• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

A futile gesture

Well, OK, I guess:

At the request of some Indiana Republicans, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller is reviewing the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul bill passed by the Senate last month.

Several Republican senators say the bill's requirement that most people buy insurance or face a penalty violates the Constitution's ban on taking private property for public purposes without just compensation.

Republicans also say a provision that could treat some insurance companies in Nebraska and Michigan differently violates the 14th Amendment's equal-protection clause.

Zoeller says he is using a little-known provision in the state law that allows the attorney general to make "any reasonable or appropriate investigation or study" of federal legislation when asked to do so by a member of the state's congressional legislation, which he was, in a letter from U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar.

It will be good to know Zoeller's legal opinion of the legislation, but what's Congress going to do even he he does find it unconstitutional? "Oh, drat, you caught us. We take it all back, and you can consider health care reform dead." Since when has the federal government cared a whit about the constitutionality of what it does? It's supposed to provide for the "general welfare," right? Everydody knows that covers anything it wants to do.


tim zank
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 12:36pm

My guess is (and Doug Masson may know better) the more States Attorney's General on record "investigating" or "declaring" or "discovering" or "documenting" the unconstitutionality of this crap sandwich, the more ammo we'll have to repeal the aforementioned crap sandwich later on down the road when our Marxists Overlords have (hopefully) been relieved of power.

Kevin Knuth
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 4:05pm

I think Tim is on the right track- though it is NOT about being able to repeal it- it is just a tactic to use in the election cycle (xx number of states AG's say it is unconstitutional).

Funny thing- there is NO public option, but the right is still talking about government taking over healthcare......

tim zank
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 5:03pm

Their talking about it (govt takeover) cuz that's the obvious agenda. If you can't see that is the primary goal, you are certifiably blind.

It's rather plain nothing in this 2000 page monstrosity will save one thin dime, but rather cost trillions of dollars. EVERYONES insurance premiums will go up dramatically, no one will be able to afford them and magically the only thing left to do will be to have Uncle Sam step in and take it over.

It ain't exactly rocket science, it's blatantly obvious our new Socialist Overlords know what is best for all of us.

Bob G.
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 5:14pm

But Tim, Uncle Sam has done SUCH a good job taking over things...like AMTRAK...and the USPS...and MEDICARE...just to name a few (wink, wink...nudge, nudge).


Kevin Knuth
Fri, 01/08/2010 - 10:01am

CBO says it saves money- end of story.

tim zank
Fri, 01/08/2010 - 11:22am

And yes Kevin, the tooth fairy exists as well. You guys should at least have the testicular fortitude to be honest about it.

When asked about the House maybe not getting the "public Option" last night Madame Speaker made the not so Freudian slip (paraphrase) "whatever passes, there are enough triggers in place that eventually they'll (the public) want a public option.

Kevin Knuth
Fri, 01/08/2010 - 4:51pm

A public option is music to my ears!

tim zank
Fri, 01/08/2010 - 5:58pm

Oh I knew it would be music to your ears Kevin. How could it not be? It's a socialists dream come true.

Kevin Knuth
Mon, 01/11/2010 - 10:28am

I am not a socialist. I just fail to see how we can be the "greatest country on earth" when we deny healthcare to so many.

tim zank
Mon, 01/11/2010 - 11:15am


I hate to point out the obvious, but "we" aren't denying health "care" to anyone. Anyone in need of treatment can walk into a hospital and cannot be denied treatment.

Everyone in this country has the "right" to buy health insurance, a product for sale by private enterprise.

In this bills current form, Democrats want the United States Government to force me to spend my money on a product of private enterprise that I might not want to buy.

That is fascist and dictatorial. see Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: fas

Kevin Knuth
Mon, 01/11/2010 - 4:35pm


You are mistaken.

If John Doe does not have insurance he can go to an emergency room where he will be the LAST patient seen. Further, he can see a doctor, and be diagnosed. That does NOT mean he will receive medication. He will be given a prescription and unless he can pay for it, is most likely out of luck.

It needs to change.

tim zank
Mon, 01/11/2010 - 9:46pm

Au contraire comrade Kevin!

While Mr. Doe will take a number and have to wait his turn but he most certainly will receive medication as per the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986.

You forgot to square that socialist circle too!

Andrew J.
Tue, 01/12/2010 - 11:34am

I don't get this argument. If anyone can walk in and get treatment, hospital or otherwise, and they can't afford it, who do you think picks up the tab? You and me who have private insurance, that's who. You think the hospitals provide indigent care for free, the "they write it off the books" Seinfeld episode where these costs just somehow disappear? So what's the difference if the government takes some of our money to pay for that same service for the not-so-well off we are paying currently through our premiums?

tim zank
Tue, 01/12/2010 - 12:36pm

AJ..it's the three trillion $$$$ price tag attached to it...I've always found when things are already bad, don't make them worse. It will cost us scads more if we pass this crap sandwich.

Kevin Knuth
Tue, 01/12/2010 - 5:47pm

Au contraire Tim,

The ACT only applies to LIFE THREATENING situations. Read "hospital obligations and Amendments": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act#Hospital_obligations

tim zank
Tue, 01/12/2010 - 10:05pm

Comrade Kev, Once again, in your haste, you inadvertently make my point for me!

From your own link: "The emergency room (or other better equipped units within the hospital) must treat an individual with an EMC until the condition is resolved or stabilized and the patient is able to provide self-care following discharge, or if unable, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients, regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or otherwise discontinues payment during course of stay."

Everything is "life threatening" until diagnosed, you wouldn't be there unless you were sick or hurt. So let's re-cap!

If John Doe is sick or hurt and goes to an emergency room he will in fact get treated and given medication. Nobody gets turned away until diagnosed and treated if necessary to avoid liability.

Thanks again for your help!

Kevin Knuth
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 9:55am


First, I appreciate that you call me "Comrade". Since you resort to name calling, it means I win!

Second, you are incorrect. Many ailments are not "life-threatening" and therefore, if you do not have insurance, you are out of luck. For example- you may have a blood pressure problem. That does NOT mean you will recieve blood pressure medication.

I am a bit stunned that in a country that SOOOOO wants to call itself "Christian", so many want to turn their backs on those in need. Sad........

tim zank
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 7:50pm

Comrade, {you may have a blood pressure problem. That does NOT mean you will recieve blood pressure medication.}

If he walks into an emergency room because he doesn't feel well (he feels sick), and his blood pressure is high, by law, they have to medicate him and stabilize him.

You are just wrong comrade, let it gooooo.....

Kevin Knuth
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 12:37pm

Tim (again, thanks for calling me a name- showing that I have indeed won this argument),

Blood Pressure meds are generally taken DAILY. SO your conservative thinking is the best course of action is to have him go to the hospital EVERY DAY?

You, sir, are clueless. And wrong.

Let it goooo.......

tim zank
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 3:26pm

I thought you guys used "comrade" as a term of endearment to one another?

If he's diagnosed with chronic high blood pressure and ongoing medication is required to keep him alive, he'll get the meds..regardless of age, ih'e uninsured or even under-insured the "state" will subsidize the meds with http://public-healthcare-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/indiana_prescription_drug_card_program

Indiana Prescription Drug Card Program...all states have a similar plan, and their is fed help as well.

Anybody can get treated in this country and get it for free or next to nothing. They just have to do a little research, which you might try as well.

Kevin Knuth
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 5:36pm


Again, thanks for admitting I win!

You still miss the point- there is a huge gap between WHO can receive help and those that don't need it. You are blind to it, but it is there.

Many people work at LOW PAYING jobs- making too much to qualify for medicaid and yet have no insurance.

It is a plain simple fact that you don't want to see, because you will have to admit your are wrong.

Have a nice day!

tim zank
Thu, 01/14/2010 - 6:13pm

If you need help, try googling this "prescription help for uninsured". Of the 1.6 million results, the first page of ten is really sufficient if you need prescriptions and have no insurance. Doesn't matter if you're working poor, unemployed, etc..

There is tons of help out there already, regardless what the Dem talking points are.

Here's a thought, instead of spending trillions to create a whole new clusterfark, why not have those thievin' bas$ards from Acorn show & tell people (in all those poor neighborhoods their invading to register fraudelent voters) how to obtain free meds from Merk, Pzizer etc? Have them teach people how to locate a free clinic (of which there are many)? Acorn is already funded with billions of our tax dollars now, so why not have them do something worthwile that actually helps people?

Naaaaa, that'd wouldn't be any fun, hell it's legal.

Kevin Knuth
Fri, 01/15/2010 - 11:23am

Tim, Tim, Tim....

You are so wrong ALL the time.

"Acorn is already funded with billions of our tax dollars now". PROVE IT!

Hint, you cannot.

tim zank
Fri, 01/15/2010 - 3:30pm

I certainly don't need to prove something so obvious. If you honestly feel in your heart this organization hasn't bilked government programs for billions of dollars over the years for nefarious goals then you are either every bit as dishonest as they are or you are incredibly naive. My experience tells me people like you are very seldom naive.

Kevin Knuth
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 10:53pm

FYI- Since 1994 ACORN as recieved about $54 million. A FAR FAR cry from a BILLION.

You can call me naive or dishonest- but I know my facts. You have just demonstrated that you do not.

tim zank
Sun, 01/17/2010 - 3:29pm

Technically, on the dollar amount, at this point you are correct my socialist friend. I can't document billions, the ongoing investigations only show 54 million since 1994. Suffice to say though, even though it cannot be documented yet, anyone with a shred of common sense and/or decency knows this organization of theivin' bastard$ which was founded in 1970, has over 360 divisions/affiliates and has more than likely bilked all of us out of gazillions over 50 years of intimidation, graft and outright extortion and theft in the name of the Democrats.

I'm a little surprised you posted last night, I figured you'd already be on your way to Massachusetts on the SEIU bus to register some dead people and illegal aliens. Time's a wastin'!

P.S. Don't forget to take plenty of cigarettes for the "back alley voter trawl" too!

Kevin Knuth
Mon, 01/18/2010 - 10:26am

Tim....such bitterness.....you really need to let it go........