Debate: Health Care Suits Waste of Time and Money
Updated: 1 hour 36 minutes ago
Print Text Size
E-mail More

Jack Conway

(April 5) -- "My copy of the Constitution doesn't have an individual right not to be insured. If you don't sign up for insurance, then you're going to be some kind of drag on the system."


Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway opposes a constitutional challenge to the new federal health care law.
Those aren't my words. They are the words of Charles Fried, former U.S. solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan and now a Harvard constitutional law professor. They are also the sentiments of most constitutional law experts who have examined the question of the constitutionality of the new health care reform legislation.

As the chief legal officer for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, it is my duty to look at the merits of any case and provide sound legal advice and representation. After careful review and consideration, I have rejected a request from Republicans in the Kentucky House and Senate to join a legal constitutional challenge of the recently passed federal health care reform law, which will provide access to affordable health care for more than 650,000 Kentuckians who are currently without health insurance.

While the lawsuits filed by other state attorneys general to block this new law may make for good Sarah Palin-style "tea party" politics, they are based on questionable legal principles. At a time when the Commonwealth of Kentucky is cutting its budget for education and social services, I will not waste taxpayer resources on a political stunt.

________________________

OPPOSING VIEW

We are confident that the courts will say Congress exceeded its authority and declare the health care law unconstitutional and invalid, says Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum.

________________________
Unfortunately, this rush to the courthouse is nothing new. Historically, opponents of reform have turned to the courts when major legislation with which they disagree is enacted by the Congress. Challenges were brought to the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. All of those laws were upheld.

Advocates of these meritless lawsuits advance three primary claims: 1) the individual requirement is unconstitutional; 2) the requirement upon the states is "commandeering" in violation of the 10th Amendment; and 3) it results in an unfunded mandate through Medicaid to the states. These rhetorical arguments are without merit.

First, decades of constitutional jurisprudence regarding the Commerce Clause uphold Congress' authority to effectively regulate health care and the health insurance systems in this country. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that authority as recently as 2005.

In fact, the arguments being espoused by some Republicans against the health care bill would jeopardize the entire Social Security system, including the monthly benefit checks that nearly 845,000 senior citizens and disabled people in Kentucky depend on for their basic needs. Congress clearly has the explicit constitutional authority to enact measures for the "general welfare."

Second, the "commandeering" claim is pure rhetoric. States are not forced to act; they choose whether or not to set up these health care insurance "exchanges." If states decide not to form exchanges, the federal Health and Human Services department will set up exchanges for them. Thus, there is no merit to this fearful commandeering claim.

Finally, the claim that this new law will cost Kentucky and other states millions of dollars in unfunded Medicaid mandates is rhetoric based on fear, not reality. Under the federal bill, Medicaid continues to be a voluntary, not mandatory, program, with the federal government matching a percentage of contributions made by the state. To the degree that the federal matching terms are more generous, the bill will benefit Kentucky, and other states, when the law is phased in after 2014.

Based on these facts and the law, during the worst economic crisis in a generation, I will not misuse the resources or power of my office to pursue litigation that is without merit. While this may make for good "tea party" politics, it makes for a lousy lawsuit.

Jack Conway is the attorney general for the state of Kentucky.
http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/debate-health-care-lawsuit-is-a-waste-of-time-and-money/19424407

I agree. A big waste of money and time.

thanks for at least giving both sides,, I agree its a waste of time but at least others have the opportunity to agree with the other side(knowing what that is,,,)

based on the facts your proably wrong you haven't considered the supreame court being a republicain court ..

It would appear you have YOUR facts twisted 'cashu'.

There is absolutely no basis in law for the judicial challenge. It would matter very little that all Supreme Court Justices were on GOP payroll (which isn't the case anyway).

Not a speck of solid argument to be made for this empty challenge in Constitutional Law.

The only ill guided motive to push with this wasteful diversion, is POLITICAL.

It is about 'POWER-LOST', and the greed of conscience-less politicians whom will go to extreme ends it is clear, to get their 'touches' back on the throne.

The 'health-bill-scare' is simply the ticket they are using on their way to the 'Power Terminal'.

Nothing to do with serving the people. Obama has already done that by ensuring every US citizen with the most basic of Free World dignities, of not having to die in the streets, or declare bankruptcy due to illness!!!

'DeathCare' WILL be repealed. Don't like that thought? Tough.

Exactly it sides with Republican's on a 5-4 majority. This bill is done once it hits it.

I don't think it's a waste of time. The Constitutionality of it all has to be delineated once and for all

no more than roe v wade

or no more than brown v board of education was a waste of time




although the cherokee nation v state of georgia might have been a waste of time

It's the principal of the matter.

Actually it is more similar to the Social Security act that went to court.

It wasn't overturned either.

And neither will the healthcare law.

But I know the racists, government haters, nonsensical tea baggers, and the people who don't understand that they are being lead astray by the above have to have their day in court.

But it is a waste of time and money to do it.

" ... But I know the racists, government haters, nonsensical tea baggers, and the people who don't understand that they are being lead astray by the above have to have their day in court. ... "

Gee. How predictable. A perfect example of a good little libwhack resorting to foam-at-the-mouth tactics and namecalling when they can't get it 'their way'. HEY! You already have your boy (you know, the one wearing the short pants while he plays 'president') in the Big Boy chair ... be happy, 'cuz he's gonna be a one-termer ... and don't be surprised if he's not impeached by his own (ahem) 'party' for incompetence and malfeasance in office. I'd add treason to the list, but the 'craps wouldn't play dat ...

I am not a liberal so I guess that doesn't apply to me.

Too bad it is still true though.

Oh please. Thou dost protest too much ...

Agreed, but the Healthcare bill is much of the same.

I predict several outcomes from this bill.

Almost everyone will be insured.

Taxes will drastically increase.

Nurses, doctors, and other healthcare staff will end up taking a pay cut.

But hey, only time will tell right? I have a hard time believing that it will cause our healthcare to get any more efficient. In fact, anything the government seems to get their hands on seems to get bombarded in red tape, and politics.

JMO

Anyhow, back to work.

Exactly. It's a shame because I have not seen one post by that person that doesn't involve name calling or personal attacks.

It's what they do when they are in fear. Many realize that this will be appealed up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has more Conservative Justices so it will strike down the law, and it makes the Liberals so mad that they resort to the last thing they can do, name calling and personal attacks that grade school kids do.

Not to mention that it might not make it to the Supreme Court being there are a ton of candidates running for office and a ton already in that promise to repel the law. So im not worried.

The history of this country is that the supreme court does change there thinking and trends with the political winds .read a book .

IT WAS BECAUSE THE CHIEF AT THE TIME SIGNED THE AGREEMENT TO GO TO OK. ALTHOUGH HE PAID A HIGH PRICE FOR HIS DECIDSION . HIS TRIABL MEMBERS SHOT AND KILLED HIM .
WHAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND IS IF OUR PRESIDENT MADE A TREATY WITH SOMEONE TO DO THE SAME THING WE COULDN'T DO MUCH ABOUT IT EITHER .
YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT YOUR THINK . OBAMA SEEMS TO HAVE HIS FEET ON THE GROUND I MAY NOT AGREE WITH ALL HE DOES BUT THERE IS NO ONE THAT I AGREE WITH COMPLETLY .