Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

[Denny Crane]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g0LSHNfmnWDnZ_JylqiFxeT5GKEQD9EGLNDO0

Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan
By JOHN MILLER (AP) – 1 day ago

BOISE, Idaho — Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.

Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.

Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.

But the state measures reflect a growing frustration with President President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The proposal would cover some 30 million uninsured people, end insurance practices such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, require almost all Americans to get coverage by law, and try to slow the cost of medical care nationwide.

Democratic leaders hope to vote on it this weekend.

With Washington closing in on a deal in the months-long battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers opposed to the measure are stepping up opposition.

Otter, a Republican, said he believes any future lawsuit from Idaho has a legitimate shot of winning, despite what the naysayers say.

"The ivory tower folks will tell you, 'No, they're not going anywhere,' " he told reporters. "But I'll tell you what, you get 36 states, that's a critical mass. That's a constitutional mass."

(More at the link)

 

[Denny Crane]

I am quite sure that if SCOTUS hears such a case, the law would be struck down.

I am not so sure SCOTUS will hear the case.

 

[Paxil]

I imagine there would be outcry for national health care if we turned people away at hospitals if they didn't have insurance. The bottom line is that we are being flooded with people who don't have the types of jobs that offer insurance... and so the costs go up... more companies can't afford it so less get it but we still treat everyone and the costs go up... more companies can't afford it... cost go up etc... etc...

 

[Shooter]

Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.

Yeah, Baby!! Now THAT'S a real grass-roots movement!!

 

[Stevenson]

I am quite sure that if SCOTUS hears such a case, the law would be struck down.

Why would you think this? This legislation seems well within Congress' authority to legislate.

And in other news, how about the CBO saying it will SAVE money? Ha!!

 

[barfo]

Yeah, Baby!! Now THAT'S a real grass-roots movement!!

Yes, having at least 1 republican legislator in 37 states is quite a grass-roots movement.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Wow, 37 states. That means there are only 20 left to go!

 

[barfo]

Wow, 37 states. That means there are only 20 left to go!

I think you only need 3/4ths of the 57 for a constitutional amendment, though. So really only 6 more to go.

barfo

 

[chris_in_pdx]

BOISE, Idaho — Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.

I'll expect one right behind it allowing suit of states that require auto insurance.

 

[MARIS61]

Catch-22 here.

Nobody wants mandatory out-of-pocket health insurance premiums. Those currently without them simply cannot afford them by any stretch of the imagination.

One side wants government provided health insurance paid thru taxes.

The other half thinks life is peachy.

Funny it's Idaho stirring the pot.

Most of Boise drives all the way to Bend, Oregon for their healthcare.

 

[mook]

I wonder when us Idahoans are going to get our panties in a bunch that people in more concentrated states are mandated to pay taxes to subsidize our Idaho roads, our Idaho damns, our Idaho education systems....

If this legislation passes it'll be yet another instance of a red state complaining all the while a blue state is being forced to subsidize the red state's government services.

 

[maxiep]

I'll expect one right behind it allowing suit of states that require auto insurance.

You do understand the difference between auto insurance and health insurance, right?

--Driving is a privilege; we have the right to life.

--Auto Insurance is to protect others; health insurance is to protect yourself

--You can choose not to drive; unless you kill yourself you can't choose not to live.

--You're only mandated to purchase auto insurance if you choose to drive; if you exist you're mandated to purchase health insurance under this bill.

 

[maxiep]

I wonder when us Idahoans are going to get our panties in a bunch that people in more concentrated states are mandated to pay taxes to subsidize our Idaho roads, our Idaho damns, our Idaho education systems....

If this legislation passes it'll be yet another instance of a red state complaining all the while a blue state is being forced to subsidize the red state's government services.

I don't know the answer, but what is the net inflow of Federal dollars into Idaho?

 

[barfo]

I don't know the answer, but what is the net inflow of Federal dollars into Idaho?

Idaho taxpayers receive more federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid than the average state. Per dollar of Federal tax collected in 2005, Idaho citizens received approximately $1.21 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 20th highest nationally and represents a slight rise from 1995 when Idaho received $1.14 per dollar of taxes in federal spending (then ranked 20th highest). Neighboring states and the amount of federal spending they received per dollar of federal taxes paid were: Washington ($0.88), Oregon ($0.93), Nevada ($0.65), Utah ($1.07), Wyoming ($1.11), and Montana ($1.47).

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Why would you think this? This legislation seems well within Congress' authority to legislate.

And in other news, how about the CBO saying it will SAVE money? Ha!!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aTQARvST4dv8

Supreme Court precedents nonetheless raise questions about the practice. In a 1983 case, the court said the federal government’s legislative power could be exercised only “in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure.”

In that case, a 7-2 court invalidated a law that let a single house of Congress vote to overrule the attorney general and force deportation of an alien.

‘Finely Wrought’

The high court reiterated the “finely wrought” language in the 1998 ruling, a 6-3 decision that struck down a congressionally enacted line-item veto, which would have let the president eliminate individual spending provisions.

As part of the ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens said the Constitution “explicitly requires” that the House and Senate approve the exact same text.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/03/cuccinellis_office_confirms_vi.html

Cuccinelli's office confirms Virginia will sue over health care

A spokesman for Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) said this afternoon that Virginia will file suit against the federal government if the Democratic health care reform bill is approved by the U.S. Congress.

Cuccinelli has long said he was examining the legal issues and suggested he would likely file suit. Brian Gottstein, a spokesman for the office, said this afternoon that a lawsuit is now a definite. Gottstein would provide no details of the legal rationale for such a suit, indicating the process is "still being worked out."

Virginia last week became the first state in the country to pass a state bill declaring it illegal for the government to require individuals to purchase health insurance, a key part of bills under consideration on Capitol Hill.

We are also expecting to receive a letter shortly that Cuccinelli is sending to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warning her that using the so-called "deem and pass" procedure to pass the Senate health reform bill in the House would open the measure to additional constitutional challenges from the states.

UPDATE: We've received a copy of Cuccinelli's letter to Pelosi. In it, he writes: "Should you employ the deem and pass tactic, you expose any act which may pass to yet another constitutional challenge."

 

[Denny Crane]

I think the mandate to buy insurance may pass muster because there is an option to pay a $1500 fine instead, which is within the govt.'s power to tax.

However, the precedent is absurd.

Elect me for president and I'll pass a law that makes everyone buy "Barfo's Chili" - tastes as good going down as it does coming up!

 

[Paxil]

I honestly have no clue about whether health care plan is a good idea... but I do have a feeling that is something that we will have to address eventually and the costs could be much higher then. Reminds be of when Boeing won the contract for Air Force Tankers... and McCain who was trying to pressure Boeing to build its 787 plant there threatened to raise a fuss... when the plant went to Washington he faught and had it overturned (saying he was trying to save taxpayers money)... then Airbuss won... then overturned etc.. etc... and now years later when the contract is awarded it will cost significantly more than it would have in the first place! WTG hero of the taxpayer!

 

[barfo]

Elect me for president and I'll pass a law that makes everyone buy "Barfo's Chili" - tastes as good going down as it does coming up!

I strongly support you for president.

barfo

 

[chris_in_pdx]

You do understand the difference between auto insurance and health insurance, right?

--Driving is a privilege; we have the right to life.

--Auto Insurance is to protect others; health insurance is to protect yourself

--You can choose not to drive; unless you kill yourself you can't choose not to live.

--You're only mandated to purchase auto insurance if you choose to drive; if you exist you're mandated to purchase health insurance under this bill.

Legalize Assisted Suicide and the circle will be complete!

 

[maxiep]

barfo

Thanks for the info. Interesting that Idaho is an inflow state.

 

[Denny Crane]

Why would you think this? This legislation seems well within Congress' authority to legislate.

And in other news, how about the CBO saying it will SAVE money? Ha!!

Awwww. It was all a gimick in the first place.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Medicare-fix-would-push-apf-2700343586.html?x=0&.v=2

Medicare fix would push health care into the red
Rollback of Medicare cuts to doctors, if added to health care bill, push it into the red

On Friday March 19, 2010, 6:33 pm EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional budget scorekeepers say a Medicare fix that Democrats included in earlier versions of their health care bill would push it into the red.

The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that rolling back a programmed cut in Medicare fees to doctors would cost $208 billion over 10 years. If added back to the health care overhaul bill, it would wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red.

The so-called doc fix was part of the original House bill. Because of its high cost, Democrats decided to pursue it separately. Republicans say the cost should not be ignored. Congress has usually waived the cuts to doctors year by year.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...440.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

The Health Vote and the Constitution—II
The House can't approve the Senate bill in the same legislation by which it approves changes to the Senate bill.
By MICHAEL W. MCCONNELL

In just a few days the House of Representatives is expected to act on two different pieces of legislation: the Senate version of the health-care bill (the one that contains the special deals, "Cadillac" insurance plan taxes, and abortion coverage) and an amendatory bill making changes in the Senate bill. The House will likely adopt a "self-executing" rule that "deems" passage of the amendatory bill as enactment of the Senate bill, without an actual vote on the latter.

This enables the House to enact the Senate bill while appearing only to approve changes to it. The underlying Senate bill would then go to the president for signature, and the amendatory bill would go to the Senate for consideration under reconciliation procedures (meaning no filibuster).

This approach appears unconstitutional. Article I, Section 7 clearly states that bills cannot be presented to the president for signature unless they have been approved by both houses of Congress in the same form. If the House approves the Senate bill in the same legislation by which it approves changes to the Senate bill, it will fail that requirement.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D., N.Y.), chair of the House Rules Committee and prime mover behind this approach, has released a letter from Yale Law School's Jack Balkin asserting that a "rule which consolidates a vote on a bill and accompanying amendments, or, as in this case, a reconciliation measure and an amended bill, is within the House's powers under Article I, Section 5, Clause 2."

But that does not actually address the point at issue. No one doubts that the House can consolidate two bills in a single measure; the question is whether, having done so, it may then hive the resulting bill into two parts, treating one part as an enrolled bill ready for presidential signature and the other part as a House bill ready for senatorial consideration. That seems inconsistent with the principle that the president may sign only bills in the exact form that they have passed both houses. A combination of two bills is not in "the same form" as either bill separately.

Defenders of the Democratic strategy say that a self-executing rule has been used many times before by both parties. But never in this way. Most of the time a self-executing rule is used to incorporate amendments into a pending bill without actual votes on the amendments, where the bill is then subject to a final vote by the House and Senate. That usage may be a dodge around House rules, but it does not violate the Constitution. I am not aware of any instance where a self-executing rule has been used to send one bill to the president for signature and another to the Senate for consideration by means of a single vote.

Self-executing rules have also been used to increase the debt ceiling by virtue of adopting a budget resolution. That procedure is questionable, but because budget resolutions are not laws, this usage does not have the feature of using one vote to send a bill to the president and at the same time to send a different bill to the Senate. There may have been other questionable uses of self-executing rules, but not often enough or in prominent enough cases to establish a precedent that would overcome serious constitutional challenge.

Whether the courts would entertain such a challenge is a harder question. The "enrolled bill doctrine," announced by the Supreme Court in Marshall Field v. Clark (1892), holds that the courts will not question whether a bill certified as having passed both houses of Congress was properly enacted. More recently, in United States v. Munoz-Flores (1990), in a footnote, the Supreme Court stated that Field concerned only the "evidence" the courts would consider in such a challenge and that when "a constitutional provision is implicated," the enrolled bill doctrine would not apply. These holdings are not easy to reconcile. The D.C. Circuit, in a 1995 case, essentially said that it did not understand the Munoz-Flores footnote and thus would not follow it.

The Supreme Court might well hold that Field governs only questions of historical fact, while Munoz-Flores governs questions of constitutional interpretation. In Field, the question was what text passed the two houses of Congress; there was no doubt that only what the two houses passed could be treated as law. Here, by contrast, there will be no dispute about what occurred in the House; the question will be whether using a self-executing rule in this way is consistent with Article I, Section 7. It is one thing for the Supreme Court to defer to Congress on questions of what Congress did, and quite another to defer to Congress on the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, in United States v. Ballin, decided the same year as Field, the Court ruled, "The Constitution empowers each House to determine its own rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints . . . ."

One thing is sure: To proceed in this way creates an unnecessary risk that the legislation will be invalidated for violation of Article I, Section 7. Will wavering House members want to use this procedure when there is a nontrivial probability that the courts will render their political sacrifice wasted effort? To hazard that risk, the House leadership must have a powerful motive to avoid a straightforward vote.

Mr. McConnell, a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, is a law professor at Stanford University and director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center.