manufacturers, insurers, payers, government officials and health experts. It will not have the power to mandate or even endorse coverage rules or reimbursement for any particular treatment. Medicare may take the Institute’s research into account when deciding what procedures it will cover, so long as the new research is not the sole justification and the agency allows for public input.[15] The bill forbids the Institute to develop or employ "a dollars per quality adjusted life year" (or similar measure that discounts the value of a life because of an individual’s disability) as a threshold to establish what type of health care is cost effective or recommended. This makes it different from the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jan 14, 2011 8:40 AM GMT
    Go ahead and waste the taxpayers' money, suing your brains out. So far, every law suit against the health care legislation has either lost or been thrown out.

    Idiots.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2011 9:13 AM GMT
    Webster666 saidGo ahead and waste the taxpayers' money, suing your brains out. So far, every law suit against the health care legislation has either lost or been thrown out.

    Idiots.

    False.