Gov. Pawlenty sent a letter to Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson requesting she review the legality of the federal health care bill.
Several Republican state attorneys general have said that they will file lawsuits blocking the implementation of the federal health care bill. Pawlenty, wants Swanson, a Democrat, to also consider a lawsuit.
Specifically, Pawlenty raised questions over the legality of requiring individuals to buy health insurance:
"The legislation passed by Congress requires individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. Such a sweeping federal mandate has never before been enacted," Pawlenty wrote.
I called Swanson's office but haven't head back yet. Swanson's spokesman Ben Wogsland didn't call me back but issued a brief statement:
The legislation in question still has to be signed by the President and reconciliation has yet to be passed by the Senate. The individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014. Our Office has not yet read and analyzed the 2,400 page bill that passed the House yesterday. The Attorney General's Office operates in the legal arena and we are not going to make any legal comments until we have had the opportunity to review the 2,400 page bill.
Update: One important point - Pawlenty is making this as a request and can't compel Swanson to take action since the two are separately elected constitutional officers
MPR talked with several constitutional lawyers in January to see whether the mandate is unconstitutional. You can read that story here.
What a waste of time! This is all political grandstanding with zero future in the court system.
If MN sues the feds for forcing citizens to buy health insurance how long do you think it will be before a MN citizen sues MN for forcing them to buy auto insurance? What goes around comes around...
First and Foremost Driving is not a right, it a privilege. You don't have the right to drive, it can be taken away from you.
Second, If you do not drive you are not FORCED to buy insurance. If you drive, which is a right, they have the option of forcing you to have insurance while driving on state owned roads. You do not need insurance if you are driving on private property.
Agreed. Poor Tim.... keeps his name in the national news, I suppose.
Considering that Swanson had this essay posted on her campaign website for six months (although she seems to have taken it down for some reason) I wouldn't be counting on too much if I were Timmy.
Of course, I guess AFSCME could talk about Swanson's commitment to campaign promises...
Nice work, Tim. You try to slash health care and arts funding, yet you want to pull a self-aggrandizing stunt like this, presumably to groom yourself for future national office. How does this benefit the state? At best it is a frivolous waste of government time and taxpayers' money; at worst it is malfeasance in your role as a public official.
So what. Either way the state requires you to purchase insurance. Where you drive your car doesn't matter unless you want to suggest that if you never leave your house you shouldn't have to have health insurance.
And the privilege/right concept in equally off track. It does't matter how you classify driving the situation is that the state requires you to have the insurance.
Thank you for explicating for us on the concept of driving, but the end result is that state still requires you to purchase insurance. Your argument is only applicable if you want to suggest there should be an exemption from buying insurance if you never leave your private property.
The essential issue is that there is precedent for government forcing citizens to purchase goods/services whether they want to or not.
In the end imposing a fine for those that do not have health insurance helps all of us. Right now there are people that do not have health coverage and go the ER for help because they know they will not be turned away. If they had health coverage to begin with they may not have needed to go to the ER. Since they have gone to the hospital with out insurance the hospital eats the majority of the expense. This in turn raises the charges the hospital impose affecting what the insurance has to pay and low and behold your rates go up. It is the trickle down affect. So if everyone has insurance than there can be an opportunity to have reasonable rates of health coverage possible giving you a bit more money to spend on you. Yes......the govenor if grand standing because everyone knows he will be trying to run for president in 2012. Good Luck, Govenor!
I have one word for Pawlenty ... MEDICARE
Medicare IS insurance that the government forces us to “buy” via FICA. Even though we may never want to use Medicare - we are still forced to “buy” Medicare via FICA.
IF: any person refuses to pay their share of FICA
THEN: The IRS does, in deed, impose a penalty & interest on the person ... and if the person continues to refuse to pay their share of FICA they are jailed.
Pawlenty is USING our tax dollars to FUNDRAISE for himself.
I think states should sue the federal government for requiring all children to be educated, because "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying" educations, and is also certain that forcing educations on everyone has brought us dangerously close to socialism.
Get my drift Chris?
To all the bitter and upset opposers, As a Republican leader once famously said: "Elections have consequences."
It should be noted that the moneys collected for Medicare and Social Security are not fees for mandatory insurance policies, but rather taxes collected from employees and employers only. They are not universal. And they do not require the persons to enter into a contract with a private firm.
A constitutional challenge may be brought because:
(1) Never in the history of our country has the government required its citizens to buy anything.
(2) Only the states (arguably) could have such power, because such powers are granted to the states and individuals that are not explicitly given to the federal governmant.
Did You All Read The Bill???
So there are some good things about the bill,,thats not the problem, how are we going to pay for it? It does not cover everybody..Illegals will be made legal to get the Ins. Funding for abortion???
Here r some other issues..JUDGE KITHIL wrote:
"I have reviewed selected sections of the bill, and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements."
"Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of both Social Security and Medicare programs."
"I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there."
JUDGE KITHIL continued: "Other problems I have with
this bill include:
** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.
** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).
** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)
** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.
** Page 272.! section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.
** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling.)
** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:
"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."
Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls , Texas
All of the above should give you the point blank ammo you need to support your opposition to Obamacare. Please send this information on to all of your email contacts.