{"id":495174,"date":"2010-03-31T19:29:20","date_gmt":"2010-03-31T23:29:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.szone.us\/f22\/health-care-bill-has-been-passed-so-what-now-41662\/"},"modified":"2010-03-31T19:29:20","modified_gmt":"2010-03-31T23:29:20","slug":"health-care-bill-has-been-passed-so-%c2%93what-now%c2%94","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/495174","title":{"rendered":"health care bill has been passed So, \u0093What Now?\u0094"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
Now that the health care bill has been passed and signed into law by President Obama, the question we hear most is \u0093What Now?\u0094 <\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Despite the passing of this legislation against the will of the American people, it is clear from your emails that the American people are not willing to roll over and just accept this bill.<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

So, \u0093What Now?\u0094<\/b><\/i><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

There are several fronts being fought.<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

The Legislative Process at the State Level<\/b><\/u><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Currently, two states have successfully passed laws to protect themselves from the federal legislation.<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

In March 2010 a Virginia<\/b> law passed both Senate and House, was amended by the Governor and both branches of the legislature and became law as Chapter 106 on March 10, becoming the first such statute in the nation;<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Idaho<\/b> enacted a similar statute, as Chapter 46 on March 17;<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

In addition, several states have moved forward on similar proposals, although none have been approved yet;<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Arizona’s<\/b> resolution of June 2009 was the first measure to have passed the legislative process; <\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

A Utah<\/b> bill passed both chambers and awaits action by the governor; <\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

A Tennessee<\/b> and a Georgia<\/b> bill has passed one chamber; <\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Constitutional resolutions have advanced through initial steps in Florida, Georgia<\/b> and Missouri<\/b> (3\/16\/10);<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

At least 36 state legislatures are using the legislative process to seek to limit, alter or oppose selected state or federal actions, including single-payer provisions and mandates that would require purchase of insurance. In general the measures seek to make or keep health insurance optional, and allow people to purchase any type of coverage they may choose.<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

As of early March, formal resolutions or bills had been filed in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. <\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Challenging the Constitutionality <\/b><\/u><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Florida filed the first suit against the new law claiming the new law is unconstitutional. Joining Florida were attorneys general from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Alabama, Louisiana, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, South Dakota. The lawsuit claims the bill violates the 10th Amendment, which says the federal government has no authority beyond the powers granted to it under the Constitution, by forcing the states to carry out its provisions, but not reimbursing them for the costs.<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Virginia’s Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II filed a separate lawsuit on similar grounds in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Richmond. <\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

"With this law, the federal government will force citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce," said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli Monday. "We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person \u0096 by definition \u0096 is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate." <\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Legal experts vary in opinion on chance of success. While some are skeptical believing the Supreme Court has defined the scope of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce very broadly, others argue that such court challenges will expose the legislation to a high level of judicial scrutiny and that a court somewhere could determine some aspect of it illegal.<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Medical Societies Taking Action<\/b><\/u><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

On March 26, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) became the first medical society to sue<\/font><\/a> to overturn the newly enacted health care bill AAPS sued Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (AAPS v. Sebelius et al.)<\/i>.<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

The Executive Director of AAPS stated the legislation \u0093spells the end of freedom in medicine as we know it. Courts should not allow this massive intrusion into the practice of medicine and the rights of patients.\u0094 <\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Repeal <\/u><\/b><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

There is much talk about repealing the recently passed health care legislation. <\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) has introduced legislation<\/font><\/a> to repeal the law. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) has introduced similar legislation<\/font><\/a> in the Senate. <\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

The Club for Growth has introduced a repeal initiative. The Repeal It!<\/font><\/a> campaign (Twitter @RepealIt) promotes three pledges to repeal Obamacare \u0096 one each for lawmakers, candidates, and citizens. <\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Tea Party Patriots are also circulating a petition<\/font><\/a> calling for repeal. <\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

The goal to repeal this intrusive government healthcare plan is an important step and a laudable goal that all Americans should support, but it will take some time to move forward, particularly in light of the current balance in Congress. Republicans simply don\u0092t have the numbers in either chamber. Republicans are far short of the requisite 60 votes in the Senate. Funding of the legislation could be repealed through reconciliation with 51 votes. But, even if Republicans win the majority in both Houses of Congress, would they have the fortitude to repeal it? <\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

And there is no scenario we see where President Obama doesn\u0092t veto any repeal legislation. Republicans would need 290 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate to override a Presidential veto.<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

These circumstances lead us to conclude that 2013 is the earliest a repeal of the legislation is possible and that is assuming the election of a new President in 2012.<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

What Now?<\/b><\/u><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

CPR is following the state legislation and lawsuits at www.CPRights.org<\/font><\/a>. We will also continue to keep you updated on the above as well as ramifications and unintended consequences of the legislation through our daily newsbrief, the Daily Dose. If you do not currently receiving the Daily Dose, you can sign up here<\/font><\/a>. <\/div>\n

As concerned Americans, there are several things you can do:<\/p>\n