See what Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff says....

[freedomforall]

SHURTLEFF SAYS FEDS' MOVE TO DISMISS HEALTH CARE REFORM LAWSUIT WON'T WORK
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said today he is confident a lawsuit challenging the federal health care reform act will prevail. Shurtleff’s statements comes shortly after the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the constitutional challenge brought by Utah and 19 other states, the National Federation of Independent Business and individuals affected by the act.

“The Justice Department’s motion contradicts public statements made by the President and legislators on what the health care reform act is all about,” says Shurtleff. “We will press forward against an act that violates the U.S. Constitution and takes away the rights of the states and individual citizens.”

The lawsuit was filed on March 23 with 13 original state plaintiffs and was amended on May 14, 2010 to add 7 additional states and the National Federation of Independent Business, as well as two individual plaintiffs. The complaint alleges the new law infringes upon the constitutional rights of individuals by mandating all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage or pay a tax penalty. By imposing such a mandate, the law exceeds the powers of the United States under Article I of the Constitution. The tax penalty also required under the law constitutes an unlawful direct tax in violation of Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution.

The lawsuit further claims the health care reform law infringes on the sovereignty of the states and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution by imposing onerous new operating rules that Utah must follow. The acts also requires Utah to spend billions of additional dollars without providing funds or resources to meet the state's cost of implementing the law.

###

[BroJones]

SHURTLEFF SAYS FEDS' MOVE TO DISMISS HEALTH CARE REFORM LAWSUIT WON'T WORK
[snip] The complaint alleges the new law infringes upon the constitutional rights of individuals by mandating all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage or pay a tax penalty. By imposing such a mandate, the law exceeds the powers of the United States under Article I of the Constitution. The tax penalty also required under the law constitutes an unlawful direct tax in violation of Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution.

The lawsuit further claims the health care reform law infringes on the sovereignty of the states and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution by imposing onerous new operating rules that Utah must follow. The acts also requires Utah to spend billions of additional dollars without providing funds or resources to meet the state's cost of implementing the law.

###

I do like the appeal to the Constitution. Do you have a reference/link for this quote freedomfighter? thanks.

[freedomforall]

SHURTLEFF SAYS FEDS' MOVE TO DISMISS HEALTH CARE REFORM LAWSUIT WON'T WORK
[snip] The complaint alleges the new law infringes upon the constitutional rights of individuals by mandating all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage or pay a tax penalty. By imposing such a mandate, the law exceeds the powers of the United States under Article I of the Constitution. The tax penalty also required under the law constitutes an unlawful direct tax in violation of Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution.

The lawsuit further claims the health care reform law infringes on the sovereignty of the states and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution by imposing onerous new operating rules that Utah must follow. The acts also requires Utah to spend billions of additional dollars without providing funds or resources to meet the state's cost of implementing the law.

###

I do like the appeal to the Constitution. Do you have a reference/link for this quote freedomfighter? thanks.

http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/my_mission.html

[assetprotection]

Oh I know the story, the state is led by a group of mainly Republican state attorneys general, say it is wrong to force an individual to purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual penalty.but just to think that "The provision will not take effect until 2014, and it is entirely speculative whether the individual plaintiffs will be injured," the motion says, adding the states do not have standing to challenge the mandate. #:-s

Codey of http://assetprotectionlawyer.co/

[freedomforall]

http://www.attorneygeneral.utah.gov/cms ... -31-11.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. ...Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. (Act = Healthcare Reform)


http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/05/cnr.02.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Will Tuesday Settle Presidential Nominations?; Presidential Candidates and Their Health Care Plans
Aired February 5, 2008 - 09:00 ET

[gkearney]

This is all very interesting to watch from afar and from a nation with national health care to boot. My question is this if not this health plan then what? What is the alternative that is being presented? My understanding is that the U.S. has a very large number of uninsured people and should you be one of those and illness or injury befall you you can be wiped out finically by the costs.

It would seem unwise to have large numbers of uninsured people both from their perspective and from the perspective of the public having to pick up their bills when they can not pay to say noting of the public health issues it raises. Is it not a form of theft to expect those who do have insurance to pay the bills of those who do not? Which is what I understand is happening now.

So if Obama's system of having everyone buy insurance is not the answer, and the U.S. seems unwilling or unable to have a single payer system like we do here, then just what is the solution to your health care issue there? What alternative, short of letting the uninsured just die, is there?

An interesting side note to this, when I travel to the U.S. my travel medical coverage is almost 5 times the rate of traveling to Canada, the UK or Europe.

[Shimdidly]

This is all very interesting to watch from afar and from a nation with national health care to boot. My question is this if not this health plan then what? What is the alternative that is being presented? My understanding is that the U.S. has a very large number of uninsured people and should you be one of those and illness or injury befall you you can be wiped out finically by the costs.

It would seem unwise to have large numbers of uninsured people both from their perspective and from the perspective of the public having to pick up their bills when they can not pay to say noting of the public health issues it raises. Is it not a form of theft to expect those who do have insurance to pay the bills of those who do not? Which is what I understand is happening now.

So if Obama's system of having everyone buy insurance is not the answer, and the U.S. seems unwilling or unable to have a single payer system like we do here, then just what is the solution to your health care issue there? What alternative, short of letting the uninsured just die, is there?

An interesting side note to this, when I travel to the U.S. my travel medical coverage is almost 5 times the rate of traveling to Canada, the UK or Europe.

I was talking to my bishop who is a doctor, and he told me that doctors were just barely middle class before Medicare was enacted. Prices were quite affordable for the average person without insurance. Shortly afterwards, prices skyrocketed. Simply put: Government intervention was the problem from the very beginning. Health care is NOT a right because you cannot justly force a man to do a service for another man.

The solution is simple: Get government completely out of health care and leave it to the free market.

People are so accustomed to government doing their thinking for them, that they are terrified to use their own good judgment for their own well-being.

[Tribunal]

This is all very interesting to watch from afar and from a nation with national health care to boot. My question is this if not this health plan then what? What is the alternative that is being presented? My understanding is that the U.S. has a very large number of uninsured people and should you be one of those and illness or injury befall you you can be wiped out finically by the costs.

It would seem unwise to have large numbers of uninsured people both from their perspective and from the perspective of the public having to pick up their bills when they can not pay to say noting of the public health issues it raises. Is it not a form of theft to expect those who do have insurance to pay the bills of those who do not? Which is what I understand is happening now.

So if Obama's system of having everyone buy insurance is not the answer, and the U.S. seems unwilling or unable to have a single payer system like we do here, then just what is the solution to your health care issue there? What alternative, short of letting the uninsured just die, is there?

An interesting side note to this, when I travel to the U.S. my travel medical coverage is almost 5 times the rate of traveling to Canada, the UK or Europe.

I was talking to my bishop who is a doctor, and he told me that doctors were just barely middle class before Medicare was enacted. Prices were quite affordable for the average person without insurance. Shortly afterwards, prices skyrocketed. Simply put: Government intervention was the problem from the very beginning. Health care is NOT a right because you cannot justly force a man to do a service for another man.

The solution is simple: Get government completely out of health care and leave it to the free market.

People are so accustomed to government doing their thinking for them, that they are terrified to use their own good judgment for their own well-being.

Right on the mark!! God bless you Shimdidly. I wish more people had an understanding of rights, contracts, and guarantees provided by government. Sadly, much of the population is ignorant.

[gkearney]

While it is an interesting idea that one could simple expel government from the U.S. healthcare system I suspect it is not really a realistic option. I have not heard either ruling U.S. political party suggest such a course of action. I often read such unrealistic ideas talked about here. Given that reality what are the serious implementable alternatives to the Obama health care plan that was passed? Simply saying I don't like it but offering nothing to address the underling problem that could really be implemented does not strike me as reasonable political discourse?

The whole matter is indeed very complex and has international issues as well. The United States does not exist in a vacuum. Actions taken by other nations have a direct impact on U.S. citizens and the prices they pay. Take for example the price of pharmaceuticals in the U.S. and abroad. Australia, like Canada, has a single national buyer of pharmaceuticals. Because there is but one buyer that buyer can set the price it will pay the drug companies for their product.

Now you say what if a drug company refuses to sell a drug at the specified price to Australia. While that approach might work in a third world nation with no domestic pharmaceuticals industry, but it fails in developed nations like Australia and Canada who will simply strip the paten protection for the drug and permit domestic production. This has happened a few time here. The pharmaceutical companies will do almost anything protect the patent including selling the drug a what ever price the national health plan sets. This is why pharmaceuticals sold in Canada cost less than the same drug sold in the U.S.

The problem here is that U.S. consumers of pharmaceuticals are, in effect, subsidising the cost of drugs sold world wide as most developed nations have national health plans that buy drugs at the prices the plans dictate. The fact that these plans are agents of sovereign governments gives then great power to manipulate the price of pharmaceuticals, by means of the patents, not only in their own nations but in the U.S. as well. Driving down their costs while driving up the costs in the United States.

As this demonstrates an action taken by others has a direct consequence in the United States. The world is a complex place. I have never, ever heard any Australian, member of the church or not, ever suggest that we dismantle our nation health scheme. I travel quite a bit on business and have never heard church members in Canada, Sweden, France or Japan suggest such a thing either. So long as these systems exist in some nations the impact of their will continue in the United States.

It is interesting that doctors in Australia while making a good middle class living do not become millionaires as a rule. Of course they do not have college cost to pay off and if your a smart young person out of secondary school you go directly into medical school to become a doctor.

[freedomforall]

This is all very interesting to watch from afar and from a nation with national health care to boot. My question is this if not this health plan then what? What is the alternative that is being presented? My understanding is that the U.S. has a very large number of uninsured people and should you be one of those and illness or injury befall you you can be wiped out finically by the costs.

It would seem unwise to have large numbers of uninsured people both from their perspective and from the perspective of the public having to pick up their bills when they can not pay to say noting of the public health issues it raises. Is it not a form of theft to expect those who do have insurance to pay the bills of those who do not? Which is what I understand is happening now.

So if Obama's system of having everyone buy insurance is not the answer, and the U.S. seems unwilling or unable to have a single payer system like we do here, then just what is the solution to your health care issue there? What alternative, short of letting the uninsured just die, is there?

An interesting side note to this, when I travel to the U.S. my travel medical coverage is almost 5 times the rate of traveling to Canada, the UK or Europe.

I was talking to my bishop who is a doctor, and he told me that doctors were just barely middle class before Medicare was enacted. Prices were quite affordable for the average person without insurance. Shortly afterwards, prices skyrocketed. Simply put: Government intervention was the problem from the very beginning. Health care is NOT a right because you cannot justly force a man to do a service for another man.

The solution is simple: Get government completely out of health care and leave it to the free market.

People are so accustomed to government doing their thinking for them, that they are terrified to use their own good judgment for their own well-being.

Well said. :ymapplause:

[freedomforall]

Something not brought out here is this. There are, in the Bill, things that government have thrown in with the healthcare reform that will impact the public in adverse ways. For instance, gun ownership. If an insurance application form has a question on it like "Do you own a gun" this is simply a way to be refused insurance because if a person has mental issues, he would be deemed a threat to society because he owns a gun. This would further threaten gun ownership because now people with mental issues owning guns are a threat...so government says "let's confiscate them." Where would it stop once it started?

Secondly, penalizing someone by fining them because they don't have money to buy insurance is unconstitutional.

Listen to this. It has been posted before, but is worthy of hearing over and over again until we get it.

[HeirofNumenor]

It is interesting that doctors in Australia while making a good middle class living do not become millionaires as a rule. Of course they do not have college cost to pay off and if your a smart young person out of secondary school you go directly into medical school to become a doctor.

You also probably do not have a massive malpractice litigation problem either...

[gkearney]

No we don't have much in the way of malpractice litigation here. It has to be something very very bad before people can litigate.

Greg

[Tribunal]

No we don't have much in the way of malpractice litigation here. It has to be something very very bad before people can litigate.

Greg

No malpractice? How does it work their?

[freedomforall]

I've either seen or heard of Dr. Quack in many towns I have ever been in here in the states.
But what I like is this: in a free society there are doctors that will do services pro-bono. What I don't like is what this country is headed for: a socialistic society where the government embezzles money from the rich to give to the poor as well as fineing people that cannot afford insurance. In short, the government striving to get people to become more and more dependant on government for survival. Once this happens the government will have everyone in their grasp to do with as they wish, without any resistence from those trapped, sucked in by lies and deceit.

America, Wake Up!! :-s :-s :-s

[HeirofNumenor]

I was talking to my bishop who is a doctor, and he told me that doctors were just barely middle class before Medicare was enacted. Prices were quite affordable for the average person without insurance. Shortly afterwards, prices skyrocketed. Simply put: Government intervention was the problem from the very beginning.

Actually what bgan sharply driving upwards of medical bills was an different goverment action: wage freezes during World War 2. With so many men off to war, not only did factories have to hire women to get the work done (Rosie the Riveter), but if they wanted to attract skilled experienced workers, they needed to offer incentives. Forbidden by the US government from offering higher pay during the war, factories began offering medical insurance as part of their compensation package. Dental insurance wasn't too far behind. Followd by vision policies. From that time forth, medical/dental coverage was treated as expected, and became the desired goal. Get a good full time job so you could get medical & dental. Why? Because halth costs shot upwards in the decades following World War 2 - predominately bcause more money was in the system to pay for it.

Same reason why increases in Federal Pell Grants go up to match the rising cost of college tuition - the next year, college tuition goes up again - because there is more money coming into the system from outside. More people want it and can pay for it...raise the price until demand tapers off to a stable level. Supply & Demand 101.

Government actions affect everything.

[gkearney]

No we don't have much in the way of malpractice litigation here. It has to be something very very bad before people can litigate.

Greg

No malpractice? How does it work their?

It not like there is no provision for medical malpractice in Australia it just that such cases are very rare. Generally restricted to cases of serious misconduct by a doctor. Civil litigation is much less common here than in the U.S. in general.

Greg

[HeirofNumenor]

Civil litigation is much less common here than in the U.S. in general.

That must be nice....

Must be a lot less lawyers there than here...

In 1997, California had some 10,000+ attorneys for a population of 38 million. That's a lot of ambulance chasers and I am sure than number has gone up...

Alma 11
1 Now it was in the law of Mosiah that every man who was a judge of the law, or those who were appointed to be judges, should receive wages according to the time which they labored to judge those who were brought before them to be judged.

2 Now if a man owed another, and he would not pay that which he did owe, he was complained of to the judge; and the judge executed authority, and sent forth officers that the man should be brought before him; and he judged the man according to the law and the evidences which were brought against him, and thus the man was compelled to pay that which he owed, or be stripped, or be cast out from among the people as a thief and a robber.

3 And the judge received for his wages according to his time...

20 Now, it was for the sole purpose to get gain, because they received their wages according to their employ, therefore, they did stir up the people to riotings, and all manner of disturbances and wickedness, that they might have more employ, that they might get money according to the suits which were brought before them; therefore they did stir up the people against Alma and Amulek.