Missouri AG Koster urges US Supreme Court to reject individual health ...
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster's office said Tuesday it has filed a brief calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to reject an individual health insurance mandate but uphold other parts of the federal health care law.
Koster, a Democrat, said his office filed written arguments last week in support of a lawsuit by Florida and other states. The federal law requires most Americans to obtain health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties.
Koster says the mandate goes beyond what courts have ruled is the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Koster also says the federal law conflicts with a voter-approved Missouri law barring the government from requiring people to have health insurance and penalizing those who do not.
Republican attorney general candidate Ed Martin said Tuesday that Koster should oppose the entire federal health care law.
Koster announced that he had filed his argument on the same day that a Missouri Senate committee heard testimony about a proposed amendment to the state constitution that aims to block the federal mandate from taking effect in Missouri.
The proposed amendment, sponsored by Sen. Jane Cunningham, would essentially codify into the state's constitution a ballot measure that state voters approved in 2010 prohibiting the government from requiring people to have health insurance.
"American citizens should have the right to pay directly for health care services with their own money," said Cunningham, R-St. Louis County. "The freedom to buy or decline to buy a product is a basic right, and should be protected."
If approved by both the House and Senate, the proposed amendment would go before voters in November.
American Republic Health Care Insurance - News
Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster's office said Tuesday it has filed a brief calling on the US Supreme Court to reject an individual health insurance mandate but uphold other parts of the federal health care law. Koster, a Democrat, said his
Republicans on the campaign trail denounce Obama's health-care reforms as a virtual threat to the Republic. It's “socialized medicine,” “a job killer,” “a government takeover of health care.” All the Republican candidates for president promise to
Take January 20's US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announcement that contraceptives must be included in the basic health insurance by employers who happen to be churches. A reasonable compromise is likely, but the administration not
President Barack Obama announced Friday he would include preventive care measures, like the coverage of contraceptives for women, as part of his Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Under Obama's health care decision, any woman will have access
Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, virtually every American will soon become entitled to a comprehensive health insurance policy. Those who work medium or large businesses will be expected to get that comprehensive policy from their employers.
They gave us a republic...:: Health Care Reform? If You Say So.
This blog is written by a group of liberal patriots who aren't quite as pissed off as they were a couple of years ago, but aren't taking anything for granted, either. We share a fierce dedication to the Constitution - the only words ever put to paper worth dying for, and we'll argue it's finer liberal points with anyone.
We exist to remind y'all that America was founded on four boxes: The Soapbox The Ballot Box The Jury Box The Ammo Box They should be used in that order. This is our soapbox. There's been a lot of back and forth over the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 which while it is considered "landmark" legislation by many for others, like yours truly, it has been more of a landmine than a landmark. The division is of course, between those who now at least have health insurance and those of us who found our own access to care being steadily eroded during the run up to it's passage.What a lot of people were either failing to see or refusing to acknowledge during the seemingly endless discussions prior to the passage of the AHCA is that it was never a bill intended to actually improve health care, or even access to adequate health care for more people... in it's final form, it's purpose turned out to be to provide access to private health INSURANCE for more people and if you don't see the difference there, I'm definitely wasting my time.
When universal single payer or any form of "MediCare for all" were taken off the table before the discussion even started, those of of us already in the system knew we were about to be thoroughly screwed. When cuts in services began to show up quietly, almost surreptitiously, at the same time the politicians were busy assuring us that they weren't going to happen, we knew we were already being screwed.