Fresh on the heels of the OmabaCare© rout in Florida, Mississippi's Lt Gov Phil Bryant and almost a dozen other citizens re-filed suit based on that old, feeble document known as the Constitution, among other things. This is actually a second attempt on the plaintiffs' part; a previous lawsuit was tossed because it lacked specific facts about how the new law actually harms them. This time out, Mr Bryant (et al) claims that:
■ "(P)laintiffs already have begun to feel injury from the law, in the form of changed spending habits in anticipation of the mandated purchase of health insurance."
■ Since "none of the plaintiffs intend to comply with the mandate to purchase insurance, (they) will be injured by governmental penalties incurred afterward."
and
■ Obamacare© "interferes with "the ancient right to medical privacy," in that citizens will be required to share medical information with insurers after purchasing the mandatory insurance."
I'm a little hazy on that last one: by definition, an insured shares certain medical info with his insurer any time he files a claim.
In the event, it's heartening to see that the forces aligned against the ObamaCare© trainwreck continue mounting pressure.
■ "(P)laintiffs already have begun to feel injury from the law, in the form of changed spending habits in anticipation of the mandated purchase of health insurance."
■ Since "none of the plaintiffs intend to comply with the mandate to purchase insurance, (they) will be injured by governmental penalties incurred afterward."
and
■ Obamacare© "interferes with "the ancient right to medical privacy," in that citizens will be required to share medical information with insurers after purchasing the mandatory insurance."
I'm a little hazy on that last one: by definition, an insured shares certain medical info with his insurer any time he files a claim.
In the event, it's heartening to see that the forces aligned against the ObamaCare© trainwreck continue mounting pressure.
Posts
