Moderator: Community Team
Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.
Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].
The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.
Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.
Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].
The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.
I'm a man of my word, so I'll say that I'm ok with this.
Keep going TGD.
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.
Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].
The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.
I'm a man of my word, so I'll say that I'm ok with this.
Keep going TGD.
You know, if you keep patting yourself on the back you might pull a muscle.
Have a happy November 22nd!
Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to take another look at whether a key requirement in the health care reform law violates religious freedoms.
A pending lawsuit from Liberty University had claimed, among other things, that the law would lead to taxpayer dollars funding abortions and contraception, a claim the Obama administration rejects. The justices issued their order Monday.
The high court in June had upheld the overall law championed by President Obama, but left room for continued legal challenges to certain aspects of the law's application.
The Virginia-based school bills itself as the largest Christian evangelical college in the world.
Documentary: Health care overhaul needed
Obamacare: what's next?
A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2011 unanimously concluded the university's lawsuit should be blocked on jurisdictional grounds. There is no indication when the appeals court will revisit the issue in the wake of the high court's order.
After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's funding mechanism -- the so-called individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a financial penalty -- it tossed out all other pending appeals.
Liberty University then refiled its lawsuit, saying its objections to the law should be reconsidered in light of the court's 5-4 ruling affirming the overall law.
Read more: Wyoming voters send anti-Obamacare message
The school believes Americans should not be required to purchase health insurance -- and employers forced to provide it -- if there are legitimate moral and religious objections to some provisions.
It is one of several dozen pending lawsuits around the country filed to challenge the law's application since the June decision. The Richmond-based appeals court taking on the Liberty University case could ask both the federal government and the school to submit updated legal arguments. The Obama administration did not object to the university asking for another chance to press its claims.
The Supreme Court today ordered the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to take a second look at Liberty Universityās challenge of the health reform act to resolve questions not answered in the high courtās June decision upholding Obamacare.
The order gives some hope to foes of the healthcare law, but not much. As Forbes blogger Rick Ungar notes today, the Fourth Circuit is one countryās more liberal federal courts and even the U.S. Solicitor General declined to intervene, figuring Liberty will go down to defeat once again.
āItās not much of a sign of anything,ā said Andy Pincus, an appellate specialist with Mayer Brown in Washington. While the Supreme Court technically granted certiorari or judicial review of the case, it was what is known as a GVR in the trade, as in āgrant, vacate and remand.ā The Court commonly does this when there are appeals it has previously frozen that donāt address the specific questions it resolved in a decision.
In this case, Liberty University, a fundamentalist Christian institution, opposed the employer insurance mandates and the requirement that insurance policies include contraception. The Fourth Circuit never got to those questions when it rejected Liberty Universityās challenge in a decision in September 2011, instead finding that the lawsuit was blocked by the Anti-Injunction Act prohibiting suits seeking to prevent a tax from being collected. But in a lengthy dissent, Judge Andre M. Davis argued the case should have been heard, and dismissed, because Obamacare passes muster under the Constitutionās Commerce Clause.
Assuming the same three judges hear Liberty Universityās appeal this time, it is unlikely they will rule in the schoolās favor. Davis specifically rejected the employer mandate along conventional constitutional grounds, finding that even employers who operate within a single state can be subjected to federal regulations, much as civil-rights laws apply even to local diners and motels.
āItās interesting that Liberty wants to do it, because theyāre starting with a panel where they know one of the judges is against them,ā Pincus said.
If Liberty loses again, it can always appeal to the Supreme Court. But the high court may well take a pass the second time. Chief Justice Roberts assembled a majority in favor of the idea that Obamacare violated the Commerce Clause, but held the law was valid under Congressās taxing powers. Conservatives hope heāll use the Liberty case to gut the law by finding the employer mandate invalid, but itās equally likely the court will wait for later challenges based on how the law is implemented. Religious objections to the contraception requirement also might find better challenges after the law has been in effect for a while.
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.
Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].
The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.
Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].
The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.
Phatscotty wrote:Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to take another look at whether a key requirement in the health care reform law violates religious freedoms.
A pending lawsuit from Liberty University had claimed, among other things, that the law would lead to taxpayer dollars funding abortions and contraception, a claim the Obama administration rejects. The justices issued their order Monday.
The high court in June had upheld the overall law championed by President Obama, but left room for continued legal challenges to certain aspects of the law's application.
The Virginia-based school bills itself as the largest Christian evangelical college in the world.
Documentary: Health care overhaul needed
Obamacare: what's next?
A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2011 unanimously concluded the university's lawsuit should be blocked on jurisdictional grounds. There is no indication when the appeals court will revisit the issue in the wake of the high court's order.
After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's funding mechanism -- the so-called individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a financial penalty -- it tossed out all other pending appeals.
Liberty University then refiled its lawsuit, saying its objections to the law should be reconsidered in light of the court's 5-4 ruling affirming the overall law.
Read more: Wyoming voters send anti-Obamacare message
The school believes Americans should not be required to purchase health insurance -- and employers forced to provide it -- if there are legitimate moral and religious objections to some provisions.
It is one of several dozen pending lawsuits around the country filed to challenge the law's application since the June decision. The Richmond-based appeals court taking on the Liberty University case could ask both the federal government and the school to submit updated legal arguments. The Obama administration did not object to the university asking for another chance to press its claims.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to take another look at whether a key requirement in the health care reform law violates religious freedoms.
A pending lawsuit from Liberty University had claimed, among other things, that the law would lead to taxpayer dollars funding abortions and contraception, a claim the Obama administration rejects. The justices issued their order Monday.
The high court in June had upheld the overall law championed by President Obama, but left room for continued legal challenges to certain aspects of the law's application.
The Virginia-based school bills itself as the largest Christian evangelical college in the world.
Documentary: Health care overhaul needed
Obamacare: what's next?
A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2011 unanimously concluded the university's lawsuit should be blocked on jurisdictional grounds. There is no indication when the appeals court will revisit the issue in the wake of the high court's order.
After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's funding mechanism -- the so-called individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a financial penalty -- it tossed out all other pending appeals.
Liberty University then refiled its lawsuit, saying its objections to the law should be reconsidered in light of the court's 5-4 ruling affirming the overall law.
Read more: Wyoming voters send anti-Obamacare message
The school believes Americans should not be required to purchase health insurance -- and employers forced to provide it -- if there are legitimate moral and religious objections to some provisions.
It is one of several dozen pending lawsuits around the country filed to challenge the law's application since the June decision. The Richmond-based appeals court taking on the Liberty University case could ask both the federal government and the school to submit updated legal arguments. The Obama administration did not object to the university asking for another chance to press its claims.
Funny how telling ME what to do with MY body suddenly became a religious issue for YOU.
The real attack on freedom here is the idea that women don't have the right to make medical reproductive decisions because some religious individuals decide they dislike the decisions these women make for their own bodies.
Night Strike wrote:Willfully killing others has never had anything to do with one's own body, and really, it doesn't have anything to do with religion either.
spurgistan wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.
Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].
The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.
The way I've traditionally read NS is him saying malpractice is THE reason for rising health care costs, or at least one of the biggest. The fact that malpractice is at best a minor cost consideration in the second-most expensive county in the country is a reasonable case study arguing against that. More case studies done reasonably objectively (it's hard to argue against the methodology in the McAllen case could have counties in which malpractice is a stronger determinant of health care costs.
PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.
Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].
The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.
Actually its most definitely not the one county in Texas, its just that this was an example where nationwide trends were delved into more fully to see WHY the trend is real.
As an added note, competition is particularly bad for orthopedists and back specialists. The reasons are multiple, but essentially it gets down to the fact that it is human nature to want to make a profit in any business and the pressure is pretty great then to find "cures". HOWEVER, be sure I am NOT talking about intentional abuse of any sort.. that is entirely different and much more readily correctable. Rather it is that professionals talk to each other and basically tend to convince each other that this new techique is good... etc, etc.
This happens in other professions, but it is most detrimental in medicine, yet another reason why medicine is not and should not be considered a basic market product.
Just think about it from the outset.. the MOSt effective doctors are those who cure and then never see their patients again, until injury or old age set in. This is exactly counter to basic product sales where creating a good product generates more interest and more sales.
thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.
Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].
The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.
Actually its most definitely not the one county in Texas, its just that this was an example where nationwide trends were delved into more fully to see WHY the trend is real.
As an added note, competition is particularly bad for orthopedists and back specialists. The reasons are multiple, but essentially it gets down to the fact that it is human nature to want to make a profit in any business and the pressure is pretty great then to find "cures". HOWEVER, be sure I am NOT talking about intentional abuse of any sort.. that is entirely different and much more readily correctable. Rather it is that professionals talk to each other and basically tend to convince each other that this new techique is good... etc, etc.
This happens in other professions, but it is most detrimental in medicine, yet another reason why medicine is not and should not be considered a basic market product.
Just think about it from the outset.. the MOSt effective doctors are those who cure and then never see their patients again, until injury or old age set in. This is exactly counter to basic product sales where creating a good product generates more interest and more sales.
Doctors are supposedly not permitted to do these types of things (i.e. prolong treatment and injury). And for the most part I do not think they do; however, with the amount of tests they are required to do, it can become rather ridiculous.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to take another look at whether a key requirement in the health care reform law violates religious freedoms.
A pending lawsuit from Liberty University had claimed, among other things, that the law would lead to taxpayer dollars funding abortions and contraception, a claim the Obama administration rejects. The justices issued their order Monday.
The high court in June had upheld the overall law championed by President Obama, but left room for continued legal challenges to certain aspects of the law's application.
The Virginia-based school bills itself as the largest Christian evangelical college in the world.
Documentary: Health care overhaul needed
Obamacare: what's next?
A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2011 unanimously concluded the university's lawsuit should be blocked on jurisdictional grounds. There is no indication when the appeals court will revisit the issue in the wake of the high court's order.
After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's funding mechanism -- the so-called individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a financial penalty -- it tossed out all other pending appeals.
Liberty University then refiled its lawsuit, saying its objections to the law should be reconsidered in light of the court's 5-4 ruling affirming the overall law.
Read more: Wyoming voters send anti-Obamacare message
The school believes Americans should not be required to purchase health insurance -- and employers forced to provide it -- if there are legitimate moral and religious objections to some provisions.
It is one of several dozen pending lawsuits around the country filed to challenge the law's application since the June decision. The Richmond-based appeals court taking on the Liberty University case could ask both the federal government and the school to submit updated legal arguments. The Obama administration did not object to the university asking for another chance to press its claims.
Funny how telling ME what to do with MY body suddenly became a religious issue for YOU.
The real attack on freedom here is the idea that women don't have the right to make medical reproductive decisions because some religious individuals decide they dislike the decisions these women make for their own bodies.
Night Strike wrote:thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.
Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].
The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.
Actually its most definitely not the one county in Texas, its just that this was an example where nationwide trends were delved into more fully to see WHY the trend is real.
As an added note, competition is particularly bad for orthopedists and back specialists. The reasons are multiple, but essentially it gets down to the fact that it is human nature to want to make a profit in any business and the pressure is pretty great then to find "cures". HOWEVER, be sure I am NOT talking about intentional abuse of any sort.. that is entirely different and much more readily correctable. Rather it is that professionals talk to each other and basically tend to convince each other that this new techique is good... etc, etc.
This happens in other professions, but it is most detrimental in medicine, yet another reason why medicine is not and should not be considered a basic market product.
Just think about it from the outset.. the MOSt effective doctors are those who cure and then never see their patients again, until injury or old age set in. This is exactly counter to basic product sales where creating a good product generates more interest and more sales.
Doctors are supposedly not permitted to do these types of things (i.e. prolong treatment and injury). And for the most part I do not think they do; however, with the amount of tests they are required to do, it can become rather ridiculous.
What will happen when they have to do all these tests AND each test takes an extra couple of weeks due to a full wait list of people getting "free" health care?
Obama won, Obamacare is the law, and, as my wife says, I will just have to learn to dance to a new song.
Now, donāt get me wrong, Obamacare is awful. Forget all the āfree stuffā it provides. Children covered on their parentsā plan until 26 years of age? A scam, making young adults ā excuse me, children ā pay for complete, comprehensive health insurance when all they need and should pay for is major catastrophe insurance. Then there is the āannual ā or āpreventativeā exam, which according to Obamacare is āfree.ā
You gotta love this stuff. I wish I had the chutzpah of the people who wrote Obamacare. What they did not tell you, and I am, is that it covers absolutely nothing more than the bare minimum.
I have now posted a notice in my office and each exam room stating exactly what Obamacare will cover for those yearly visits. Remember Obama promised this as a free exam ā no co-pay, no deductible, no charge. Thatās fine and dandy if you are healthy and have no complaints. However, we are obligated by law to code specifically for the reason of the visit. An annual exam is one specific code; you can not mix this with another code, say, for rectal bleeding. This annual visit covers the exam and ādiscussion about the status of previously diagnosed stable conditions.ā Thatās the exact wording under that code ā insurance will not cover any new ailment under that code.
If you are here for that annual exam, you will not be covered if you want to discuss any new ailment or unstable condition. I cannot bait and switch to another code ā thatās illegal. We, the physicians, are audited all the time and can lose our license for insurance fraud.
You, the patient, will then have to make a decision.
Do you want your āfreeā yearly exam, or do you want to pay for a visit which is coded for a particular, new problem? You can have my āfreeā exam if you only discuss what Obamacare wants me to discuss.
This happened to me personally, as a patient, when I went for my physical. It is the law. If you are complaining of a new problem, then you have to reschedule, since Obamacare is very clear as to what is covered and what is not. Obamacare ā intentionally ā makes it as difficult to be seen and taken care of as possible.
Patients can be very tricky. I have had patients make an āannualā exam, only to want to discuss and be treated for another ailment. I canāt do it.
I can hear the complaints from you guys already ā I become the bad guy. āWhy donāt you just take care of the problem, and not bill out any different code? Youāre a rich doctor, and we are entitled to free stuff.ā
It doesnāt work that way. First, doctors are not rich and, like most of you, actually work terribly hard for a living. Second, Obamacare is the law ā and as I said earlier, we are audited all the time now.
Also ā I donāt ask for free gas when I go to the gas station, or ask for free food from the supermarket. Additionally, Obamacare has a 23% cut in Medicare reimbursement to doctors and hospitals.
These lower payments wonāt cover the cost of staying in practice to take care of the patient.
Private doctors are becoming a thing of the past. By 2014, less than 25% of physicians will be in private medicine. Obama was right in stating you can keep your doctor if you want to ā the problem is he or she will rarely be available.
On top of all of that, doctors will be obligated ā thatās right, obligated ā to talk to you about things you may have no interest or need to talk about.
You may just want to have a pap smear or check your cholesterol. However, I am now mandated by the government to talk to you about your weight, exercise, family life, smoking, sexual abuse(!), and even to ask if you wear seat belts. And I am mandated to record your answers.
I am a physician. But I need to tell you to wear a seat belt and then record your answer.
I have received interesting responses from my patients since I put up the notice. Almost all are supportive and totally understand. The very few who complain? The same patients who always ask for free samples, who always complain that we do not validate parking. These are also the same patients who call my office and ask for free samples even when they are not even being seen.
Obamacare and its 2,000-plus pages are here to stay. I will still give my patients 100% of my time, energy, and knowledge. I still love being a doctor ā my patientsā doctor. I will, however, abide by the law and follow it to the letter. I will have to learn this new dance. āFreeā has its price.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to take another look at whether a key requirement in the health care reform law violates religious freedoms.
A pending lawsuit from Liberty University had claimed, among other things, that the law would lead to taxpayer dollars funding abortions and contraception, a claim the Obama administration rejects. The justices issued their order Monday.
The high court in June had upheld the overall law championed by President Obama, but left room for continued legal challenges to certain aspects of the law's application.
The Virginia-based school bills itself as the largest Christian evangelical college in the world.
Documentary: Health care overhaul needed
Obamacare: what's next?
A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2011 unanimously concluded the university's lawsuit should be blocked on jurisdictional grounds. There is no indication when the appeals court will revisit the issue in the wake of the high court's order.
After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's funding mechanism -- the so-called individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a financial penalty -- it tossed out all other pending appeals.
Liberty University then refiled its lawsuit, saying its objections to the law should be reconsidered in light of the court's 5-4 ruling affirming the overall law.
Read more: Wyoming voters send anti-Obamacare message
The school believes Americans should not be required to purchase health insurance -- and employers forced to provide it -- if there are legitimate moral and religious objections to some provisions.
It is one of several dozen pending lawsuits around the country filed to challenge the law's application since the June decision. The Richmond-based appeals court taking on the Liberty University case could ask both the federal government and the school to submit updated legal arguments. The Obama administration did not object to the university asking for another chance to press its claims.
Funny how telling ME what to do with MY body suddenly became a religious issue for YOU.
The real attack on freedom here is the idea that women don't have the right to make medical reproductive decisions because some religious individuals decide they dislike the decisions these women make for their own bodies.
Phatscotty wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to take another look at whether a key requirement in the health care reform law violates religious freedoms.
A pending lawsuit from Liberty University had claimed, among other things, that the law would lead to taxpayer dollars funding abortions and contraception, a claim the Obama administration rejects. The justices issued their order Monday.
The high court in June had upheld the overall law championed by President Obama, but left room for continued legal challenges to certain aspects of the law's application.
The Virginia-based school bills itself as the largest Christian evangelical college in the world.
Documentary: Health care overhaul needed
Obamacare: what's next?
A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2011 unanimously concluded the university's lawsuit should be blocked on jurisdictional grounds. There is no indication when the appeals court will revisit the issue in the wake of the high court's order.
After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's funding mechanism -- the so-called individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a financial penalty -- it tossed out all other pending appeals.
Liberty University then refiled its lawsuit, saying its objections to the law should be reconsidered in light of the court's 5-4 ruling affirming the overall law.
Read more: Wyoming voters send anti-Obamacare message
The school believes Americans should not be required to purchase health insurance -- and employers forced to provide it -- if there are legitimate moral and religious objections to some provisions.
It is one of several dozen pending lawsuits around the country filed to challenge the law's application since the June decision. The Richmond-based appeals court taking on the Liberty University case could ask both the federal government and the school to submit updated legal arguments. The Obama administration did not object to the university asking for another chance to press its claims.
Funny how telling ME what to do with MY body suddenly became a religious issue for YOU.
The real attack on freedom here is the idea that women don't have the right to make medical reproductive decisions because some religious individuals decide they dislike the decisions these women make for their own bodies.
A conservative legal group claims in a lawsuit filed Tuesday that Minnesota taxpayers have been wrongfully charged for more than 37,000 elective abortions for indigent women since 1999.
The Alliance Defending Freedom argues that state government is allowed to pay for abortions for indigent women only for "therapeutic reasons," including when the life or health of the woman is in danger or in cases of rape or incest, under state laws and a 1995 Minnesota Supreme Court decision.
But the group, citing state health department data it reviewed, said the state paid for thousands of abortions that it believes did not meet that standard.
The lawsuit cites health department figures showing that Minnesota medical assistance programs paid for 47,095 abortions on indigent women from 1999 through 2011. The lawsuit claims the state's numbers indicate that - at most - only 10,044 of those abortions may have qualified under the 1995 court decision.
The lawsuit says that means the state paid for at least 37,051 abortions that weren't medically necessary, without the legal authority to do so.
The ADF obtained the key data under the state's Data Practices Act, which allows the public access to government data.
The lawsuit, filed in Ramsey County District Court in St. Paul, names Human Services Commissioner Lucinda Jesson. It seeks injunctions to eliminate the use of public funds for non-therapeutic abortions, as well as a halt to public funding of all abortions until the department can show that public funds won't be misused. It also asks the court to direct the department to recover any unlawful payments made to abortion providers.
And it also asks the court to dissolve the injunction enforcing Supreme Court's 1995 ruling, known as Doe v. Gomez, which held that the state can't deny abortions to women on medical assistance "when the procedure is necessary for therapeutic reasons."
The Department of Human Services issued a brief statement saying it was reviewing the factual and legal claims in the complaint and that it would file a timely response with the court.
The lawsuit does not name Planned Parenthood, which is Minnesota's largest abortion provider and inevitably would be affected by any further restrictions on state funding for abortions. Spokeswoman Jennifer Aulwes said the organization does not comment on lawsuits when it's not a party to them.
Steven Aden, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, said the numbers cited in the lawsuit represent the "best assessment" the group could make based on the statistics available. He said a fuller picture of the "illegitimate public funding of elective abortions" will emerge as the case proceeds.
Minnesota spends about $1.5 million annually on abortions for indigent women, the lawsuit says.
"It's a gross abuse of taxpayer dollars in the state of Minnesota and an unfortunate tragedy as well," Aden said.
The data came from forms that providers are required to submit to the state on every abortion they perform, and include the reasons for the abortions.
Abortion providers also must submit separate forms to receive payments for patients on public assistance. The allowed reasons on that form include unspecified "other health reasons," which was the reason cited for 99.7 percent of the 19,295 publicly funded abortions from 2006 to 2010, according to the lawsuit. That suggests providers are abusing it for abortions that don't really qualify, the group claims.
The situation has been compounded by the Department of Human Services' "lack of meaningful review of the medical necessity of the abortions for which it has been paying. As a result, a majority of abortions that have been paid for with public funds since at least 1999 have been performed for non-therapeutic reasons and in violation of the Gomez injunction," the lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit also injects a racial element into the debate. The two named plaintiffs, Denise and Brian Walker, are an African-American couple, and it claims a disproportionate number of the disputed abortions were performed on African-American women. The lawsuit says blacks make up about 5 percent of the state's population, but that 40 percent of publicly funded abortions in Minnesota from 1999 to 2011 were performed on African-American women, or 19,152 total.
The lawsuit says they're "especially aggrieved" that the effect "is to disproportionately inhibit the growth of the African American population in this state."
Aden defended the racial angle, saying the Walkers "and many other Minnesotans don't want to see their tax dollars going to elective abortions that disproportionately affect the African-American community."
AndyDufresne wrote:Does anyone ever read any these whole quoted infotainment news stories that get posted in topics? I don't think I usually do. Unless they involve NASA.
--Andy
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
spurgistan wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:Does anyone ever read any these whole quoted infotainment news stories that get posted in topics? I don't think I usually do. Unless they involve NASA.
--Andy
Or bananas.
Phatscotty wrote:ummmmmmm, unemployment and medicare?
there is currently a battle over planned parent hood funding, as well as tax-payer subsidized contraceptives and abortions on demand.
What's wrong with "if you want it, then you go get it" Not like anyone is trying to tell another what to do or what not to do.....pretty simple
Return to Out, out, brief candle!
Users browsing this forum: jusplay4fun, kennyp72