By FITSNews || Five additional states have joined a lawsuit that would block the implementation of “Obamacare,” bringing the total number of states suing over the nation’s new socialized medicine law to eighteen.
Attorneys General for Arizona, Indiana, Mississippi, Nevada, and North Dakota announced this week that their states are joining the lawsuit filed on March 23 by Attorneys General for Alabama, Colorado Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
That suit was filed seven minutes after President Barack Obama signed the legislation – literally before the ink was even dry. At its heart, the complaint alleges that the new law is unconstitutional because it would force Americans to enter into agreements with private companies to purchase insurance or else face fines of up to 2.5 percent of their annual income.
Additional fines would be placed on employers – who are being subjected to massive tax hikes to pay for the law’s new subsidies.
Obviously, the government already mandates all sorts of insurance – including car insurance – but the difference is that there’s no law that forces a private citizen to buy a car.
In addition to the lawsuit, efforts are underway at the state level – including here in South Carolina – to block key provisions of the bill. Also, the repeal of Obamacare has emerged as a litmus test issue for voters in many Congressional campaigns.
Polls have shown that a majority of Americans favor repealing the legislation – numbers which haven’t budged since it was passed. In fact, according to the latest data from Rasmussen Reports, 54 percent of the nation’s likely voters remain in favor of repealing the legislation (including 43 percent who strongly favor repeal). Only 42 percent oppose repeal.
Those numbers are virtually identical to Rasmussen polls taken last week as well as immediately following the passage of the legislation.
WEB EXTRA
Rasmussen Reports Health Care Poll
By really???? April 9, 2010 at 1:55 pm
hmmm. I am familiar with the +/- 3 percent but what does 95% confidence mean?
By Old Bike Dude April 9, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Why has no one stepped forward to repeal those death panels?
By JKHamlin April 9, 2010 at 10:24 pm
95% confidence means that the numbers show that there is at least a 95% probability that the true number lies between that +/- 3%.
By Pat Hendrix April 11, 2010 at 5:47 am
Activist judges! I love the consistency.
In any event, Rasmussen polls are hilarious. Tell President McCain and the Republican majority that Scott Rasmussen is the polling equivalent of Fox News – a false reality. Really, you fuckwits, the Dems are pathetic, try creating a real agenda and winning elections. If you toss out these teabagging morons (“tell the gov’t to keep their hands off my medicare!”), you can own the agenda. Think sanity. America is waiting for a grown up party.
By MOHANNA April 11, 2010 at 9:35 am
People who believe and work for this particular fantasy are as dumb as dirt. Why would anyone pick a fight they’ve already lost. Your party would be better served if you got ahead of the curve. Action rather than reaction will win the day.
By BC April 11, 2010 at 10:54 am
This is an interesting turn of events, because passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 saw similar lawsuits by mostly southern states. How did that turn out again? Oh, yeah!
By jerry April 11, 2010 at 1:12 pm
I’m sure that a lot of Obama zombies are very proud that taxpayers will be paying for the erectile dysfunction meds for child molesters and rapists…
Really, seriously though, why didn’t Obama use his line-item veto powers to prevent our hard-earned money to pay for the erections of child molesters and rapists?
Does Obama really need the votes of child molesters and rapists that badly?
By Steve Fuller April 11, 2010 at 2:14 pm
“Obviously, the government already mandates all sorts of insurance – including car insurance – but the difference is that there’s no law that forces a private citizen to buy a car”
You are missing an important point regarding the constitution. It is STATE governments that mandate insurance, not the Federal government. Rights not specifically enumerated are reserved to the states.
By Herbert Harvey April 11, 2010 at 4:21 pm
One minor correction in your tally of states:
Nevada’s Attorney General, Catherine Cortez Masto, did not announce that the State of Nevada is joining the other states in the suit. Nevada’s Governor, Jim Gibbons, who is trailing in his quest for reelection, attempted to force the Attorney General to bring suit on behalf of the State. When the Attorney General refused, Governor Gibbons announced that he is going to file the suit himself. The Attorney General is now considering suing Governor Gibbons to prevent him from filing the suit himself.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/apr/06/nv-gov-to-announce-plans-on-health-reform-suit/