Archive for Monday, March 29, 2010

Resolution seeks to force state attorney general to challenge federal health reforms

Kansas legislators are looking to require Attorney General Steve Six to challenge the new health care bill signed into law by President Obama. Six says he will review the law before making a decision.

March 29, 2010, 11:35 a.m. Updated March 30, 2010, 11:57 a.m.


— Republicans are trying to force Kansas Attorney General Steve Six, a Democrat, into challenging the new federal health care law.

On Monday, GOP legislators introduced a resolution that they said would require Six to take legal action against the law or join with other attorneys general in a lawsuit. The measure has to be approved by only one chamber.

The resolution’s author, Rep. Aaron Jack, R-Andover, said he has heard from more constituents opposed to the new law than any other issue.

Rep. Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita, an opponent of the health care law, said, “When I heard that Fidel Castro was applauding this health care bill, what does that tell you?”

Since health care reforms were signed into law by President Barack Obama, Kansas Republicans in Congress have called for its repeal and urged Six to join with other attorneys general in a challenge.

Six has said he is reviewing the new law before making a decision.

“Any constitutional challenge would be costly for the state and must be based on sound legal analysis, not politics,” Six’s office said in a statement.

Republicans have also been trying to get before voters a state constitutional amendment aimed at blocking federal health care reforms. But it has failed to get the required two-thirds majority to be placed on the ballot.


gccs14r 7 years ago

Quit sucking up to Corporate Medicine. All this hand waving is just wasting time and making you look foolish. The only thing wrong with the new healthcare law is that it doesn't have a public option. That can be fixed.

madcow 7 years ago

Stop wasting our time and money and try to get some real work done FFS

Paul R Getto 7 years ago

MC: Good points. If nothing else, this debate has reminded us all that people who benefit from the status quo will fight hard to keep it. The debate over the summer will be most interesting to see which way it turns the tide, or if it does. The Legislature needs to move on to other matters, but it doesn't seem like the budget will get serious attention until May.

Dale Stringer 7 years ago

The thing wrong with the national law is that the biggest way that it fixes health care is that it requires you to get health insurance. That's like the Lawrence City counsel saying that they will improve water quality to every household by making everyone buy a Brita water filter. Why don't they work on making medical care less expensive so that you don't need an insurance company to pay for flu shots, physicals and other routine checkups. And can't compare this to auto insurance. If you don't want to pay a state mandated auto insurance, just don't own a vehicle. Done. You can't say, "hey, if you don't want health insurance, just stop breathing."

cwdonald 7 years ago

Wouldn't make more sense to just let other states argue this. Its either constitutional or not. Kansas will benefit if its declared unconstitutional, and not have to expend scarce resources. How about spending time writing a better vehicular homicide statute...

Phillbert 7 years ago

I know I prefer my state's legal matters to be decided by a simple majority of one house of the Legislature rather than, you know, a lawyer.

Bob_Keeshan 7 years ago

cwdonald hits in on the head. I've read other stories this year about a deficit in the fund being used in the water rights lawsuits against Colorado and Nebraska.

Those are lawsuits that are actually important to Kansas. If they can't find the money to fund those, where are they going to find the money for this?

Richard Payton 7 years ago

How much does it cost to insure 30 million unisured? If all 30 million newly insured Americans make a doctor visit that cost $60 then taxpayers must pay 1,800,000,000. At the doctors office some are discovered to health problems how much more does that add up to and guess who pays. I hope this health plan is successful but I fear it cost more than the US can bear during trying times for most. If Obamacare is successfull then Barry might be called the President that saved America.

parrothead8 7 years ago

The headline should be modified to read: "Resolution seeks to force state attorney general to waste more taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuit"

KSManimal 7 years ago

rtpayton (anonymous) says… "How much does it cost to insure 30 million unisured? If all 30 million newly insured Americans make a doctor visit that cost $60 then taxpayers must pay 1,800,000,000."

Typical right wing ignorance....either by choice or by lack of the cognitive resources to know better....

Those newly insured Americans are not insured by taxpayers, but by insurance companies. There is no public option plan, there are no death panels, there is no government takeover, no tax-funded abortion, etc.,...etc.,...etc.,.......

Repeating the same lies over and over won't make them true. But, as we see here, it does make addle-minded people believe them.

1southernjayhawk 7 years ago


Hey, left wing genius, if 25 million or so of those 30 milion uninsured are receiving govt sustinence to pay for the required health insurance, how is that not costing the taxpayers?

gravitykills 7 years ago

and if business after business is projecting million dollar charges as a result of this healthcare, the consumer will pay for it out of their wallet and/or employment reductions (take your pick).

wastewatcher 7 years ago

The quote by the AG's office is very troubling to me. All court cases are costly and when brought by the AG of Kansas should always be base on sound legal arguments not politics.. This statement seems to say that in other cases politics is ok for this AG. If that is the case, it is time to DUMP THE AG.

skinny 7 years ago

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States of America that does not also apply equally, joint and severally to its Senators (members of the United States Senate) and to its Representatives (members of the House of Representatives), and vice versa: Congress shall make no law that applies to itself joint and severally, viz. to the members of the United States Senate and to the members of the House of Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States of America.”

Liberty275 7 years ago

"in fact, this mandate is quite similar to FICA, Soc. Security,"

Until the government can force you to work, FICA and Social Security are not mandated. False premise.

bearded_gnome 7 years ago

the health care debacle will cram down a huge increase of medicaid patients whose major funding for their care comes from the state. thus, this lawsuit serves to protect the kansas state budget from an enormous unfunded mandate. so, forget the "wasteful spending" argument above.

plus, the bill mandates unequal healthcare and unequal tax burden upon citizens of various states. kansas is one of the loser states, compared to louisiana, Vermont, Florida, a little jerkwater town in montana, etc.

getreal 7 years ago

The state is broke. We can't fund schools, roads, or social services and they think this is wise use of our resources. 13 other states are suing, so if the law is found unconstitutional it won't stand in Kansas either. WE DONT need to waste our resources suing the federal government. This is why 65% of Kansans don't approve of the job the legislature is doing. It's time to focus on the budget and quit wasting our time and money!

Bob_Keeshan 7 years ago

wastewatcher (anonymous) says…

The quote by the AG's office is very troubling to me. All court cases are costly and when brought by the AG of Kansas should always be base on sound legal arguments not politics.. This statement seems to say that in other cases politics is ok for this AG. If that is the case, it is time to dump the ag.

I admire your efforts to torture logic. Did you discover logic's secret terrorist plot? Did you save lives?

Liberty275 7 years ago

"Based on that logic then the government can't force you to go to a doctor."

Concerning adults, I don't think they can. At most they can put you in a hospital or institution if you are a threat to others. But an interesting point comes up. If you refuse treatment and you can be proven unfit to make decisions, you can be made a ward of the state so treatment can be mandated.

Mandate, ward of the state. It even rhymes.

Liberty275 7 years ago

""Based on that logic then the government can't force you to go to a doctor."

Also, it would be a violation of some people's first amendment rights to force them to see a doctor. Hardline Christian Scientists would be an example.

Insurance by it's very nature is a form of gambling, forbidden by the 10th commandment since gambling is covetous.

Sticky constitutional rights. It will be interesting to see which one's the court's are willing to ignore.

Richard Payton 7 years ago

KSManimal do you think the insurance premiums will stay the same since health care reform has been mandated? My question is how will illegals pay for their health care? This bill does offer health care to illegals doesn't it? How does the governor of Kansas fund these mandates?

geekyhost 7 years ago

Why are we wasting time and money on this? Is our AG way more awesome than all the other AGs, so he's going to win the case (that he doesn't think is valid) when all the other states won't?

Richard Payton 7 years ago

A new movement is starting with states joining forces to repeal this mandate. It would require 34 states to stop this health mandate by the federal government. I'm not refering to the lawsuits that being filed in Florida or the Virginia AG's suit. A brief mention of this was aired on the FOX News channel last night. It was on Greta's show and I'm not certain of the AG that is starting this movement.

bruno2 7 years ago

What BS! The premise of this AG attack is that the bill is somehow unconstitutional because it requires people to buy health insurance. That's exactly what Republican Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts, which was acknowledged by the Wall Street Journal as the inspiration for this approach in an article last week. What the Journal didn't report is that in 1993 numerous august Republican Senators, including Orrin Hatch, David Boren, Pete Domenici, John Warner, and Ted Stevens, co-sponsored a bill mandating universal health insurance coverage for all citizens and permanent residents.

From the bill: “Title I Subpart F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005.”

Look it up at:

Why do you right wing ravers not know your own history? If the elephants endorsed it then, does that mean it wasn’t unconstitutional then but it is now? Or could it be that that august list of conservatives were all actually closet socialists?

Get a clue folks, this unconstitutional hyperbole is smokescreen politics from the right wing and you’re being duped and used.

Our legislature needs to work on how to balance our budget and save our schools and quit wasting time on political gamesmanship! Kudos to our AG for calling horseflop horseflop and refusing to step in it.

barlowtl 7 years ago

Congratulations Kansas, you must have quite a surplus in your coffers to be contemplating frivulous lawsuits just for political points. I wonder, would it be constitutional to require all those who refuse to get insured when they can afford it pay up front for any medical service they receive so I don't have to pay for it by padding my bill. Could be considered as another option, "pre pay on site of service", no cash, no service.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.