More litigation against Obamacare: Apparently the law expanded Medicaid–which is paid in part by the states. They don’t have the money and some are suing. From the story:
President Barack Obama faces a fight over the health-care overhaul from states that sued today because the legislation’s expansion of Medicaid imposes a fiscal strain on their cash-strapped budgets. Florida, Texas and Pennsylvania are among 14 states that filed suit after the president signed the bill over the constitutionality of the burden imposed by the legislation. The health-care overhaul will make as many as 15 million more Americans eligible for Medicaid nationwide starting in 2014 and will cost the states billions to administer.
We are becoming Greece, and our leaders don’t seem to care. But that is beyond our scope here.
One way or the other, I think the odds are fairly good that Obamacare–the current monstrosity–will not stand. To make that happen, it should be hit from every conceivable angle: political, legal, and financial (a new Congress refusing to fund the new bureaucracies, for example). Do that, and I think in the end major portions of this law–not all of it–will fall.
March 23rd, 2010 | 9:25 pm
In my state, thousands of people who were on the waiting list for the state health plan will be covered by Obamacare. Should we sue? You’re the lawyer here.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:47 pm
By the time most of them are covered, four years from now, Obamacare will be gone, hopefully. And other ways can and should be derived to get them access. The law is unconstitutional, I think. Or do you think the ends justifies whatever means?
March 24th, 2010 | 3:56 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Pro-Life Healthcare . Pro-Life Healthcare said: Obamacare: Breaking the Financial Backs of the States http://bit.ly/9lZSqB #hcr [...]
March 24th, 2010 | 11:26 am
Wes: “Or do you think the ends justifies whatever means?”
Nah, then I’d be a neo-con.
March 24th, 2010 | 9:05 pm
It is too bad that ‘we’ have come to the point of passing a bill “so we can find out what is in it”. If I was given a choice in the matter I would have read the contract before I signed …OH, wait , don’t we vote for people to do that?!
March 25th, 2010 | 10:10 am
Right; this beast is full of holes and needs to be taken down from every possible angle. Citizens need to support officials who resist and officials need to help citizen who resist. (For instance why are Amish and Muslims exempt from the insurance purchase mandate? — many of us have religious objections also! Lets see how many simple are “conscientious” objectors)
March 27th, 2010 | 10:06 am
Paullette: Do you have an objection to buying insurance based on specific tenets of your faith? As far as I’m aware there is no rule in any mainstream Christian denomination that forbids a communicant from insuring him/herself. I suppose it’s possible to make a case under the “free exercise” clause of the Constitution to permit those who make valid claims of exemption (such as in the case of conscientious objectors in the military) to be exempt.
BTW, I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but the idea of requiring everyone to have coverage was first put forward by the Republicans back in the 1990s, as an alternative to the Clinton health care reform proposal.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact