Oklahoma to File Lawsuit Against Obama´s Health Care Law
Oklahoma is going to challenge President Barack Obama´s health care law. The state will file a lawsuit against it, which has nothing to do with the Virginia lawsuit or another one filed by 20 states.
The lawsuit will put the constitutionality of Obama´s health care overhaul in question, Oklahoma´s incoming attorney general said.
Oklahoma Governor-elect Mary Fallon called the overhaul "bad for our economy, bad for our health and bad for our states" and "an unconstitutional Washington power-grab that seeks to force our citizens to buy certain products."
They seem to hate an idea that came from their side of the fence, the requirement to have health insurance. That is how insurance works, spread the risk. Maybe it is our system they really don´t like.
It´s hard to tell exactly what else they dislike so much as they speak in highly charged, meaningless rhetoric. Never any specifics.
Makes me think they just hate Obama and don´t really know what they dislike so much.
"give the Hospitals the right to refuse service on ability to pay" really???
So you propose letting your fellow citizens die from curable causes because they have insufficient funds??? quite frankly that is disgusting, if you call your self Christian you shouldn´t, because their is NO WAY Jesus would accept that attitude. I´m not even a Christian, even most atheist would agree that heartlessness towards you neighbour(a fellow citizen, not just a random foreigner) is wrong.
I´m quite glad you responded with the contempt and severity you did. That is the *correct* reaction.
In reality I completely support the health bill for one simple reason: The US was very close to getting to the point of allowing hospitals to refuse service.
If everyone is covered, then no-one will ever be refused service. Simple as that.
As far as I am concerned everyone needs unfettered access to health care.
If they get away with Oklahoma finding it unconstitutional for the Gov to force you to buy insurance then I am suing over car insurance. Which is Forced or you have to pay a fine, lose your liscense and cannot register your vehical.
The error with your analogy is very simple... if you don´t want to buy automobile insurance, you have two choices. Either you don´t drive or you self insure, if you have sufficient capital.
People cannot choose not to live (legally speaking) and the simple act of living puts one at risk of needing medical care.
And just to clarify, I don´t agree with Obamacare.
you only lose your license/get fine/etc if they catch you. I had a buddy that went without for a year. same with medical insurance; you´re only f*cked if they catch you, aka you get sick/trauma and get a ´fine´ ($40,000 in bills)
You cannot force someone to purchase a product period. Many people don´t have auto insurance and they are not breaking any law, they don´t own a car. You can always travel by other means. So no, you are not being forced to purchase auto insurance. This bill slides right off the slipper slope and over the cliff, you can´t not own a body and exist. I disagreed with this provision when the bill was passed and protested then. OK is right. This provision has to be removed.
I also think there should be a government option to keep the insurance companies from running amuck with the rates and restrictions currently being put in motion. Without stiff competition this monopoly will continue on a ruinous course unchecked and the medical bankruptcies will continue. Over 60% of those that declare bankruptcy because of medical cost had insurance. Most insurance companies just raised rates 20% and more at the end of the year because they will be forbidden from implementing massive rate increased without government approval in the future (not that I ever see the Government preventing them from doing so). Many insurance companies just quit offering child only policies because they can no longer refuse to insure children with pre-existing conditions.
I have no love for insurance companies nor the Government.
Ideally medical care should be nationalized and every citizen and legal resident should be covered as part of their taxes. NO, Illegals should not be covered. They should be treated only when necessary and then deported, their belongings confiscated to defer the cost of their treatment.
I see little in the budget that is more important than the health of the nation. Without a healthy workforce there will be no taxes to pay for anything else.
then Im going to lobby the crap out of congress to make it THE LAW to own a PS3. Then I will dump a ton of money into Sony!
Because that is basically what they are doing here. They are forcing people to buy a certain product. A life tax if you will. You were born, therefore you are required to pay them!
You have no love for the government or insurance companies, so your solution is to make the government an insurance company... And then you expect that you´ll be able to depend on this witch´s brew you´ve concocted?
Would you also feel safe if you were paying protection to the Mafia?
Without the government or private insurance companies who is left? Not a perfect solution but I can´t think of a better use for my tax dollars. Beats the hell out bailing out criminal bankers or paying for illegal wars.
Insurance. Literally, you can not get out more than you put in, but you can easily put in more than you get out.
Forcing people to have auto. insurance is no better. What about required "gun insurance" in case of accidents? Or required "sports insurance" if you injure a player? How about required "internet insurance" in case your computer gets a virus which spreads to other computers? It´s only safe!
In this state you have two choices. Either you pay "someone" who claims to insure your liability to damage in accidents, or you have $35,000 in a savings account on record with the state. And, how much, do you think, of that money will go to insurance companies any way if you are forced to buy it?
Val. How about repairing your tractor or buying seed for your birds? Or maybe even (dare I say) spending them frivolously on something you and your husband want but don´t need? You could even spend them on a charity that provides health care to individuals who can´t afford it for themselves. And guess what... you would be able vet said charity before you gave your tax dollars to it.
But alas... you don´t have that option since the government has convinced you that your tax dollars aren´t actually your property but rather, dollars that your government has chosen to spend at its discretion on your behalf.
Indeed, I can see a lot more productive ways to spend your tax dollars. The least of which being toward funding the merger of a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy with private enterprise. ;)
Debunked User "Valkyrie123" erroneously wrote: "I feel this law is UnConstitutional..You cannot force someone to purchase a product period."=FOUND FALSE.
A simple counter-example reveals that the premise being used by the Conservative Republican faction is false, and if this example is presented in court, it shall most-likely sink all lawsuits based on it.
Not only that, the example I will post will not only debunk the Conservative opponents, but they will be compelled to agree with it as well.
The premise often stated is that "You cant force someone to buy something" and "This will be the ONLY instance where a person is compelled to purchase something ´simply because they exist´"=DEBUNKED.
Debunked in one word: "CLOTHING"
Under current law, if you go out, without clothes on, guess what, you will be ARRESTED. This means, that you (everyone) is forced, by the government, under the Law, to obtain clothes. And the penalty for NOT doing it is even worse than that concerning healthcare, because in this example, the outcome for going without clothes, is prison. Not only that, it could be classified as a sex offender and you could now have a ´sexcrime´ on your record. Especially if you are an old man and you are without clothes and in the vicinity of a childrens schoolyard.
Thus, by law, you cannot go out without obtaining clothes, if you don´t believe it, try it. Thus the premise that "You cant be forced to obtain something" is now debunked. Humans are born naked. Therefore, this also debunks the line trying to imply that healthcare will be the "only" example of an instance where a person is forced to do something simply for ´existing´. You exist. You are forced, by law, to obtain and wear clothes. Otherwise you shall go to prison.
Not only that, but Republican Conservatives shall now be compelled to AGREE with this, otherwise the Republican platform will now be associated with fighting for the constitutional ´right´ for child predators to go around naked, and no one wants to be doing that. In other words, IF you proceed, with a lawsuit, based on the premise that it is unconstitutional to force someone to buy something, then Your lawsuit will also give sexual offenders the ´rights´ to go around your house, your child, your school, your family, etc, completely naked. That is what this Republican Conservative Lawsuit will allow. Public shriveled Republican conservative child predators free to venture naked in the streets. You don´t want this. Therefore, all (good) Republican Conservatives must now be against their own premise under this lawsuit, willingly. So not only has my counter-example debunked the lawsuit, and both lines used to assert the non-viable premise, but once revealed, everyone, judges, voters, courts, even Conservative Republicans, shall agree with it, happily. Because if you don´t, and you continue to assert the false notion that no one should be compelled to do something just for existing, YOU will be fighting for the false ´constitutional right´ of throngs of males, old women, everything from grannies to grandpa´s to be going around without clothes, including in public, and around schools and around you and your family, and your child. Don´t think you want that. Therefore the lawsuit under the erroneous premise that no one can be compelled to obtain something is debunked.
Your melodramatic analogy falls flat on its face when one considers that I can gather up garbage bags with which to cover myself. I can also make my own clothing from any number of different materials or have it given to me.
Government does not and can not make people BUY clothing.
TAS´s premise may be a little wild, but couldn´t someone else give you health insurance as well? I think it´s an interesting proposition ...
Meanwhile, the universe is coercing me into buying food by starving me if I don´t obtain it. Of course, someone could give me that, too, particularly if I was a blonde woman ...
health insurance. In fact, we as taxpayers are coerced into giving health insurance to indigents.
However, nature does not coerce us into doing anything. You have the choice of whether or not to eat and even to breath. Granted, the consequences are quite permanent but, the choice is still there.
Likewise, we could carry this conversation further into the realm of the illogical by saying that with Obamacare, one doesn´t have to buy insurance since the choice of paying a fine or going to jail always remains...
