January 20th, 2011
05:00 PM ET

More than half the states fight health care law in court



FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It may be the law of the land, but there are a lot of people who want to get rid of health care reform.

The house voted 245-to-189 to repeal President Obama's signature law - with three Democrats joining the unanimous Republican vote.

The bill is unlikely to see the light of day in the Senate... and if it ever makes it to President Obama's desk, he'll veto it. Republicans acknowledge repeal is highly unlikely - so they may try to cut funding for parts of the law or eliminate specific provisions.

Democrats call the repeal vote a "gimmick."

Really? Not exactly.

It's not just house Republicans who are against the health care reform law. Not by a long shot.

More than half the states in the union are challenging the law in court. Another six states have now joined a Florida lawsuit, bringing the total in that suit to 26 states. Plus, Virginia has filed a separate lawsuit; and Oklahoma says it will do the same.

The states insist the law is unconstitutional because it forces people to buy health insurance. They might be right.

A Thomson Reuters poll shows that an overwhelming 65 percent of doctors say health care reform will mean worse care for patients over the next five years. Only 18 percent think the new law will mean better care. Those are pretty stunning numbers - better than three to one - and these are doctors.

Finally, most of the American people are not sold on this thing either. A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows 50% want the new law repealed. Only 42% would choose to keep it as is.

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean if more than half the states are fighting the new health care law in court?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Jason writes:
A number of states fought against the 13th and 14th amendments. A number of states fought against the Brown v. Board of Education decision. A number of states fought against the Civil Rights Act. Nonetheless, we continued on the path of justice and continued paving the road to equality. Now we stand at the forefront of another storm, and I believe we will continue marching undaunted in the face of the naysayers.

Jeff in Minnesota writes:
There is a lot in the health care reform law that passed last year that doesn't add up. It needs to be fixed.

Chrisanne writes:
It means the whole system has to change, not just some parts of the system. This is process, and is a good sign that we will eventually have the kind of health care in this country that we need.

Shari writes:
Jack, To me, it would mean that more than half the states are idiotic. I know the law is not perfect but it's better than the status quo. I have a pre-existing condition and without this law I would be unable to get insurance if I would lose my job.

G. writes:
If our leaders had been wise enough to create a single-payer system, we wouldn't have to be going through such nonsense.

Bob in Ontario writes:
Jack, I suspect that the original legislation was such a convoluted, complex bill that no one could be exactly certain what it entailed in terms of expense to the individual or to the quality of future health care. Try asking politicians pointed questions as to its contents and I suspect that you will get varied responses. Unless a more transparent bill that answers basic questions can be structured, the health care law should be challenged in court.

Susan in Idaho writes:
They smell a rat.

Filed under: Health care
soundoff (211 Responses)
  1. AzRose

    It means that most people do not like the law, it takes away our freedom of choice away, It also means that as we learn more about what is in the law the more we disapprove of it. I admit there are many things that are good but I think the bad out weighs the good in this law. It is too bad that the law makers don't want to listen to the people of this country.

    Glendale, Az

    January 20, 2011 at 1:43 pm |
  2. Mysterious, Chicago

    Here you go again, Jack. I saw a CNN poll that says it is 49-49, gaining popularity after the lies of the Death Panel, etc., subsided.

    Fox is calling you, Jack.

    January 20, 2011 at 1:44 pm |
  3. Steve

    Obviously there is something wrong with Obama's health care bill. Half of the states can't be wrong. I talked to some Hospital Administrators and they have no information from the white house on regulations of this bill. Sounds like the Democrats passed a health bill that was shoved down their throats by Obama and the White House.
    It's hard to get any real solid good information on this bill. The cherry picks of the Bill was implemented in 2010. The 95% that will effect everybody else is coming after the 2012 election. What does that tell you?? If it was that good it would have been implemented before the election.
    I guess we will have to wait after the election and find how we got shafted by the Democrats and the Liberal Press.

    January 20, 2011 at 1:47 pm |
  4. Joe R - Houston

    What does it mean if more than half the states are fighting the new health care law in court?

    The most obvious answer is that although the snake oil salesmen never stop trying, socialism it isn't now, never has been, and hopefully never will be - popular with a majority of US citizens.

    January 20, 2011 at 1:48 pm |
  5. Olga

    Why not consider a compromise bill instead, working on issues that those states are opposed to.

    It is like throwing the bathwater with the baby inside it....

    How many of these opposing states are Republican? This is important information.

    Nancy Pelosi made a mistake by including the part where people are fined if they refuse to get insurance.

    Austin, Tx

    January 20, 2011 at 1:49 pm |
  6. Russ in PA

    Hopefully it means that the states and average citizen finally realise that there can't be true cost-savings in medical expenses until we return to a true free market system – and society. Besides, why should we put up with more nonsense regulations from Washington?

    January 20, 2011 at 1:56 pm |
  7. Bradley, Portland, OR

    How many of those 26 states that are suing have non-Republican governors?

    It's just standard GOP grandstanding and bluster.

    January 20, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
  8. Ron

    It means the bill stinks and needs to be repealed. It did nothing but make my Insurance and my drug costs go up.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:02 pm |
  9. John from Alabama

    Jack: I can show 2 polls that state 50 to 52% are in favor of the new Health Care Reform Law. Some doctors do not favor the new health care reform, because it makes them more accountable and liable for over charges. Most doctors did not like medicare in 1965, but today everyone in the medical business likes medicare. The Re[publicans do not like social security, unemployment insurance, FDIC, and medicare, because it was not their idea, but they are great programs which have past the test of time.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
  10. bob z fr ,pa.

    they know that this bill will bankrupt this country and it is more on control than health care

    January 20, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
  11. Ray in Knoxville

    Uh, it means than more than half the states are controlled by Republicans?

    January 20, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
  12. jenifer

    It means there are 26 states where Republicans have concluded rightfully that Americans are morons. Dems won't vote and the voting Republicans would raher pay premiums that equal house payments rather than read a law for themselves. Instead each side waits for the media to handspoon them the facts. When all we get is spin from politicians/media alike. It is all a joke.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
  13. Dave in Arizona

    It means that more than half the states are run by rich heartless republicans, who only want the government to give away money to them and their business interests.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
  14. Pete from Georgia

    Democrats arrogantly refuse to acknowledge a word that exists in the English language :


    Look it up in the dictionary.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
  15. Thom Richer

    It means the other half is not fighting it.

    Thom Richer
    Negaunee, MI

    January 20, 2011 at 2:19 pm |
  16. jerome

    People actions, have always said how they fill about things. More so,
    then the words coming out of their mouth. With the health of people in
    the USA going down hill so fast, what does their fight really say. People that do not like to help the poor and low income, what are
    their actions really saying. Because that is what all this is about.

    The games people play???

    January 20, 2011 at 2:19 pm |
  17. Alice

    It means the Republicans have something to talk about. Let it go and move on to something more serious, like China owns majority of the US treasury bonds. How about we talk about that?

    January 20, 2011 at 2:20 pm |
  18. david haines - seattle washington

    it means that the non working shareholder dividend paid every 3months (a corporate year) skims the healthcare bill wrongly structured with capital gains tax breaks for special interests who paid off present administration and parts of both parties (democrats and republicans), is immoral in its present form.........

    January 20, 2011 at 2:20 pm |
  19. Jayne

    It means many of us may suffer premature deaths. There's a reason other westernized nations have citizens who are healthier, who live longer and have fewer infant deaths: they make sure their citizens have access to medical care.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:20 pm |
  20. Ray E. (Georgia)

    A. It is un Constutional.
    B. The States are deep in Red Ink now. The Federal government is deep in Red Ink. Who is going to pay for it.
    C. The Federal Government has no business in the Medical Business or any other Business.

    D. 75 years of Social Programs and the Nation is in no better shape than they were 75 years ago, probably worse.

    E. People can and need to take care of themselves, not expect the Government to do it.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:22 pm |
  21. Larry from Georgetown, Tx

    This entire issue is one of the many in our country that continues to drive us apart. I really wish I had all of the answers as to what would be best for all of us that actually improved care and reduced costs but even if I did have it I doubt if either party would take action on it as it seems that they just want their way, not what's best for America.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
  22. Richard Oak Harbor, Wa

    Why tie up the court system with large scale state opposition to the proposed federal health care plan. State budgets are currently squeezed enough as it is and are looking to make budget cuts, not increase spending. Universal healthcare coverage should be a state issue with only minimal federal guidelines. Federal Congressional bipartisan compromise for allowing more state control on healthcare could be a good place to start a new era of civility in democratic debate and legislation.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
  23. Tom in Desoto, Tx

    It means that most state governments believe in war over education and health, so much so you'd think it was the 19th century. 19th century "thinking" at the very least.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
  24. ken, atlantic city, nj

    It means the states have a brain because 16 million people are being put on medicaid which the states and their taxpayers will have to pay for. Congress is about to give doctors who accept medicare a permanent 25% raise. The federal government will have to borrow billions of dollars to pay off the doctors who already average 300k per year. Meanwhile health insurance premiums are going up, 59% in vemont, 39% in california, foreclosures continue, home prices will drop another 10% in 2011, no raises, no colas for retirees but wall street, banks and corporations are making billions. Tax cuts, unemployment benefits, medicaid for 16 million people, food stamps, and cheap junk from china are keeping the masses happy and dumb, and the government in debt up to its eyeballs.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
  25. Charles, Lansing, Michigan

    It means that the greed that fuels Capitalism is in much bertter shape than Capitalism itself. When the majority of the people would rather spend trillions invading Iraq and Afghanistan in order to; keep the military industrial complex humming than spending money to keep people healthy, then the sickness has permeated the country.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:26 pm |
  26. KDS Irvine, CA

    It means this country does not want the government forcing us to buy health care. In other words, we're against Socialism. This is not a surprise to me because this bill forces those who don't have health insurance to buy it themselves. In the coming years, those who qualify for a lie (free health care) will receive health insurance and a bill which they have to pay out of pocket.

    Obamacare will do nothing but force this country further into debt, higher taxes and a less prosperous way of life for those who have to pay for it!

    January 20, 2011 at 2:28 pm |
  27. Dave

    I don't think most people even understand what the law that was passed is. It is not socialized healthcare. It is not even socialized health insurance. It is insurance reform, and it is long overdue. It will even reduce the deficit. The Republicans succeeded in inducing fear in the minds of many Americans, based on lies and misinformation. Shame on them.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:28 pm |
  28. Karen

    It means that this is a bad bill all the way around. Yes, we read it, even if members of Congress didn't and we don't like it. Didn't like it when it was proposed, passed or even one year later!

    January 20, 2011 at 2:29 pm |
  29. Bizz, Quarryville Pennsylvania

    I think it means that a lot of people are misinformed about what is in the new healthcare bill that was passed. The republicans along with Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck has spread vicious lies like having grandma euthanized. One thing I do know if we go back to the old system a lot of people won't be able to afford to have Health Insurance. Only the rich will be able to afford that luxury. Plus here we are again fighting over this same thing while more important issues that can not wait are put on the back burner. What ever happened to the campaign promises that were made just a month ago?

    January 20, 2011 at 2:32 pm |
  30. jeff from Pa

    According to the polls Jack it's about even. Is it the states or the ones in congress? I have a good repeal and a way to make things fair for this country and even save wasteful spending. Why don't we force the government to pay for their own health care? They can pay for their own gas and meals also! They make good money don't they? It really says something when congress gets their free health care paid for by us and they vote against something that we need and are going to pay for ourselves.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
  31. Tony from Southport

    It means that more than half the country have stated at town hall meetings and through the ballot box that they are opposed to this several thousand page fiasco called Obamacare. The only ones who don't seem to hear or care what Americans are saying, is this administration and most Democrats.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:35 pm |
  32. Gordon NJ

    Since all these states are under Republican control, it doesn't mean much. It does mean that the Republicans' desire to hand Obama defeats on every front, has replaced common sense. While Obama-care is not perfect, Republicans seem all too willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and replace it with yet another 30 years of empty campaign promises and mythical "free-market solutions."

    January 20, 2011 at 2:35 pm |
  33. jerome

    America use the word "care" grouped with so many words all the time. So, what do the word "care" really mean anyway.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:35 pm |
  34. barbara in NC


    You're so wrong in so many of your statements that it IS NOT FUNNY.

    Rather than argue with a low IQ person, I'm just going to suggest that you might make more money if you mosey on over and apply for a job helping Beck research which blatant lies he can sell next.


    January 20, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
  35. Gary H. Boyd

    It means the federal government is not properly representing the will of the American people. This health care boon doggle is the brain child of the guy now in the Oval Office, and he's not listening to the people. He needs to reread the part of the Constitution that says "Of the People, By the People and For the People" - not Of Obama, By Obama and For Obama". America's still a democracy - not a dictatorship.

    Gary H. Boyd in Scottsdale, Arizona

    January 20, 2011 at 2:40 pm |
  36. Lori - PA


    It means, and everyone already knows this, that the health care reform law is seriously flawed. We’ve got people that can’t find jobs. We’re seeing the price of items such as food, gas, and health insurance premiums constantly rising. While it's great that people with pre-existing conditions can't be denied health insurance anymore, in the end it’s a moot point if health insurance is unaffordable. The Federal Government should not be allowed to try and make people buy a product they can’t afford.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
  37. Jon from Woodbridge, VA

    It means that more than half the states are ignorant on what the legislation is doing. No, it's not perfect. But, insurance companies are out for one thing only – more profit. So, someone has to look out for the little guy. No surprise they are fightiing this using fear tactics – it seems that every Republican mouthpiece spouts nonsense meant to evolk fear and the lobbyists and insurance companies have caught on with the tactic.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
  38. Joe CE

    The law dose not force people to buy health insurance, it penalize them for not doing so but provides for hardship coverage. It is difficult to see any constitutional issue. The law forces people to pay taxes, to sevrve on juries, and registeration for military service. The state are complaining because it would potentially have a cost – this is not a constitutional issue.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
  39. Phil-Washington State

    If more than half the states are fighting the new health care law, then those same states should fight for rescinding the law that requires proof of motor vehicle insurance. The same principle applies.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:55 pm |
  40. Bob Fleming

    Jack it means that over half the states have Republican or Conservative Attorney Generals who are seeking headlines for their own political purposes.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:59 pm |
  41. bob, ontario, canada

    Jack, I suspect that the original legislation was such a convoluted complex bill that no one could be exactly certain what it entailed in terms of expense to the individual or to the quality of future health care. Try asking politicians pointed questions as to its contents and I suspect that you will get varied responses. Unless a more transparent bill that answers basic questions can be structured, the health care law should be challenged in court.

    January 20, 2011 at 2:59 pm |
  42. Shari from Madison

    Jack, to me it would mean that more than half the states are idiotic. I know the law is not perfect but it's better than the status quo. I have a pre-existing condition and without this law I would be unable to get insurance if I would lose my job.

    January 20, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
  43. Lou from Iowa

    These challenges come from states controlled by Republican governors. The republicans have made health care their waterloo. And they can't back down now. I almost wish they could repeal the thing so they could get on with other business.

    January 20, 2011 at 3:02 pm |
  44. Dave, Orlando, FL

    It means that most people are seriously misinformed and have very short memories. The bill was passed with the promise that it was a terrible bill (hey, the insurance companies wrote it), but they wanted to get anything through so there would be something to work with. They were supposed to fix it – they didn’t.

    The healthcare reform act doesn’t need repeal, it needs reform, that’s all. Does the term "Public Option" mean anything to anyone – it’s the only thing that needs to be changed or added.

    January 20, 2011 at 3:02 pm |
  45. Paul P.

    It means that if it gets scrapped before it evens gets fully implemented, you'll never know for sure if its any good or not. All the negative banter is speculation and nothing more and a repeal may stop any retry at health care reform for some time to come. Apparently to some people, the status quo has been so much better, and to others, so much more profitable.

    January 20, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
  46. Andrew

    The New Law is a Joke! Requiring People to Buy Health Insurance, Health Insurance Companies will Raise the Rates, get rich and will not care for people, Sorry I will not Pay a $200 to $700 Monthly Health Insurance bill, with a 5k to 10k Deductable, that is Crazy! What is Crazy Insurance Companies are raising the rates as we speak and they are getting away with it. This whole system is a Complete Joke, Waist of Tax Payers Money, and will not resolve the REAL Issues. Thanks you LawMakers for not solving Matters but making them worse!

    January 20, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
  47. chris

    this is a no brainer this is tellign we need to do this over the right way with reading and letting the public know everything in the bill and take some stuff out we the public and the states don't like like manking insurance mandatory or face a penalty is a example

    January 20, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
  48. Kathie

    Pure political games. It is mandatory to have car insurance but is unconstitutional to mandage health insurance? Doesn't make sense. republicans are in the back pockets of the insurance industry and corporate America.

    January 20, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
  49. Paul P.

    While freedom and personal choice is one American principal, I thought personal responsibility and paying your own way was another. So when Americans are bemoaning having to pay for Health Insurance, they are also accepting the fact they will continue to pay for the uninsured's health care costs. Think about that the next time your hospital charges you $48 for a Tylenol on your next hospital stay.

    January 20, 2011 at 3:14 pm |

    tampa, fl guess that public option thingy looks pretty good now, huh? I am all in favor of a national medical health care plan like most other civilized nations have. Ours is not and is already costing me over $1,000 more this year. Seems odd that you have to prove you have insurance, but not id to prove you are here legally.

    January 20, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
  51. Pat In Michigan

    It means Half of the states have been taken over by special interest PACS.
    I have an Idea .A new rule.!
    Any health care bill that is passed for the citizens is the only coverage that is allowed for all politicians. regardless if they can buy better insurance or not.
    What you do to the least of my brothers , you do unto me!

    January 20, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
  52. Remo, from beautiful downtown Pflugerville Texas

    Simple it means it stinks. It stunk in how it got passed and it stinks in how it's supposedly funded.

    January 20, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
  53. Rich McKinney, Texas

    Jack i think all these states are afraid that they will be left holding the bag for all these empty promises the democrats made. Health care isn't free and forcing private individuals as well as companies to buy insurance is simply not right. What about all the illegal aliens?

    January 20, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
  54. Steve, Clifton, VA

    Your question is misleading and inappropriate because the States are challenging one single specific provision of the Health care Reform Law, which contained multiple provisions, and that provision is the mandate that all citizens purchase some form of health insurance. It's the same principle as having all citizens to pay Federal Income taxes or when the draft was in place when all citizens at the age 18 had to serve in the military if they were not attending a college. Then there is social security and medicare and medicaid. States are already participating in Federally mandated programs similar to the mandate for health insurance so what's the big brew Ha Ha?

    January 20, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
  55. Paul, Parry Sound, Ontario

    Police protect you from crime, firefighters from fire, and public education from ignorance. But what protects you from illness? In the U. S., for many people, nothing. Two years ago my wife and I ran up medical expenses that in the U. S. would have cost $20,000 but we paid nothing. Thank goodness we live in Canada.

    January 20, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
  56. Laurel

    I'd say 26 states have more sense than the federal legislators. I personally resent being forced to purchase health care. I don't have kids. I am healthy enough. I don't smoke, drink lightly, and do no illicit drugs. I am also barely existing on student loans. I should be able to choose how to spend my money.

    January 20, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
  57. Tom Bulger, Canandaigua

    In its article titled, "Preamble to the United States Constitution" Wikipedia explains national health care's constitutionality much better than I can.

    "Although the Preamble speaks of perfecting the "Union," and the country is called the "United States of America," the Supreme Court has interpreted the institution created as a government over the people, not an agreement between the States.[71] The phrase has also been interpreted to confirm that state nullification of any federal law,[72] dissolution of the Union,[73] or secession from it,[74] are not contemplated by the Constitution."

    So many of the Republicans are lawyers they must know the law is constitutional. They are jerking around the gullible for political ends.

    January 20, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
  58. John

    Social security is something everyone must pay can we sue for that? Medicare is something everyone must pay can we sue for that?
    Taxes is something everyone must pay can we sure for that?

    Sometimes we have to make changes that not everyone wants, but are for the better good, this is the case here. The right will say stay out but if we stopped social security they would yell the loudest. Someone has to pay, why not everyone instead of the few.

    San Diego, CA

    January 20, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
  59. Patricia in Korea

    Change it to add in the Public Option, then we'll talk. Repealing with nothing to replace it is only going to hurt people who finally got covered.

    January 20, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
  60. Mike in Denver

    It would be easier and cheaper to start over than to reverse the health care law piece by piece in court. But, that would make sense, and thus by definition a prohibited course of action in D.C.

    January 20, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
  61. Steve

    Scrapping the provision that all Americans must carry health insurance might happen. However, I'm pretty sure that no voter wants to be the one to need health care and be told that he or she can not have it. I would like to know how the people who need health care have voted.

    January 20, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
  62. Tom Mytoocents Fort Lauderdale, Florida

    After you acknowledge Obama Care is employer based every other aspect becomes unimportant. Placement of Government and Employer between the consumer and his purchase blurs the lines of free market and distorts the true costs, as it opens the doors of fraud.
    Additionally, it makes the worker now subservient to both employer and government. A condition not possible without collusions from both. It reduces your rights, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

    January 20, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
  63. Ed from MD

    It means the boys down at the department of innovative stealing are going to have their work cut out for them.

    January 20, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
  64. Karen, Idaho

    It means, Jack, that a lot of states like Idaho, my state, are so Republican RED, that they will do anything to take down President Obama. The Idaho budget proposed by Governor Otter is cutting millions from the health and welfare budget–primarily medicaid, low income dental care, personal assistance for persons who are mentally or developmentally disabled, and other benefits for low income people with no insurance. At the same time, he joins the lawsuit to fight the new health care law. Guess he has the funds to pay for that. He insists that communities can handle the care of needy people themselves. I'm ashamed of my state.

    January 20, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
  65. David Gerstenfeld

    Jack, it means that the posturing for the 2012 election has become.
    David, Las Vegas

    January 20, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
  66. James in Idaho

    How many of them understand it well enough to be intellectually qualified to do so?

    January 20, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
  67. bud rupert

    It means that American politics will never fix our health care problem And it needs fixing. It started out (a century ago) totally decentalized with too many piece parts all out for themselves and has grown into a giant industry. And as long as our politics is based on big mony and big business it can't and never will change. Oh! a word on mandates Jack. We are the only modern/industrialized nation that does not require all citizens to particpate in a health care system.
    But we do not have a system. We have the most ineffecient delivery of health care on the planet and we rank 27th in world by any objective measurement. What a waste!

    January 20, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
  68. Arnold MI

    Someone should take the time to compare the crimes committed by the East Coast Gangsters that were busted today, with the people killed every year by our health care system, the banker scandal that brought down the entire economy , and our real estate scandal that collapsed housing prices.
    It sounds like the East Coast Gangsters didn't kill enough people or steal enough, otherwise we would be paying them bonuses.

    Ha Ha, this is an intelligent country we live in!

    January 20, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
  69. G Katz

    If our leaders had been wise enough to create a single-payer system, we wouldn't have to be going through such nonsense.

    January 20, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
  70. Luci

    I sure hope Health care is here to stay. It is much better to have to pay for it than not being able to have it at all under the Republicans.
    They are for taking everything away from the middle and poor class of people. If you aren't rich then you will have nothing as far as they are concerned.
    Poll, Poll,Poll, where do they take these polls at? I really wish they would call me.

    January 20, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
  71. Lavon in Hemet, CA

    It means Jack, just how polarizing this issue is in regard to partisan politics. All these states filing lawsuits citing the HC bill as unconstitutional are all red/purple states with republican governors. Partisan politics at it's best...

    January 20, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
  72. Jerry Johns Creek, GA

    If over half of the states are fighting the new healthcare this would probably mean that there are a lot of Americans who do not like being forced to accept what the government what the Federal Government has forced upon them. It is a good lesson for people like Nancy Pelosi who think so highly of themselves and their capabilities that they feel the "little" people should not be involved in their government's decisions. Well it is after-all our government. Health care for all is a laudable goal, but it must be attained on the basis of support of the majority of Americans, not the few who fill seats in Washington. We need a plan that is effective, can be financially supported and has the approval of the average American. We want to read the bills before they are voted upon, this is not a novel approach it has worked in the past.

    January 20, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
  73. Jason Jeremias

    A number of states fought against the 13th and 14th amendments. A number of states fought against the Brown v. Board of Education decision. A number of states fought against the Civil Rights Act. Nonetheless, we continued on the path of justice and continued paving the road to equality. Now we stand at the forefront of another storm, and I believe we will continue marching undaunted in the face of the naysayers. Thirty years from now, our children will look back at this fight, and question, why it took us so long. The ability to access health services is a human right, and Obama's policy is a giant step in the right direction.

    Yonkers, New York

    January 20, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
  74. Joseph Kavanaugh

    There a couple good ideas in the Bill but I believe that is was pushed too fast for approval. If the Majority of people in this country feel it is wrong, then it should be scrapped and back to the drawing board. It seems like the Bill should actually be called a tournaquet. Which is only used in a last resort. In any situation, more thought needs to be put into a product for quality assurance. Health care is just one of many problems we face as a Nation that need's a fined tooth comb before going out in public.

    Postal Joe, Rock Hill NY

    January 20, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
  75. Joe, Cleveland OH

    Jack – I honestly believe as more of the components of this are phased in, more and more people will like it. I'm with Dr. Cosgrove of the Cleve. Clinic who feels there are some questions about cost factors, but doesn't feel the entire law should be dumped. States' challenge is good....it means we'll keep talking about it. As long as it's in front of us, the insurance companies (who wrote the last health care bill) won't be able to mess with it behind our backs. Maybe we'll end up with a better law on the next go-around.

    January 20, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
  76. sheila

    From what I've heard & read there's a huge majority that want to keep it and also improve what's there. Who'd want to go back to being denied coverage, or have your unemployed, college-aged kids go without, etc?

    We need to ask the question why are we forced to have car insurance but not health insurance?

    January 20, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
  77. Bill in South Texas


    It means these states have not understood or refuse to follow the U. S. Constitution says: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    The governments even of the individual states are required by the constitution to promote the general welfare. This includes health care.

    January 20, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
  78. Joanne B

    Means that this Law passed with patently fraudulent accounting (10 yrs of taxes and 6 yrs of coverage for example), passing it via a law called reconciliation used for Budget corrections and the now 2900 pages is an attempt to "control" Americans and has nothing to do with Healthcare or for the good of Americans.......
    Joanne B

    January 20, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
  79. Jeff In Minnesota

    There is a lot in the health care reform law that passed last year that doesn't add up. It needs to be fixed, but heaven forbid we should even think about doing that, let alone discuss it.

    January 20, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
  80. Jeri Culberson

    Let the Republicans in Congress vote to repeal their own health coverage, if they are really serious. Never happen.

    January 20, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
  81. Jackson S

    The bill passed by the House will get to the Senate, and watch the Senators who are in red States squirm.
    There are many ways to force the issue, including attaching the repeal to every Democrat Bill.
    Jackson S

    January 20, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
  82. chaney Louisiana

    It means that these States are Red, and the GOP and Fox News did a great job in sabotaging this bill... death panels, $500, billion dollars cut from Medicare..illegals, abortion, killing granny off, huge increase in real estate tax, on and on....simply disgraceful.... we never had a reasonable discussion about HCR......

    January 20, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
  83. Kenneth in Pinon Hills, California

    Probably those fighting the health care have health insurance, like politicians with taxpayer paid plans or those who have theirs in a benefit package in their work place. You don’t see seniors running around trying to repeal Medicare. It is what we have become, selfish, screw you, I’ve got mine.

    January 20, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
  84. Anne Piper

    As Brian Baird so aptly put it, for those who don't want to purchase health insurance, have them sign a waiver agreeing to receive only health care they can pay for up front. No other health care will be provided.

    The purpose for having all Americans purchase health care is to average the costs among all the people, healthy or sick. That should keep premiums down if the government limits profits to insurance companies.

    January 20, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
  85. Jim

    Hopeful means Healthcare Reform will end and Alan Grayson's predictions will become reality.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
  86. Gigi Oregon

    It's because we the people are being lied to. Government Representatives have the best socialized living wages and benefits in the world. If it is so undesirable why don't our congress and Senate representatives drop theirs. And while they are at it there are some other items that arer just to expensive for our government.
    ... limit terms, let them buy their own retirement plans, not be allowed to vote in their own raises, no salaries for life, they pay Social Security just like you and me.. Think of the cost savings this would bring. And the turn over would probably bring current and better ways to keep government in check. We might be able to be rid of lobbyist also. Lobbyist are putting people into government to work for big business not you and I.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
  87. Jack - Lancaster, Ohio


    The "voters" know that a bit more than 50% will not move the inertia of the privileged elected and their supporters. 75% will not do it, 90 % will not do it, but 92% and a lot of grease money will. The folks in Washington are like the folks on Wall Street, money talks and votes are, well, cute.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
  88. John from San Antonio

    It means we should get rid if this farce and tackle health care with some common sense. This bill has so mnay flaws it is impossible to address them all here. Aside from that most of this bill won't take effect for some time so lets relegate it to some study and legitimate discussion while we get real excited over and tackle a much more relevant problem. The economy. If we don't solve this problem whatever bill we pass or rescind will not matter.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
  89. Annie, Atlanta

    How many of those against this law think it doesn’t go far enough? This is the insurance lobby hard at work, spreading misinformation with an assist from the media. Remember how many $$$ were poured into fighting reform? Those pesky regulations kill profits, you know, and several billions each quarter isn’t nearly enough.

    When specific benefits in the law are pointed out, we like what we see. Numbers are funny. You can shape them to fit a narrative. It would be nice if news organizations informed us instead of repeating Big Insurance paid-for talking points. I have a sister who actually believes her private health care policy is now government run. This is just sad.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
  90. Carl


    For me it means that the soon to be 1 term president, Nobama, doesn't listen to the will of the legal American citizen, he just panders to the illegal alien invaders, I can't wait till he's gone, next!

    January 20, 2011 at 5:08 pm |
  91. Deborah Calimese

    It means half the people in America are uninformed or ill-informed.
    Jack I like you i just wish you were a more upbeat person. I can't imagine what or who turned what I had believed to be a pretty funny and kind guy into a palin-esk.
    why are you so angry and ask questions that are geared toward anger and pessimism. Well you are the one with the mega phone. I just am tired of hate. Talk about cost, benefits, and facts. that is why I wont listen to cnn anymore.

    D. Calimese with a smiley face

    January 20, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
  92. Karl in Mich

    I means billions of dollars of our over priced premiums have been spent on our non-representatives to make sure the insurance companies keep getting those over priced premiums and not wasting them on sick people. Now THAT is sick.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
  93. Greg of Mechanicsburg PA

    I saw another poll that said only 18% want the law repealed while over 50% were in favor of amending it. Polls are funny that way. The questions can be asked in such a way as to reflect the opinion of the poll-taker. I have noticed a serious leaning to the right lately in CNN that I hope corrects itself in the future or I'm leaving for MSNBC.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
  94. Shari from Madison

    Jack, for me it means that there are a lot of states that buy the lies the republicans have spread about this law. But I don't find that too surpising because if a lie is told often enough people will believe it.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
  95. Kirk (Apple Valley, MN)

    How many of those states have Democratic governors?

    January 20, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
  96. Greg of Mechanicsburg PA

    It's not surprizing that over half of the states are against "Obma care". More than half of the governors are republican. It is partisan politics at its worst.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
  97. AdaObi

    Jack, why is it constitutional to impose car insurance on everyone, but not health care? I want to know why!

    January 20, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
  98. evelemon@live.com

    It means the republicans are better at convincing the people to oppose anything Obama supports, claiming it's socialization.. Our education, military, postal, and many other services are socialized why not health care. Also, some oppose that it is mandatory, but isn't auto insurance mandatory? These people don't think past their next breath. Eve of Texas

    January 20, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
  99. Birddog in Mississippi

    My wife is a primary care physician and she and all the doctors in her practice are highly skeptical of the poll you cite – they all see the Health Care Reform bill as being the greatest thing to happen to medicine since Penicillin. In addition most polls of the American people show that very few want the bill repealed – most want it to stay as is or to be made stronger.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
  100. Rick McDaniel

    The reason for that, is simple. The ObamaCare will run the cost of health care up, substantially, for all of us.

    Forcing people to buy something, is also unconstitutional.

    National Health Care is the only viable solution, funded by income taxes on everyone, including the poor.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  101. Virginia Atlanta GA

    It means they bought the misinformation that has been spread around by special interest groups. The government doesn't interfere with my doctors decisions, but my private insurance company certainly does. I have some say over my government, but not over my insurance company. By the way – are those folks who don't want the government to "interfere" in the relationship between a patient and doctor are they now pro choice?

    January 20, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  102. Ron, WA

    It means something is fundamentally wrong with this health-care legislation. When a majority of the Nation’s people, experts, health-care providers, & States cry for repeal & to have the yoke of this burden lifted there may be a message here worth listening to.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  103. Jim Blevins

    It means that insurance companies have far too much power in this country.

    Jim, Craig, CO

    January 20, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  104. John Moore - New Britain, PA

    The country needs healthcare for all, this bill is no means perfect but it is a start to build on. Since we are paying for healthcare already one way or another how can this bill be accused of adding the the cost industry pays now? The states that are fighting it are simply toeing the line and blindly following the party line. When legistlators give up their government coverage and go to the free market themselves I will begin to listen to them.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  105. Chrisanne Garrett

    It means the whole system has to change, not just some parts of the system. This is process, and is a good sign that we will eventually have the kind of health care in this country that we need.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  106. Joe


    It means that the states who are suing the health care law ALL have REPUBLICAN Attorney Generals. Who are you fooking Jack, you know this and yet, you continue to hide these facts. Why? Why is the media not revealing the truth, which is that big business controls the majority of the Republican party and the insurance companies and doctor groups would never want their ever increasing income to diminish.
    Joe, Binghamton, NY

    January 20, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  107. Ralph Patch

    It means there are a lot of idiots out there. Do you or anyone else have a better way to cover everybody? Or do you believe some people don't deserve coverage?

    January 20, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  108. Scott Stodden

    Well Jack Then You And All The People Who Are In Support Of Repealing The Health Care Bill Tell Everyone What Does The Country Do Regarding Health Care? What Else Makes Sense? I Think The Health Care Bill That Was Signed Into Law Is A Good Bill, Its Not Great Cuz They Didn't Include Universal Coverage, The Best Health Care Is Universal Coverage. What Else Do We Do Is My Question Other Than What President Obama And The Democrats Have Already Done?

    Scott Stodden (Freeport, Illinois)

    January 20, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  109. David Watkins

    The States' objections mean that the States are losing power and/or money. More importantly, CNN is confusing the issue by muddying the waters around repeal vs. change. Sure, many want the law changed, but how many want the law repealed? What is the breakdown?

    January 20, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  110. JMBarrett, Rhode Island


    We can't drive our cars without insurance. That was a law passed in every state, wasn't it? Why is health care coverage any different? Why are states fighting this mandate when they were so quick to pass the mandate for car insurance? Could the banks have been behind that? And the insurance agencies too? These kinds of mandates are not new, and it's disingenuous for lawmakers, insurance companies, doctors and states to cry foul over this one in particular when the health and well-being of so many is on the line.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  111. A Harris

    What does it mean?....My guess would be those states have Republican governors.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  112. Anton

    Why is it unconstitutional for government to force citizens to buy health insurance, but not car insurance? It seems like a double standard, to say the least.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  113. Victor R.

    The State Attorney Generals and Governors are using state money to fund a lawsuit for their personal belief on the health care law. Only 18 Percent of Americans Favor Repealing Health Care Law Entirely.

    Victor Rojas

    January 20, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  114. Gayle

    If the politicians would put all of us on their health insurance plan we might not need health care reform. That is what the american people need and if health care reform isn't the answer maybe getting on the Congressal health care is.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  115. Jay in Pittsburgh

    Let's leave the past fights settled and move on.

    Should we reopen debate on the merits of the Panama Canal?

    January 20, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  116. DBrown NYC

    The polls and the reports are not reflecting real people. This is one races opinion that is being measured. By putting together these skewered to the right polls and testimonies are nothing more than rhetoric. Most of these people calll it Obamacare to influence thier own agenda. Im so glad in the real world they arent falling for it and stilll back the presidents bill

    January 20, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  117. Blake on Long Island

    all it means Jack is that the states are following the same ole partisan politics as their constituents in the house of reps...nothing more... I wont debate the pros and cons of the Health Care Reform Act...however, no one can deny that kids being able to stay on their parents health care coverage is a bad thing...Wonder if the house also voted to repeal their own health insurance provided for by the gov't?

    January 20, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  118. Rome from UTSA

    It means that the Republican party's media train is still killing the bill. Although, It was a bad move on the Democrats to still force everyone to get health care with out a public option. I say the dems buckle on forcing everyone to get health care but stick to the bill over all. The point is to at least set up the infrastructure for universal health care.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  119. Jim

    What it means is that more than half the states don't care if those who refuse to pay for their healthcare and force others to do so is acceptable. Why do people feel that they are not subjected to the cost of healthcare for those who do not pay for care. Do they feel that if Healthcare Reform is somehow overthrown that Healthcare Professional will no long care for those unable or unwilling to pay.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  120. Chuck Wright, Georgia

    Thats easy Jack. More than half are Republican. They are the ones that protect the inequity in the distribution of Corporate income. They are deluded that the goal is to 'make more money' rather than satisfy unmet needs of humanity. Self serving greed.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  121. Faith Gagne

    I feel that the states fighting the health care reform bill (reform being the key word) are not fighting on behalf of the people. They are fighting on behalf of the insurance companies and others who stood to profit gloriously from the way things were. Not a single person that I know is against the health care reform bill, so your numbers are hard for me to believe.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  122. tj

    Yea and I bet those same states have mandatory insurance for cars, and mandate insurance on every home sold. To hell with the people who own the car and house. Oh and while they are at it forget the childrens health insurance too because if the parents dont have it its fair to say the children dont either..

    January 20, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  123. Mark

    It means that the corporate lobby money that is destroying this country is still working as good as ever! Stupid people being fooled by corporate BS that convinces the stupid to vote against their own interest wholesale. When is America going to WAKE UP??

    January 20, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  124. Faye Shearer

    In my opinion, the Republicans have used this as a political football and they are trying to score points. Much of the unfavorable opinion is because the GOP has made it a priority to make misleading and false statements about Health care. Of course there are things that could be improved upon but, as you know since the last election, there are more Republican Governors in our Nation. I don't want it repealed.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  125. Rich McKinney, Texas

    Jack i think what it means is that states think that the democrats did not come up with the best policies for health care. The democrats do not have a patent on health care and if republicans can do it better and save money doing it then i say more power to them. Lets wait and see.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  126. liz H

    Now Based on earlier reports, these states are fighting it mainly on the "being forced to get insuance"..which is a bad criteriaof bill...But you ask most of these states and American people, they're in favor of the majority of the bill.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  127. Jean

    Jack, if 70% of doctors are against healthcare reform, ask what percentage of doctors are Republican. I think it may be the same. The doctors that want reform are the ones in the trenches and not beholding to large fees– the family practitioner.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  128. Barbara Teixeira

    The states are opposed to the Health Care reform because the people in those states are demanding that they fight for their citizens. Health Care Reform was forced on us despite loud protests from citizens. If the government can force citizens to purchase health insurance, what will they force us to purchase next? Congress needs to remember that they were elected to represent us, not to control our lives.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  129. Kit

    It means that more than half the states have not thought beyond their own campaign chests. When those who don't want to buy health insurance have accidents or become ill, all of our taxes will increase, on local levels and beyond, so that their health care will be paid for. Either they pay their own way, or we all pay for them.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  130. Ron

    I am a Canadian and frankly don't get all the uproar. But I am confused by the court challenges. Don't all your States require vehicle insurance? Did the same States now challenging the new Health Care reforms also challenge this when it was introduced? Do they really think that insuring your vehicles are far more important than insuring your people? Sorry, I just don't get it.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  131. Eileen S in Portland

    Healthcare Reform means my son who just graduated college can stay on my insurance policy until age 26. It means my Mother-in-law with Lymphoma can get insurance coverage without having to worry about being denied because of a pre-existing condition. And your question means you would be a great candidate to run on a ticket with Lou Dobbs in 2012.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  132. wasp

    as a canadian i look at this and think...against the constitution???
    do you mean the constitution that your supreme court just threw out?

    ATLANTA, Jan. 18, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ - The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to void the Constitution in their courtrooms. The decision was issued on January 18, 2011, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Docket No. 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690).

    A Dark Day has finally come, the black robed devils have finally thrown freedom and rights under the bus.

    the real story should be this...

    January 20, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  133. Sarah

    If Doctors do not believe that Americans should have access to healthcare – they SHOULD NOT be doctors!

    January 20, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  134. Christine

    Jack, how many of the states filing suits saying the Healthcare Reform Bill is unconstitutional are Red States (GOP)...hmmm It is also disturbing that we have yet to see a true accounting of cost – the truth has yet to be unveiled. Not all doctors are saints either – they spread fear to preserve the reimbursements of ole by ordering unnecessary tests. And lastly, if unconstitutional, then why has Mitt Romney's healthcare reform been able to stay in place in Massachusetts where we pay a penalty for not purchasing health insurance.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  135. Carl in San Diego

    The question is moot since it is party affiliated. Have you noticed that the majority, if not all, of states fighting the heatlh care bill are 'red' states, or Republican controlled and whose Attorneys General are Republican's? Let's face it, it is partisan politics.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  136. JimGreenm Seguin, TX- www.Inclusivism.org

    What it means, Jack, is that you have sold out to the hundreds of millions that are sucked out of our healthcare in America, to enrich the already rich—so they can buy a bigger yacht-the truth is, we pay twice as much for our healthcare than any other country in the world and we are 37th in the world in quality of care—those are facts, Jack—sell a car, make a buck—sure that is the American way-but “profit” off of another human’s heath should be a criminal offense!

    January 20, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  137. Tim in Texas

    I like the situation room, but CNN produces polls that are extreme outliers. Polls that break the question of repeal down show that only about 37% of the people want it repealed completely, 51% want it left as is or want it to do more to change the system, and 10% want it changed so it does less to change the system.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  138. Jim Davis

    If they are going to fight health care insurance, they need to repeal mandatory car insurance, the public didnt want it either, but we have it.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  139. Mark from Voorhees, NJ

    It means that our politicians, especially governors of mostly smaller states are wholly owned by the health care industry and beholden to lobbyists, when they are not doing the bidding of the banks, the oil companies, and the drug companies. It means that if you have enough money, you can even convince doctors to be against their own best interests, as has already been done by the "citizens" who voted for the collection of boobs, thieves, and nutcases who now control the House. Mostly it means that we Americans are not very smart.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  140. Luke in West Virginia

    The public is still widely uninformed about the new health care law, and democrats aren't especially worried about explaining it because now the law is passed and they aren't worried about it being repealed because the president will not sign it. We have spent enough time on health care there are more pressing matters to focus on now, and repeal is totally unnecessary and too costly. Dems should try to get through a public option add on, or subtract whatever it is about the bill that republicans don't like. The democrats who still stand behind the health care reform and are still in office should continue to inform the public.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  141. Lanier

    It means there are a considerable amount of lawsuits filed or orchestrated by mostly "the party of no" in a number of states. Health care reform should not be repealed, but may be revised as long as insurance companies are required to provide a reasonable amount of coverage for those who need it.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  142. David, British Columbia

    It means that the health care industry has a powerful lobby. Big money talks–just look at the gun lobby–and common sense walks. What does it mean if 26 of 50 states are challenging the law in court? It means that 24 states know a good thing when they see it. ... 24 out of 50 ain't bad. Presidents have been elected with less.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  143. Raymond Sugel Sr

    States already require that you purchase auto insurance in order to drive your vehicle. Financial institutions require you have home insurance when they provide a mortgage. Why not be forced to purchase health insurance? When the uninsured do get hurt / ill they just go to the ER, then don't pay for the services they receive, raising the costs of health care for all. I say FORCE it on them.

    Dundee, IL

    January 20, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  144. Jeff Martin

    The public won't allow certain portions of the law to be repealed such as the protections against being dropped when you get a major disease.
    Now that both parties can claim to have done something for the people maybe we will have to have a real national conversation about the nuts and bolts of health care instead of partisan grandstanding.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  145. becky - Las Vegas

    Simple, Jack. Under the new health care laws, the health care lobby can't amputate the hand that's now taking money out of their constituent's pocket. It isn't covered. So they are doing what every other American does when they feel wronged and need "justice", get a lawyer to do it.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  146. Mike

    I have to wonder how many of those 26 states are completely republican controlled, or a the very least have republican AG's trying to make a name for themselves (Think VA). I would also be interested in how those states rank in terms of consumer protections for health insurance. it's always been the health insurance lobby's plan to control the states in order to control the policies. A national health care policy is the last thing big insurance wants, and will fight every front to defeat it.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  147. J. Goodrich

    If all of these States want to repeal the National health Care then this must indicate just how mucn Special Interest dollars own this great country of ours. Corporate dollars will very soon dictate the outcome of all of our lives, and the American Dream will truely just be a Dream.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  148. Bob in Dallas

    Jack, the states that are challenging the law are doing so on political grounds.

    Republicans would not have worked on health care if Yosemite Sam had won the election. He only made it part of his platform because so many people are getting killed by insurance premiums and he felt he needed to act concerned.

    Republicans are so blindly opposed to Obama and anything he brings to the table, not because it is good for our nation . . . just good for their Republican Politics

    January 20, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  149. John

    Jack we were offered health insurance trough our employeer today.People paid state minimum(NY State minimum pay at $7.25 per hour) can't make enogh to pay for family coverage.They make around $15,000.00 a year and should pay $312.00 per week for family health insurance. They should bring in $22 to pay differance.
    Is this "American Dream".

    January 20, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  150. LaVon Hummel

    The states that are repel heath care, are the very same states that want to repel President Obama.. If it good or bad or even if they don't even know. And Jack do you really think the Doctors of this Country are going to give up there membership at the country club. Of course they say its bad. I need health insurance.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  151. Lenny De Forge

    It means they have republican Governors... As some one 54 and without health care for 10 years along with millions other, repealing what we have now will make it worse. It seems to me it's about being christian toward those who have not. What is the difference we all pay social security we all benefit., why can't we all pay in to health care and we all benefit.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  152. Sue Squires

    The health care bill that took months to pass should stand. Many of the people that are against it have health care and they live in a bubble. As a nurse I have seen the outcome of many who are too poor to afford health care and they suffer, We need to step up and realize that private companies are leading the repeal.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  153. Dana Georgia

    it means their governed by republicans, jack. you need to break down the 50% opposed to healthcare reform. in that total are people whom think it didn't go far enough. with this new law insurane co. are mandated to spend 80% of the money they collect on health care versus the 66% they used to spend. in this era of excessive bonus'(and we're fixing to see more) monies not going to excessive CEO pay, etc. should appeal to everybody!

    January 20, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  154. Lisa illinois

    It means states most have extra money for lawyers. My state makes me buy auto insurance whats the difference. It's so if I'm in an accident I am covered isn't that the same with health insurance, you can have an accident without being in a car. I'm tired off my taxes paying for people who go to the hospital who are uninsured. Why should anyone pay for insurance if they will get the care and not have to pay? Maybe everyone should stop paying for health insurance and get free care.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  155. debbie

    All it means is that the lawyers will get richer.


    January 20, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  156. Wayne in Atlanta

    What it means is it's a bad idea to pass a law that takes affect in 4 years. Four years means Republicans can campaign about the negative potential impacts and Democrats can campaign about the positives. Neither knows the truth. The facts are 30-40 million people don't have health care today and probably won't for the next 3 years either.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  157. Rafael

    If these states feel that they don't need to buy health insurance then I guess that we don't need to buy auto insurance ! Auto insurance really kills my budget. So If I don't have to buy auto insurance either, I'm going to save lot's of money. They never pay fair value anyway.


    January 20, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  158. Bruce

    Every one I know says they pay too much for insurance, drugs, etc.But every time some one try to do something to help all people want to do is fight against it, like the party who is truly against everything but for nothing. The insurance & drug companies spend billions to defeat any change, including buying our politicians . If there is a better way lets hear it and make things better instead of just saying it's bad for us.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  159. scott ridener

    Jack, these so-called "states" are really just poliitical hacks who have been elected attorney-generals and are trying to earn points with their right-wing constituancies. Here in Florida, we had a jughead who was trying to run for governor and was soundly thrashed in the primary regardless of his attempt to rally his buddies in other states to join in tossing badly needed state funds into this misguided effort.
    Government can't make you buy healthcare? They can't make you pay taxes, make medicare payments, or wear seatbelts either, right? Time to realize the American people are a lot smarter than they're given credit for being.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  160. Pastor Byron

    Of course half the States and half the Dr's are against the Health Care Plan, they are influenced and "fooled" by all of the Republican Politicians! Also, are Dr.'s against it because they "admit" that in order for "many" Dr's and Insurance Companies to maintain their profits many of them will raise Health Care costs? A "comprehensive" Health Care Reform Plan "forced" on "all" is godly, over-due, and in the best interest of "all". Our current Health Care Reform Plan should not be "repealed/abolished" but rather it should be "IMPROVED". If it was not for partisan politics we would have a "better" plan and not be going through this "fight"!

    January 20, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  161. Jim in Iowa

    With the shifting of more State Governorships to the Republican Party, I would guess that it is mostly these States that are joining the effort to fight the new health care bill and this IS being are done for Political reasons... not what is best for the U.S. health system.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  162. Renee Peoria,Ill

    It means this is the perfect opportunity for the Republicans to show the country what they're really made of. I'm an independent who voted for Obama (largely because of Palin, I was originally planning to vote for McCain). If the Republicans want to win my vote in 2012, they need to prove to me that they're really on MY side, not big business, Wall Street, the insurance companies, etc. That means FIXING the health care bill, not repealing it. A public option would have taken care of a lot of the problems the GOP claims this bill will cause, but they're the reason it got left out in the first place. So what's it going to be, Republicans? The people or the insurance companies? Whose side are you really on?

    January 20, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  163. Jeff K

    People think that it is unconstitutional to force them to buy health insurance, but it is ok to go on welfare. More people having medical coverage will cause doctors to give less care? What happened to the hypocratic oath? How come the members of congress who pay only $47 a month for health insurance get better coverage than I do when I pay close to $500 a month? And when an illegal alien goes to the ER without insurance he doesnt pay a thing.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  164. Cecelia Horton

    Our state officials are as out of touch as our officials in Washington and they are clueless as to how the people they serve feel about this issue or any other issue that affects us. They are acting in their own personal interest and not in the interest of the people they serve.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  165. BrkLake

    The chaos over the health care law is the result of ignorance. The Speaker of the House says the health care law threatens "the best helath care system in the world". In fact, according to the New England Journal of Medicine (1/6/2010), the US health care system only ranks 37th based on our poor public health (life expectancy, infant mortality, ...). It's about time that the facts regarding the very poor quality of the US health care system are made public and our leaders are held accountable to improve it, not lie about it.
    Berkeley Lake, GA

    January 20, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  166. Minesh - Troy, MI

    Jack, reading liberal comments reminds me that they cannot connect cause and effect. Bankrupt states cannot add any more federal mandates to Medicaid etc. It is that simple.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  167. OlaWale

    First we have to assume that majority of the population is politically literate and that each person's potential to influence is equal.
    Slightly more than half of the states against...shows that there is some good and there is some bad in the bill. This is why both parties have lasted so long. If one were obviously worse than the other, it probably would have fizzled out by now. Both parties should learn to keep the good and throw out the bad instead of trying to prove who is better.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  168. Peg Hendren

    It means that more that half of the states are governed by the Gop and will not allow any accomplishments of the Obama administration to stand. Many of the ideas in the bill are Republican ideas, and they even criticize those. I say, finally we have a bill that not only provide all of us with access to health care, but also requires everyone who's able to contribute to the cost. Does the GOP want those of us who have coverage to continue to pay for those who don't, or do they just want to deny health care to those lowly of us who can not afford it?

    January 20, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  169. Shan Thane

    It means that the insurance companies and other special interest groups are succeeding in giving the middle class and the poor no chance at decent, affordable healthcare. All those congress people have special interest support corporations who act as the manipulators to the congress people's strings. The middle class and poor are watching these marionettes and I for one am appalled by the blatant disregard for the Americans who need affordable, reliable and good healthcare.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  170. Kenneth

    We have 3 entitlement programs spiraling out of control cost wise and in urgent need of repair–Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But what do the dem's do? They bring us a 4th entitlement program (Obamacare) that is already underwater if we eliminate the double counts the Dem's included in the CBO. analysis.

    Governor Mitch Daniels in Indiana has a health care plan for state employees there that looks very promising--lets jettison Obamacare and work with the Indiana model.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
  171. Jim Sluder

    What it means Jack, is the insurance companies, big business, and their paid in full congressmen have done a good job of selling lies to the American people. I will bet you a gift certificate for your favorite beverage that you can't find a Republican member of congress who will sit down and take a lie detector test that they are telling the truth about the healthcare bill. I think it's time to look at a 25 year plan to peacefully dissolve the United States. It seems the states certainly don't care to be a part of a progressive nation.

    Jim in College Station, TX

    January 20, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
  172. bob in florida

    Considering nearly 3/5 of the States have Republican Governors and 1/2 have GOP Atty Gens, why would anybody expect otherwise?

    January 20, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
  173. Brandon

    What makes me mad is that we are not getting to see what the bill actually entails. You have Fox news out there leading half the country astray by their lies. And yet where are all the experts that can tell the American people the real gains or losses that bill entails. I think that everyone should start working together to create jobs and get this country back on track. Republican are just wasting everyones time and money as the country continues to regress. And how much money is being wasted by states that can't even keep their budgets under control. What is wrong with most of our representatives they are faced with the biggest set of obstacles our country has possible ever faced. And they are trying to repeal a health care bill that half the country doesn't even know what it contains. I don't care if it is a hundred thousand pages it is their $%#@ job to READ IT and UNDERSTAND IT. No more excuses.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
  174. david bidlack

    i heard a republican speaking on the floor today saying that we need to get our budget under control. he also made a comment about the fact that the united states is #9 in living standardin the world. the eight countries that are ahead of us got their national health care cost under control by having national health coverage for all their people with the power of goverment buying in the market place. these countries don't spend almost $4trillion dollars on middle east wars and rebuilding other countries. the states and the republicans just are not smart enough to figure out what our goals should be and why we are in 9th place in living standard. even china has national health care and they are eating our lunch!

    January 20, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
  175. terry

    no thanks, Jack, I would rather start the 2012 presidential campaign tomorrow ............that will inflict enough pain to send everyone to their medical professionals and then we won't need to worry about this ever again !

    I volunteer at a local hospital and at least half of those patients entereing the building are either smokers or 100 lbs+ overweight – conditions brought about by themselves – no, I do not want my tax dollars paying for other people's self-induced mistakes –

    January 20, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
  176. Paul

    Approximately 97% of Massachusetts residents have health insurance due to the requirement that uninsured residents without health insurance must purchase it. Interesting in that the State has the authority to require this but the feds do not? I doubt it very highly that the states will win this challenge.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
  177. Joe

    Jack, this person said it better than anyone else I know ... Joe, Binghamton, NY

    John from Alabama January 20th, 2011 2:03 pm ET

    Jack: I can show 2 polls that state 50 to 52% are in favor of the new Health Care Reform Law. Some doctors do not favor the new health care reform, because it makes them more accountable and liable for over charges. Most doctors did not like medicare in 1965, but today everyone in the medical business likes medicare. The Re[publicans do not like social security, unemployment insurance, FDIC, and medicare, because it was not their idea, but they are great programs which have past the test of time.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  178. Jim Hoffman

    As to the states: Republican party discipline extends to the states, where Governors puppet the talking points and commands from on high in the party.
    As the the doctors: Either the poll is bogus or the responses are from self-serving docs who only care about their own pay.
    Polls: A more recent poll by ABC shows that only 18% of respondents want a complete repeal of the health care reform bill. Even less than a majority of republicans support full repeal. And the percentage of people who think health care reform is at it's highest since June '09. All of these only reinforce one thing about us humans: we hate change.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  179. Robby Bowling

    Its a state's right issue, it's a freedom issue. Every time the government try's to fix anything they make it worse. The fed's are are out of money and out of time and the cost will be dumped on the states and taxpayers. It's about federalism and what is legal and not what politicians can do to get votes.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  180. Nancy, Tennessee

    The states are beginning to speak up for what the American people want since our lawmakers have amnesia when they reach Washington. The 20% increase as of Jan. 1, 2011 in my health insurance premiums is the first red flag that shows me this is not a good law. The two previous years the premiums were the same. I would have been better off without it.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:38 pm |
  181. butchyon

    It means nothing, Jack. States don't have any rights anymore. Not really. That ship sailed a long time ago. What do you think this place is, anyway, a Republic?

    South Carolina

    January 20, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
  182. BESSIE

    This is only happening because of three r's ,republican ,rich, and racist ! If Mc Cain had passed this health care bill, being that it made history ,it would be just find ! and remember it takes money out of the pockets that feed the republican's. Another thing, they always talking about the american people don't want this ,what american people? I and my friends and neighbors have never been polled and you can't get american no more than us ! We don't like the republicans lying on us and we will show them in 2012 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    January 20, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
  183. bob quilliam

    So republicans need something to run on . healthcare's been there now with not on the table they need to do something to get it back .

    January 20, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
  184. Bruce

    Only that it was a horrifically designed bill – without being written and introduced by the White house. It needs to be an all government bill without the private companies that have ruined our system. And the mandatory pay should be done via taxes. In short, it needs to be re-done, but if it is it will be for all the wrong reasons – Republican politics.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
  185. Ken Tomcich

    Health reform is needed. What Congress gave us was a compromise to overcome obstructionists. Time for both sides to put politics aside and make much needed health reform adjustments. Agree to the facts - add what is needed - pay for what we want - get rid of the rest. Getting agreement on the facts requires reading and understanding what we currently have. Do you suppose Congress will do the work necessary to get it done?

    January 20, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
  186. Arnold MI

    In the State of Michigan, which is a state that is suing the federal government, the former Governor Granholm, Senators Levin & Stabenow supported the reform bill. Congressman Dingle who wrote most of the reform bill supports it, but former Attorney General Mike Cox filed the law suit on behalf of the people. I am not sure which people he is filing the suit for!

    January 20, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
  187. Loren, Chicago

    It means that they don't want to pay for it any more than the rest of us do. While the intentions were good, the execution was flawed. At it's heart, a for-profit health care insurance system is immoral. A mutual aid based system, where any unpaid premiums are either returned to the insured or roll-over to reduce the following year's premiums is what we need (but, of course, it never entered the debate).

    January 20, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
  188. honest John in Vermont

    It means they don't like it. I see no reason to force it on people who don't want it. I don't see Obama's plan as very good and I know what the Republicans have up their sleeves is even worse. The ONLY way to better and cheaper health care is through a single payer system and if we can't get that part right–why bother.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
  189. bernard

    all this about the unconstitutionality of the new health care law, seems to be based on the single premise that people feel that forcing them to buy insurance for their health some how infringes on their rights. we as a society mandate car insurance motor cycle insurance house insurance etc. and why so that society does not have to pick up the tab. health care is no different if you do not have health care and require it then some one has to supply it and someone has to pay for it, and yes that someone is us. healthcare providers do what any business does and that is to increase their prices to cover their increasingg overhead, would it not be better to make each individual responsible for himself.
    as for the businesses that do not provide healthcare all they are doing is transferring their obligation onto our shoulders this is known as a subsidy.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
  190. Canute -Houston, Texas

    Why are there oppositions against "forcing" everyone to buy Health Insurance. Where was this opposition when the Law was passed that compelled everyone to get Auto insurance?

    Our money will be better spent on Health Insurance than on Auto Insurance since more people die from ill health, Cancer etc than Auto accidents. Yep, even those caught up in accidents will get medical attention if they had Health Insurance.

    January 20, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
  191. John, Brooklyn, NY

    What is the difference between the states mandating auto insurance and the federal government mandating health insurance? I really do not understand.

    January 20, 2011 at 6:00 pm |
  192. Annie, Atlanta

    Kenneth, how are Social SEcurity and Medicare "entitlement" programs when we pay for them? That seems more like an insurance policy if you ask me.

    January 20, 2011 at 6:00 pm |
  193. norma dyer

    Jack Just maybe half the states didn't ask their people what they wanted done.!!! Just a thought.
    From Maine

    January 20, 2011 at 6:01 pm |
  194. Robert Rexford

    I'm located in So.Cal. My situation is as a former hospital administrator,I believe that millions of people don't want to buy Health Insurance. They aren't sick and don't have a broken leg.
    When they get sick they cough up some cash, but what happens
    if they are found to have prostate cancer.Or they break their leg skiing?
    Cafferty who should pay for these people's medical care that have chosen not to buy health insurance. OK they have a big Ford 150 truck,gas in the tank to do whatever they want, but sorry you the taxpayers will end up paying this guys bills!
    It is unconstitutional for hospitals to refuse to treat our hypothetical individual and try to get money from him to pay his ER Bill! Good Luck.
    Now he is disabled and will never pay back his medical bills.

    January 20, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
  195. ken, atlantic city, nj

    What does car insurance have to do with mandatory health insurance. If you own a car you have to buy car insurance but if you don't own a car you don't have to buy car insurance. You have to buy health insurance whether you own a car or not, and the states have to provide medicaid fo 16 million people whether they hve the money or not. If obama wants 16 million people to have free health insurance let him pay for it. Mandate that obama pay for everybodys medicaid.

    January 20, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
  196. Greg Turman


    What does 1/2 the states fighting health care reform in court mean?

    1) the non transparent bill will be "tried" under sworn oath with facts and numbers, not media spin & appeal to emmotion.
    2) Nobody is talking yet about (200) major corporations applying to opt out of the bill or be forced to lay workers off
    3) The bill will become transparent, resulting in bigger changes in congress come 2012.

    Gregory Turman

    January 20, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
  197. p. taylor

    it shows a lack of compassion and sensitivity to people who don't have much.

    January 20, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
  198. Diane Lloyd

    Throwing out health care because it isn't perfect is rediculous! This is your chance to enjoy health care like so many other people around the world do. Yes, it will have to be twigged and changed over the years to make it better and iron out the wrinkles.

    Giving up would be such a great loss to your people.

    Canadian health care is not perfect but no Canadian is refused necessary health care for any reason, nor are they charged for it!


    January 20, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
  199. Ken in NC

    It simply means Republicans have been able to promote fear into those that cannot read and comprehend for themselves and that includes politicians on the payrolls of the Health Care Industry.

    January 20, 2011 at 6:08 pm |
  200. L.W. Clodfelter

    As a life long resident of the state of MICHIGAN YOU if you are counting MI and Arnold have it wrong...WE ARE NOT SUING over OBAMA CARE.. OUR EX AG TRIED BUT HAD TO DROP THE SUIT and REFILE AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN or at least that's what I understood after He got chastised for for thinking He was the MI government and the citizens of this state...

    January 20, 2011 at 6:15 pm |
  201. Ann

    Just wondering why it isn't unconstitutional to require people to have car insurance.

    January 20, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
  202. AB

    It means notthing in the long run since the Supreme Court will uphold the law as constitutional under the guise of " promoting the general welfare of the United States." Furthermore, the Republicans are wasting their time and taxpayer's money on a repeal proposal that will go nowhere. The states are doing likewise. These futile efforts reflect the wishes of the insurance industry and really do not reflect those of the American people. Healthcare reform is here to stay.

    January 20, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  203. AB

    It means notthing in the long run since the Supreme Court will uphold the law as constitutional under the guise of " promoting the general welfare of the United States." Furthermore, the Republicans are wasting their time and taxpayer's money on a repeal proposal that will go nowhere. The states are doing likewise. These futile efforts reflect the wishes of the insurance industry and really do not reflect those of the American people. Healthcare reform is here to stay.

    January 20, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  204. cal

    the only reason the law was passed by the democrats control of congress. they still do not know what all is in the bill. it's time for a do over. just throw out this bill and write on with only health issus in it, some of the old bill parts were ok but stop and think what you are doing then write a good bill that both side know whats in it

    January 20, 2011 at 6:33 pm |
  205. fyfy, Mesquite, Tx.

    Yes Jack, I can't wait to go out there and campaign for president Obama, he is doing a great job and will do more if only he's given a chance. Democrats and indeps., should all get up and vote this time around or keep quiet when things go bad because they didn't vote. Thanks Jack.

    January 20, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
  206. Faye from Nevada

    It doesn't mean that those states want it repealed. What it means is there was someone, in those states, trying to be whacky to draw attention to themselves. The health care reform is for all American's, no matter what their political party and we've all needed it for decades. We not only need it we need it expanded. Thank goodness we have good people fighting for it. Of course, rich Republicans don't like it but it's not for them anyway, it's for the rest of us.

    January 20, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
  207. Martin

    That means that the U.S. could lose the benefits we voted for and can send the country in the wrong direction.

    January 20, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
  208. L.W. Clodfelter

    Your comment is awaiting moderation means what ??? Believe me when I say after hearing you tonight Jack my comment is ice compared to what I would have liked to say...I did notice a couple of suggestions that you join FOX; might be something there...

    January 20, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
  209. lynnej in north carolina

    It means sour grapes. Those with common sense have been trying to get some sort of health care passed for decades.

    Those fighting it just doesn't like it because it occurred while on the watch of a Democratic President who happens to be black.

    No it isn't perfect, but it is a start. Medicare/Medicaid for all should have been the law of the land and been done with it.

    January 20, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
  210. Ana

    Jack... all these states are going to lose their lawsuits because this isn't any different than the status quo. Right now the federal and states force people to pay social security/medicare/medicaid (FICA) or state disability insurance (SDI) or state unemployment insurance (SUI). Also, everyone who retires and collects their social security and medicare benefits are already forced to buy prescription drug coverage, and if they wait, once they do sign up (after the fact) they have to pay a penalty equal to the amount in back premiums they would have paid when they filed for medicare to begin with. So, this sort of tax or penalty (whatever name you want to give it) is already in place for other required insurance coverage on a state and federal level. Why doesn't anyone ever bring up this point? It's that simple really!!!

    January 20, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
  211. Mike in PA

    I think we should have Everyone buy car insurance, EVEN if you don't have a caror drive. That way Everyone is covered! Makes about as much sense as the healyth care bill...

    January 20, 2011 at 6:54 pm |