http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/22/health-care-face-string-legal-challenges/
Several State Attorney Generals are trying to test the Constitutionality of this bill, with certain states getting preforential treatment over other states.
“This thing might be still born even if it passes.”
No matter what happens, at least they are fighting to the bitter end.
Constititionality? That’s just a relic of the past. An interesting concept, that rule-by-law thing.
Another nice feature that the party in control put in their bill is that any state that enacts tort reform – or more specifically, caps either malpractice awards or malpractice attorneys’ fees – will have Federal health care money cut off.
While the citizens of that state, of course, will continue to have to pay in.
If I was a Blue Dog Democrat, once the two bills are combined, I would hold out until I got a great deal for my state. We are going to see more of this in the coming months.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Another nice feature that the party in control put in their bill is that any state that enacts tort reform – or more specifically, caps either malpractice awards or malpractice attorneys’ fees – will have Federal health care money cut off.
While the citizens of that state, of course, will continue to have to pay in.[/quote]
do you have a sourse for this? I am collecting “interesting” tidbits for this wonderful bill. Was it the sentate bill or the house bill?
I apologize. I heard Boortz say that this was on page such-and-such of the bill (perhaps 1340, but certainly 1300-something or 1400-something) but he rapidly moved to another topic.
When I went to his site to see where he obtained it, I learned that Neal is on vacation today. It was a re-run of his show, which is something that almost never happens on weekdays (ordinarily there would be a guest host if he is not there.)
So this must have been the House bill.
I was wrong.
All I have is this article link in the Denver Post about it.
and yes it is in the senate bill.
Well, I was still wrong in my basis.
The fact that it is in the Senate bill as well shows a lot about where the priorities really were for this bill.
The actual things that could considerably reduce health costs – elimination of government prevention of insurance competition across state lines, elimination of numerous government mandates for coverage that many people do not want or need but are now forced to contribute towards, and tort reform – are not only not in this 2700 page bill, but the desire of the political party in power was to strong-arm the states into NOT enacting any tort reform.
Trial lawyers are big, big, big DNC contributors, you see.