Spokane7
50°
March 23, 2010 in Nation/World, City, Idaho
Idaho, Wash. AGs sue over health care overhaul
As Idaho joined a national lawsuit against the new health care reform law, Washington’s attorney general was both blasted and praised for jumping into the litigation Monday.
Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden has the backing of Gov. Butch Otter and a legislative mandate to challenge any federal health care law.
On Tuesday, Otter criticized the federal legislation with Wasden at his side. There’s a significant legal question whether the U.S. Constitution allows the federal government to require a person to buy health insurance, Wasden said.
“Our complaint alleges the new law infringes upon the constitutional rights of Idahoans and residents of the other states by mandating all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage or pay a tax penalty,” Wasden said.
“If it is a proper role for government to mandate that citizens buy certain products, then I’m going to get potatoes in line for ’em just as quick as I can,” Otter said.
Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna had a decidedly more split response. He didn’t do interviews or hold press conferences Tuesday, but posted a similar theory of why he joined the challenge on his Web site. The issue is too important to build on an unconstitutional foundation, he wrote.
“This lawsuit is about ensuring that the federal government does not exceed its authority in certain provisions of the health care bill, and that the citizens of the State of Washington are given the respect that the Constitution requires,” he wrote.
Several noted law professors told McClatchy Newspapers there are significant legal hurdles in establishing the states’ standing to challenge the health care law and in convincing federal judges that it violates the Constitution.
Congress is empowered by the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce. McKenna, Wasden and others are arguing a mandate for individuals to purchase insurance is unprecedented, because uninsured individuals aren’t participating in commerce. Many constitutional law experts, however, said that the health insurance mandate is clearly within Congress’ reach under the Constitution.
“It would be surprising if the (Supreme Court) says Congress can’t regulate people who are participating in the $1 trillion health care market,” said David Freeman Engstrom, a Stanford University Law School professor. “The lawsuit probably doesn’t have legs both as a matter of precedent and as a matter of common sense.”
Sanford Levinson, a University of Texas Law School professor, said that Americans who choose not to purchase health insurance can pay a fine under the new law. Congress, he said, clearly has the authority to levy taxes and fines.
Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire repeated her criticism of joining a suit that could keep state residents from getting health insurance under the new law. While saying she didn’t want to undermine the independence of a separately elected official, she called McKenna a “lone ranger” who was required to consult with her and legislative leaders before joining the suit.
But a spokesman for McKenna said he was acting on behalf of the citizens, not any state official or agency. “Our client is the people of the state of Washington. He’s elected to be an independent legal officer,” Dan Sytman said.
Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, sent McKenna a letter asking him to reconsider a decision at odds with a majority of the Legislature, one she contended was “fiscally and morally irresponsible” because it has the potential to knock out federal funds for health care programs in the state and health coverage for more than a million of its residents.
Democratic leaders in the Legislature, in a special session to address the budget, are looking at options to respond to McKenna’s decision, Brown said, including a budget restriction that would keep him from spending money from his budget on the suit.
Republicans rallied to McKenna’s side. U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who like all GOP members voted against the bill, said he was standing up for state residents “who have the constitutional right to decide what is the best health care for themselves and their families.”
Sens. Janea Holmquist, of Moses Lake, and Val Stevens, of Arlington, applauded the move, saying they had introduced a bill similar to the one passed this year in Idaho to nullify any federal health care mandate.
It didn’t receive a hearing, let alone a vote, in the regular session. State Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, introduced a new version Tuesday with a section requiring the state attorney general to go to court to fight any federal health care mandates. Benton is among the GOP candidates seeking to unseat Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat and strong supporter of health care reform.
Brown called Benton’s proposal “more theatrics than substance, there’s zero chance of it passing the Legislature.”
Recent stories by Jim Camden
Recent stories by Betsy Z. Russell
Mussel infestation threatens NW waters May 30, 2012
- Invasive mussels on the move toward Northwest May 29, 2012 5
- Unique artifacts confirm indelible link between Idaho, Lincoln May 27, 2012 1
- Eye on Boise: Idaho backs Montana’s campaign spending fight May 27, 2012 1
- Dems control Idaho tax panel May 26, 2012
terrymr on March 23 at 10:24 a.m.
So the party that wants to stop frivolous lawsuits just filed one. Good for them.
maestro64 on March 23 at 10:39 a.m.
Hey Terry, hard to be frivolous when you represent the will of the majority of people in the country. Let’s have reform that makes sense and is not modeled on the currently failing example in MA. I for one do not think waiting 42 days for an office visit qualifies as better in any way. I am sure you agree. We can agree health care needs to be reworked (again) but let’s allow the democratic majority to have a voice. For too long we have allowed the outcry of a minority of folks to rule the majority and that is not democratic in the least.
Coffee on March 23 at 11:42 a.m.
If you do not have health insurance right now, are you now a law breaker subject to fines and or imprisonment?
deacon46 on March 23 at 11:47 a.m.
How about this elected official finding out for sure that he represents the so called majority against health care reform in this state. Not just listening to the yellers and screamers. And use his own money to fight this if he wishes, but not mine.
johnclarke on March 23 at 11:49 a.m.
Maestro64, would you please provide some evidence of what the “democratic majority” wants? Like a link to a poll like this one - for example.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1913426,00.html
“Sixty-three percent said they would support providing health-care coverage for all Americans, even if the government had to subsidize those who could not afford it. ”
gslbball1 on March 23 at 12:11 p.m.
If it violates the Constitution, it’s irrelevant whether a majority support it. That’s why we have the Constitution–to protect folks from the self-described “majority”.
PlanB on March 23 at 12:32 p.m.
There is nothing unconstitutional about the healthcare reform act. These lawsuits are frivolous.
The constitution also protects the majority from the tyranny of the minority.
johnclarke on March 23 at 12:32 p.m.
I just be here waiting for my lesson on constitutional law. I’m going to bet that someone in the administration already thought of that issue, you know like a professor of constitutional law for example. That would be the President, the one elected by the “actual majority” not the “mythical majority”.That only exists on Fox news, or in the vocal minority’s heads.
Loudin on March 23 at 1:13 p.m.
Hmmm…looks like 13 attorney generals don’t understand that, when it comes to regulation of commerce, federal statutes supersede state laws. Insurance falls under interstate commerce, so none of the AG’s will win in court…the precedent is clear in numerous court cases. No federal court will rule in their favor as it would eliminate such precedents, precedents which often have favored “big business” and were championed by pro-business/conservative plaintiffs.
But that’s okay; it makes for political entertainment…even though it wastes the taxpayers money & time.
gslbball1 on March 23 at 1:52 p.m.
Thankful we have the courts to decide this issue. It’s definitely not a frivolous lawsuit. Clearly presents important issues of first impression. Better to find out if it’s legal or not. I won’t be surprised to see the Supreme Court toss it.
TerryHarris on March 23 at 2:32 p.m.
For what it’s worth, I think Idaho’s AG at least better double-check his own statute providing authorization to sue. The Florida lawsuit goes beyond what Idaho’s “Health Freedom” law complained about.
Loudin on March 23 at 2:58 p.m.
I’m pretty sure the main purpose of Idaho’s “Health Freedom” law is to make sure people don’t have more than ten teeth in their skulls…
Seriously though: Some Idaho Democrat should have attached a rider to that bill adding “mullet maintenance” and “camouflage clothing allowance” to the list of things that can’t be federally covered. I suspect outraged Idaho Republican voters would have been flooding state lawmakers offices with demands that the “Health Freedom” law be defeated…
“Idaho, where Borat vacations.”
Louden
johnclarke on March 23 at 4:21 p.m.
Loudin you make me lol. Borat would never be seen in this area.
Yes, I’m glad our Rethug AG can spend time and money on a pointless lawsuit as opposed to doing what he was elected for.
amn on March 23 at 7:27 p.m.
Do you sheeple not understand the implications of this bill? This is only the stepping stone of how much control the govt can have over people. This requires every person to purchase a product that must be approved by the federal govt. Under the precedent set here, the govt could argue that it is in the greater interest if the nation and the economy to force everyone to buy a GM car. GM is essentially owned and ran by the Feds.
Don’t discount the lawsuit angle. This WILL make its way to the US Supreme Court with Kennedy as the deciding vote. While Congress does have powers over the commerce and taxes of the Nation, there has never been this issue presented before the Courts where people are required to purchase a product or be fined/taxed. I don’t take much stock in what the so called experts are saying. Most of my law school profs couldn’t hack it in real practice and became teachers instead. This lawsuit is not frivolous.
I do not have health insurance and I am still against this monstrosity of a bill. The backroom dealing and lack of transparency sickens me. I do not work my butt off to have the government take more money from me to care for those too lazy to get a job or those illegally. Mark my words, this bill will crush a number of small businesses and kill jobs.
Liberalism is a mental disorder that must be eradicated.
mdriftmeyer on March 23 at 7:40 p.m.
How about everyone of these AGs lose their license to practice law for their incompetence of the Interstate Commerce clause.
They have no case.
JBlim on March 23 at 8:14 p.m.
Republicans are such sore losers. Typical of fanatics, they believe God is on their side. Never mind that their bankrupt libertarian ideology destroyed the American economy requiring a trillion dollar taxpayer bailout.
empyrius on March 23 at 8:42 p.m.
“Liberalism is a mental disorder that must be eradicated”.
Wow! Last time I saw language like that there were camps full of people being exterminated . . .
Better watch out you right-wing Jews, b/c ultimately these same people are going to be “Christianizing” you; you may be friends today, but tomorrow they will demand you accept Jesus as your Savior!
“Judeo-Christian” today (like anybody trusts a hyphenated religion!!!), you must accept Jesus tomorrow . . .
bethbear on March 23 at 9:21 p.m.
amn,
The fact of the matter is you do have health insurance. If you have an accident or a catastrophic illness, the rest of us will pay for your hospitalization. If you would pay your fair share, our rates will go down.
Nothing liberal about that. We’d just like you to pull your own weight like the rest of us.
amn on March 23 at 10:23 p.m.
I do pull my weight. When I see a doctor, I pay out of pocket. I also have catostrophic insurance. I will not be told by the govt that I have to buy a service I do not want. Not to mention, the care provided in socialized health countries is not the best, to put it politely. Why do you think the Canadian politician came to the US for surgery? The US has the beat standard of care. This will dramatically diminish the number of people willing to incur the huge debts associated with medical school if the govt caps the amounts that can be billed. There are already a number if doctors that refuse to see Medicare and Medicaid patients because of the huge reductions in payment amounts. Do you want to trust your life to a mediocre doctor?
I am not saying the insuance companies are good. Quite the opposite, I deal with insurance companies on a daily basis as an attorney. What I am saying is that the bill is not the answer to fixing the problem, and the manner in which it was done is apalling. Health care reform is the last thing the economy needs with its huge price tag. The govt couldn’t even run a brothel in Nevada properly. How is it going to run health care?
Problem Solver on March 23 at 10:40 p.m.
WOW, I think the conservative Mormons have taken over Spokane/E.Wash. as well. From an outsiders propective it reminds me of another place I used to live called…….. .Utah!
Think I’ll be moving back to Seattle where the DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY RULES….. Washington State! Go Huskies!
I’ll leave you grumpy republican Spokanites and your loser cougars to your misery.
Orange on March 24 at 6:16 a.m.
This is far from frivilous Terry.
At least Idaho doesn’t have a self serving Govenor who only has asperations to serve herself in the White House.
Go McKenna Go!! Throw it back in their faces.
mikeln on March 24 at 6:45 a.m.
A lot of people seem to forget that we are the government. I think energy, houseing, food and health should be controlled by we the people. There is no reason for the CEO of a health insurance company to make 56,000 dollars an hour, no one is worth that kind of money. The capitalists will still have plenty of stuff to sell. They just will not be able to victimize us anymore.
gotcha on March 24 at 7:31 a.m.
When you people bankrupt this nation with entitlement programs you will have the destinct privalage of have the boot of the Chinese, and other countries felt on the back of your neck while your face is buried in the dirt because they don’t respect for you. This has been a great contry because of our strength. There has been no nation that has been able to bury our face in the dirt. I know a lot of you don’t respect that because it seems there are some of you that don’t respect yourselves. The only things I want from my Federal goverment is to mantain a strong military presence, and a good infrustructure. I don’t want them involved in my personal life and my health care while taxing us to death.
straighttalk on March 24 at 7:43 a.m.
This lawsuit is just another example of election year posturing.
Read this article from US News on the yahoo website on the 5 overblown fears on health care reform for some factual insight.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-Overblown-Fears-About-usnews-1662044017.html?x=0
bethbear on March 24 at 8:20 a.m.
amn,
I apologize. My understanding was you had no insurance whatsoever. Which leaves the rest of us on the hook if something awful happens to you. Fortunately we are still a people who will not let someone bleed to death on the doorstep of the hospital. Again, sorry for the wrong assumption.
Loudin on March 24 at 10:03 a.m.
Hey, I like the “all Eastern Washington people are conservatives and the Cougs suck” troll posting.
As a democrat, I find your little world view pathetic…maybe you should move to Seattle and get a clue (there are more registered Republicans in King & Pierce Counties than in all the rest of the state counties combined). Your ignorance is phunnie…
BTW: One party rule is ALWAYS bad, whether it be Conservatives in Texas or Democrats in Western Washington. Are you stupid?
misjustice on March 24 at 7:22 p.m.
Loudin, we can always count on you to lighten the mood; you rock!
McKenna will fail; just like the teagaggers and the other republican’ts have failed.
The way the health insurance reform bill is written it has been constructed to make this a taxing/interstate commerce issue which is on Constitutionally solid ground. See Article 1, Section 8, subsections (1) and (3)…re the powers of the legislative branch.
McKenna, however, could help the citizens of this state by standing up for us against Avista’s recently announced proposed rate increase. My calls to his office, regarding this matter, have gone unanswered. He is “dreadfully silent” in this regard.
Nullification will not work, didn’t work for South Carolina during the Jackson administration, and won’t work now.
LMFAO! ; )
EagleEye on March 25 at 12:32 p.m.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything remotely close to any government mandate to shove health care down the citizens’ throats.
One of the key elements of this legislation that has so many people riled up is the Mandate to buy something that millions of people either don’t want, can’t pay for or don’t need. Because of the financial penalties involved for those who don’t want it, it is a FORCED MANDATE. In government parlance, it is an “unfunded mandate”, though this time directly upon the citizens.
Throughout Obama’s Presidential campaign he always sold his health care plan ideas as “voluntary” and all about “choice” which is now proven to be a huge lie. There is nothing voluntary about it when you see the financial sanctions involved.
He also lied about getting our troops out of Iraq and instead INCREASED troop levels in Afghanistan by something like 50,000 while opening up a new thrust into Pakistan. Not exactly the kind of “hope and change” I was hoping for.
Also, NOBODY with half a brain believes the official projections that Obama Care will only cost ONLY 980 Billion dollars. That’s just a very small downpayment as EVERY Federal government program winds up costing AT LEAST 8-10 times more while simultaneously creating huge, unforseen problems.
The Feds have absolutely overstepped their authority (yet again) in denying people their freedom of choice in health care and any Attorney General’s who call them on that have the support of roughly 50% of the electorate.
EagleEye on March 25 at 1:06 p.m.
@misjustice wrote, “McKenna will fail; just like the teagaggers and the other republican’ts have failed.”
Last I checked, the Tea Party voters were actually the key, swing vote that made the deciding difference in the recent Republican upset of former Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachussetts. Same exact thing in Virginia so I would actually call that a stunning success.
Also, MANY so called “teabaggers” are as strongly opposed to Republican Party abuses as they are Democratic Party abuses because there truly is very little difference between parties anymore - both work for the same big corporate special interests while consistently chipping away at the freedoms of The People. The fact that the big insurance companies are now guaranteed 32 million new policies because we are now FORCED by our government to buy them speaks volumes and proves my point. Ultimately, the Insurance industry will be the biggest winners in this bill with guaranteed, locked-in profits. The American people will lose big in the further erosion of our freedoms as well as financially as our currency gets further diluted with yet another, unfunded government boondoggle (Medicare + stupid wars are bankrupting our country)
McKenna is doing the job the people of WA elected him to do, stand up for The People.
alanb4130 on March 28 at 10:51 a.m.
Any of you people that think this is govt take over of health care is a reflection of how sad this country has become since Bush and the Republicans have successfully dumbed down America to this point . First of all many of you proudly admit that you voted for Bush twice. And I bet some of you would admit that you would have voted for Bush again if you could have. There is no excuse for this degree of ignorance. Standing up for what the Republican party is pushing IMO is almost un American. They do not care about you . They have lied about everything . And they have used fear to convince you people to vote against your best interests while they try and destroy America. There is no such thing as a conservative Republican. Does not exist
misjustice on March 28 at 8:22 p.m.
I wish this was a government takeover of health care…
All I want is what many of the teabaggers have, Medicare!
Hopefully, the Health Insurance Reform bill is the start of what will eventually be Medicare E; E means for everyone. We could all pay into the system and the government could have bargaining powers to negotiate lower costs for all of us. By having all of us contribute to the system it would spread the risk out and also help lower costs.
I didn’t get the reform I wanted, either, but I am enough of a pragmatist to realized that it is a start.
A journey of a thousand miles begin with one step…
EagleEye on March 29 at 6:04 p.m.
@alanb4130
Let’s just stick to the issues shall we? Avoid the trap of falling into the Demoplican/ Republicrat, Left/Right paradigm. It should be completely obvious to all by now that the same big corporate interests control BOTH as they legally bribe our politicians through campaign “contributions”. This gives them enormous power that even allows them to write much of the actual text of the legislation. The result of throwing all of that money around is that they deftly manipulate and/or force the public into their highly profitable “solutions”. Big government bills like Obama Care guarantee obscene profits for corporations and long-term financial ruin for our country.
I would be the first to agree that the existing health care system is very broken and needs to change. Yet few people understand that it has been government meddling in health care that resulted in the HMO model and ultimately an “entitlement” philosophy that the government shall guarantee and/or provide it. Government is an extremely inefficient allocator of resources and when they started getting into the business of offering health care in the 60’s is precisely when those costs started skyrocketing. When Medicare and Medicaid was implemented, many of those covered services became the de-facto legal standard of care that all other private plans had to also provide. The insurance companies quickly figured that out and ran with it all of the way to the bank.
Follow the money and you will quickly understand that the Big Pharma, medical device and other health industry companies lobbied HEAVILY in FAVOR of this legislation. Why? Because they will be the greatest beneficiaries! Even the insurance companies will ultimately be winners (higher volumes due to forced enrollment mandates with lower percentage profits = greater OVERALL profits). Get it?
Even the insurance company payout formulas have been “set” by this legislation that MANDATES what percentage of their income must be apportioned to payouts. There are many other forced provisions in the details of the plan as well that haven’t been widely discussed.
So I disagree with your assertion that this isn’t a government takeover of health care. Perhaps it’s not the full-blown, socialist agenda that was originally envisioned by Obama and his handlers, but it is a huge step in the wrong direction anytime something is FORCED upon people who don’t want it, don’t need it or can’t afford it.
EagleEye on March 29 at 6:09 p.m.
@alanb4130
For the record, I never voted for Bush in either election and I am in NO WAY defending the failed policies of the Bush Administration and the Neo-Con elements of the Republican Party as I think they did TREMENDOUS and irreparable damage to this country.
The Obama Administration is just more of the same and I’m just tired of watching people play into the hands of the giant corporations (who absolutely OWN our political process).