Editorial

Health lawsuit

Monday, July 19, 2010

When the federal government imposes mandates that will affect -- at enormous expense -- all of us for decades to come, there is every expectation on the part of taxpayers that such sweeping changes will be constitutional and legal. That's why nearly half of the states have filed lawsuits raising serious questions about the new federal health care law.

Earlier this month, Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder and three other plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit challenging parts of the law that they believe will make health care coverage more expensive and less comprehensive. Last week, Attorney General Chris Koster filed a motion in an effort to block Kinder's participation in the lawsuit as the state's chief advocate for senior citizens.

If this smells like politics, it is. Koster and Gov. Jay Nixon are Democrats. Kinder is the leading Republican contender likely to oppose Nixon's re-election in 2012.

Politics aside, all of the lawsuits, including Missouri's, against the massive federal health care law raise issues that deserve to tested, possibly by the U.S. Supreme Court before all the legal wrangling is over.

Take note that Kinder's lawsuit uses no tax dollars. A not-for-profit organization, Healthcare in Action Inc., is seeking donations to cover the lawsuit's costs.

Comments

View 5 comments or respond

Community discussion is important, and we encourage you to participate as a reader and commenter. Click here to see our Guidelines. We also encourage registered users to let us know if they see something inappropriate on our site. You can do that by clicking "Report Comment" below. Our goal is to create a place for robust and civil discourse about our community, state and nation.

This is a great example that proves how our current two party system is archaic and no longer viable. The time has come for these republocrats to allow a third and/or fourth party to play their game. These new players would actually represent versus posture.

-- Posted by Rocket_Surgeon on Mon, Jul 19, 2010, at 8:18 AM
Gosh, the way this editorial is written, one would think the Southeast Missourian was endorsing Peter Kinder. This isn't one of those "frivolous lawsuits" Kinder and others have railed against for so long, is it? No, of course not. It's Peter championing the poor working-class chump's right to buy expensive health insurance from gigantic private corporations.

-- Posted by roscoedm on Mon, Jul 19, 2010, at 10:31 AM
Kinder is using this issue to "grandstand" and get attention for his candidacy for Governor. He is just another politician who talks to feel his lips move and doesn't give a hoot for anyone unless they are planning to vote for him or if they will donate to his doomed attempt to become Governor of Missouri. If his candidacy is a success then we are the ones who are doomed!

-- Posted by say hey on Mon, Jul 19, 2010, at 1:10 PM
It is sad that the Southeast Missourian has embarrassed itself with such an editorial. It is obvious to the public and I am sure to most at the Southeast Missourian that Kinder was engaging in electioneering, and the Southeast Missourian appears to be trying to salvage something for him from his blunder. It is obvious also, that the use of public funds in order to pursue such an obvious folly, would have been politically impossible for Mr. kinder. So by the way, how much "private" money has Mr. Kinder raised? Not much I'll wager! To the editors: read the constitution. And then explain it to Mr. Kinder!

-- Posted by Wilbur Right on Mon, Jul 19, 2010, at 2:48 PM
nearly 1/2 have filed lawsuites? Try 14. Not quite half.

The SE missourians editoral board should be ashamed. Of course this is a political stunt by Kinder. As long as he has lapdogs like this paper he'll continue to pull political stunts.

-- Posted by Mike96 on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 2:28 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires a subscription.

More to explore