# Majority of States Now Challenging Health Care Law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2011, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588 "2011-01-14T14:01:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/41 "2011-01-14T21:31:22Z")
> [@howye](#): > > Ok, since your location field shows that you don’t live in Ohio, I will point out to you that HCR lawsuits were not a major part of DeWine’s campaign. The vast majority of his television advertising did not mention it. His campaign ran mostly on cleaning up some sort of unspecified corruption in the state crime lab and his being Republican in an election in which being Republican was enough to get one elected. > > To say that DeWine won his position based on his position with regards to this lawsuit is a stretch at best and is probably closer to an outright falsehood. Fair enough. It’s the first thing mentioned on his campaign site (which is still up), so I was making assumptions. ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/42 "2011-01-14T22:44:21Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Any states that don’t have Republican Governors involved yet? > I didn’t see any obvious ones in the OP’s article. Washington. Our Governor (prefers Democratic Party) and AG (prefers Republican Party) have been in a fairly public disagreement about Washington’ joining onto the case in the first place. [link](http://www.theolympian.com/2010/03/23/1181736/gregoire-mckenna-at-odds-over.html), [link](http://www.theolympian.com/2010/11/18/1444010/state-supreme-court-to-look-at.html#storylink=mirelated). It could be speculated that the AG had, until recently, been seen as reasonably centrist and that striking a more right wing stance may make it more likely that he’ll make it through to the general election should he choose to run for Governor. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/43 "2011-01-14T22:44:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No, it is a GREAT departure. With auto insurance, you opt-in. Don’t want to buy auto insurance? Easy, do buy a car. Not so with Obamacare, as it is now. You are forced to buy something—or pay a penalty for not doing so—simply because you are alive and in the U.S. > > Auto insurance and what we’re talking about here are universes apart. BUt it is telling that that is the example always offered up. It’s telling because there is NO example of the government ever doing this before. Unless you know of one. I’d love to hear it if you do. So can I opt out of medicare? And a bit more removed, can I opt out of paying that portion of taxes that goes to the military? It doesn’t matter is the government has done it before or not. The question is CAN the government do this. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/44 "2011-01-14T23:07:54Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > You are taxed a variety of ways. Those taxes pay for a great many things including things you may not use. I pay property taxes, a great deal of which goes to schools. I do not have kids. By your take I should be able to opt out. If I had kids you could call that an opt-in. (And everyone pays property taxes unless they live under a bridge in a box). No. You misunderstand my point. I think the government CAN do this under system of taxation. Whether we use or like all it provides is too bad. But this is operating outside the tax system, and I don’t think that is a good idea at all, or constitutional. This is a horrible idea in that it acts much like a tax, without the government having to raise the tax rate. It’s a slight of hand for them to extract more money but still argue that they haven’t raised taxes. And if they can do it for this, the door is wide open. Just look at how many taxes they gave us once they saw they could add them. This doesn’t mean that taxes are bad, but that we should easily be able to see how much of our money the government is asking us to hand over. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/45 "2011-01-14T23:11:58Z")
> [@villa](#): > > No really its not - having a car is pretty close to an absolute essential for many people. But I’m in a somewhat odd position because part of me hopes the bill is declared unconstitutional, and health care is then provided paid out of taxation. It’ll take a while, but happen eventually. But “pretty close to essential” is not the same as “essential”. There are millions and millions of people who choose to not own cars. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/46 "2011-01-14T23:16:29Z")
> [@villa](#): > > There’s definitely a difference, but it’s clear that the government requiring people to take part in economic activity is not without precedent. > > And while it is more attenuated is some ways, it is more direct in others. “You must sell your house to company X” is a more direct imposition than “you have to buy health insurance.” That’s true, but is specific to an individual, or a small group of individuals, based on specific criteria. The conditions for Obamacare are “you’re a U.S. citizen and your breathing”. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/47 "2011-01-14T23:46:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I certainly hope that these states are successful. I don’t see how the federal government, or a state for that matter, can force someone to buy something. Not to be snarky, but isn’t social security forcing the majority of the work force to effectively buy a retirement package? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/48 "2011-01-14T23:49:42Z")
I’m lost. Why is it unconstitutional (as opposed to merely a bad idea) for Congress to say, for example, that a citizen must buy a pair of gloves for the winter? Where does this thought come from that the government can’t force you to buy something? They can force pretty much everything else through law? They can force me to mow my grass. They can force me to feed my kids. They can force me to pay property tax on my primary home. Where does the constitution say that the government can’t force you to buy things? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2011, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/49 "2011-01-15T00:25:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s also a logical public policy extension of the law requiring hospitals to provide emergency care regardless of patients’ ability to pay. If you’re going to mandate that they do so, you also ought to mandate that a mechanism for reimbursement exists. Except for two minor things. 1. There is no such law. The [“Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act) applies only to ““participating hospitals”, i.e., those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.” Now, very few hospitals opt out of this, but the law is about funding, not about operations, per se. 2. No law can be “logically extended” to violate the constitution, and that’s what’s being asserted by the states. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Downtown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Mr\_Downtown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Downtown)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2011, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/50 "2011-01-15T03:23:04Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Where does the constitution say that the government can’t force you to buy things? Our constitution carefully distinguishes between **state** government, whose power is plenary, and the **federal** government, whose powers are only the ones enumerated in the constitution. Your state government could unquestionably force you to purchase health insurance, or gloves for the winter. Now Congress could set up a tax, and spend the proceeds for the General Welfare. That’s how Medicare and Social Security passed muster. But forcing individual citizens to do something is not one of the powers the states gave Congress. The Commerce Clause has pretty specific jurisprudence behind it, and limits have been reached a couple of times in recent years. Civil Rights-era cases such as Heart of Atlanta Motel or Daniel v. Paul made it seem like Congress’s power was unlimited, but read the constraints laid down more recently in _[Perez v. United States,](http://supreme.justia.com/us/402/146/)_ (1971), and [_U.S. v. Lopez_](http://supreme.justia.com/us/514/549/) (1995). It’s one thing for Congress to regulate economic activity, but something else entirely for Congress to require citizens to enter into an economic activity. Congress cannot disguise a police power—requiring citizens to do something rather than do nothing—as mere regulation of economic activity. This would obliterate the Section Eight limitations. The question now is whether Congress drafted this provision carefully enough that it can be considered part of the system of taxation. If not, does the line of cases including _[Wickard v. Filburn](http://supreme.justia.com/us/317/111/)_ (1942) allow regulation to extend as far as requiring a guy quietly sitting at home in his recliner to do something rather than do nothing? There are smart constitutional lawyers on both sides of this issue, but I think the Supreme Court will eventually find the mandate unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![R.P.McMurphy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@R.P.McMurphy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R.P.McMurphy)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2011, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/51 "2011-01-15T03:34:35Z")
> [@Smitty](#): > > Is the AG in your state a hereditary position? > > The AG is an elected official. He presumably wants to keep getting elected. So it definitely does say something about the desires of a state’s citizenry for a state’s AG to take this position. The AG knows damn well that if he plays the game he can always trade in his shitty low paid job as an AG for cushy high paid job in the insurance industry. The AG didn’t get there by being stupid although the AG might be greedy and without scruples. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2011, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/52 "2011-01-15T08:12:30Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Not to be snarky, but isn’t social security forcing the majority of the work force to effectively buy a retirement package? It’s supposedly your money. This is the best argument I think there is, but it still fails, as you have to exchange your money for a good (service). **jtgain** , the constitution is very specific in the powers residing at the federal level. And those that are not specifically listed reside with the states. So, if the question is, “can a state do this?”, I think they’d be on much firmer ground. Not solid, mind you, but firmer. It’s still a bad idea, in my opinion, but at least we’d have 50 experiments going on. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2011, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/53 "2011-01-15T08:24:39Z")
> [@R.P.McMurphy](#): > > The AG knows damn well that if he plays the game he can always trade in his shitty low paid job as an AG for cushy high paid job in the insurance industry. The AG didn’t get there by being stupid although the AG might be greedy and without scruples. Cuccinelli (one of the most notorious AGs regarding this issue) is the perfect example of an AG being greedy and without scruples, although I can not exclude stupidity. > **[Cuccinelli vs Science](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=561999)** > > Honestly, the guy so blantantly pits himself that there’s little left to say. Cucinelli, the rabidly right-wing new Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, has now attacked a scientist in an attempt to smear Global Warming research. From... ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2011, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/54 "2011-01-15T09:41:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In that case, AG Buddy Caldwell of Louisiana is a Democrat, as is Jim Hood of Mississippi and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada. > > And although the current Arizona is AG is Republican Tom Horne, the lawsuit was started when Democrat Terry Goddard was the AG of Arizona. Same situation with Thurbert Baker of Georgia, who initiated the lawsuit before losing the job to Republican Sam Olens. > > So five of the AGs (all separately elected) that joined the multi-state lawsuit were Democrats. Only one of them joined the lawsuit (Buddy Caldwell of Louisiana). The other four refused and were overruled in some way by the governor. > **[Las Vegas News | Breaking News & Headlines | Las Vegas Review-Journal](https://www.reviewjournal.com)** > > The Las Vegas Review-Journal is Nevada's most trusted source for local news, Las Vegas sports, business news, gaming news, entertainment news and more. > **[IDBET - Situs Slot Gacor Hari Ini Link SLOT88 Resmi Gampang Menang](https://www.wulfandlamb.com/locations/)** > > IDBET adalah situs slot gacor hari ini dengan link SLOT88 resmi gampang menang, menghadirkan game slot populer RTP tinggi, bonus harian menarik, deposit mudah, serta layanan customer service profesional 24 jam nonstop, memberikan pengalaman bermain... [http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/226631-georgia-governor-circumvents-ag-to-join-health-care-lawsuit](http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/226631-georgia-governor-circumvents-ag-to-join-health-care-lawsuit) [http://news.ino.com/headlines/?newsid=689698074790790](http://news.ino.com/headlines/?newsid=689698074790790) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2011, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/55 "2011-01-19T14:22:10Z")
Total number of states now suing is 28: Alabama Alaska Arizona Colorado Florida Georgia Idaho Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisania Maine Michigan Mississippi Nebraska Nevada North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania South Carolina South dakota Texas Utah Virginia Washington Wisconsin Wyoming **Lord Feldon** – your correction is noted. In turn, I’d add Greg Phillips of Wyoming, a Democrat who was not forced into the action. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2011, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/56 "2011-01-19T14:42:08Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > OK, show of hands: Who here even knows who your state AG is? I imagine that most politically-active people know at least something about their senators and representatives, and put at least a little thought into who of those folks they’re going to vote for, but AGs get much less publicity. So it seems to me to be much more significant, and more reflective of the will of the people, that a majority (supermajority, even) of senators voted for the bill than that a majority of AGs oppose it. I don’t know about people in other states, but because governors in Virginia cannot run for reelection people do know who the Attorney General is. As a statewide elected official this politician is well suited to run another statewide campaign for the governor’s mansion, and is always mentioned along with the Lieutenant Governor as a potential candidate. Of our recent AGs McDonnell, Kilgore, Earley, Gilmore and Terry have run for governor and McDonnell and Gilmore have won their races. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2011, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/57 "2011-01-19T18:07:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Total number of states now suing is 28: > > **Lord Feldon** – your correction is noted. In turn, I’d add Greg Phillips of Wyoming, a Democrat who was not forced into the action. 6 more and we can get an Article V Constitutional Convention ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2011, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/58 "2011-01-19T18:16:19Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > 6 more and we can get an Article V Constitutional Convention You are certain this challenge has been moved by “the legislatures of … the several states” rather than the Attorneys General? Is it your impression that even if the state legislatures of all of these states are opposed to the health care reform bill, they are willing to alter the constitution over it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2011, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/59 "2011-01-19T18:36:15Z")
> [@villa](#): > > You are certain this challenge has been moved by “the legislatures of … the several states” rather than the Attorneys General? Is it your impression that even if the state legislatures of all of these states are opposed to the health care reform bill, they are willing to alter the constitution over it? I think that’s premature (not that you asked me). The position of the 28 states is that the legislation is _already_ violative of the Constitution. Whether they’d be willing to change the Constitution over such a thing if the courts disagree is a completely untested proposition. ---
**Author:** ![YamatoTwinkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/cc9497/32.png) [@YamatoTwinkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YamatoTwinkie)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2011, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/60 "2011-01-19T18:44:14Z")
Couldn’t the federal government conceivably raise income taxes on all individuals and then offer a deduction for all individuals who buy private insurance, to accomplish the exact same net result as the “penalty”? Take the home-loan interest deduction, for example. Isn’t the government forcing everyone to take out a home loan from a private company or pay a penalty? Is there any difference other than the bookkeeping required? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588.md?page=4)