Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

[Guest guest]

Scroll down to " Standing to Sue " and you will see Flast, Valley Forge,

and Bender. I don't think Bender is significant at all, but it

appears that Valley Forge may have weakened Flast. However, if this

is the case in our situation, Apanovitch probably would have mentioned

it. http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/

> > Good work, Kayleigh!

[Guest guest]

Bender is apparently not on point because Youngman explicitly did not

sue as a taxpayer.

I believe the court has a point when it says that the decision to give

the land to the Christian School was not a Congressional spending

decision. " You didn't object when we acquired the land for the armed

forces; now you have no standing when the armed forces doesn't need it

and gives it away. " It would be foolish to attempt to argue that

there's no connection there, however, no matter how attenuated. I

myself have not read the case, or if I have, I don't remember it.

> > > Good work, Kayleigh!

[Guest guest]

Bender is evidently not a taxpayer suit, Youngman sued as a School

Board member.

I can see the point of Valley Forge, namely that once having acquired

the land for the armed forces without taxpayer objection, the armed

forces can then, when it is no longer useful to them, do with it what

they will. There is a connection, between the act and taxpayer

spending, and it would be foolish to deny it, however attenuated it

may be. Nonetheless, it does not involve direct Congressional

spending. I don't think this case involves any concerns similar to

those we have on this list.

Mind you, I have not read the cases, only the summaries.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation, based in Madison, Wisconsin, has

filed a suit against various state officials for funding a faith-based

addiction treatment center in Milwaukee. Bush praised this program as

a paradigm of what he wanted to achieve and then appointed the

Wisconsin governnor his head of Health and Human Services. I am going

to write to the editor of the foundation's newsletter and ask her how

the lawsuit is going.

There was some talk on this list recently about forming a non-profit

group, though I don't remember off-hand what the purpose was. If we

want to file a lawsuit, forming a group might be a powerful way to

lobby potential allies, such as insurance companies.

Thoughts?

> > > Good work, Kayleigh!

[Guest guest]

> > > Good work, Kayleigh!

[Guest guest]

> > > Good work, Kayleigh!

[Guest guest]

> > > Good work, Kayleigh!

[Guest guest]

> > > Good work, Kayleigh!

[Guest guest]

> > > Good work, Kayleigh!

[Guest guest]

> > > Good work, Kayleigh!

[Guest guest]

If we

> want to file a lawsuit, forming a group might be a powerful way to

> lobby potential allies, such as insurance companies.

>

> Thoughts?

The first thought that comes to my mind is this: Do insurance

companies actually have to pay for " sentencing alternatives " such as

in my last post, " Promises " ? In other words, let's say I have an

excellent insurance policy, which, as mandated by government, covers

" addiction treatment. " Now I go out and get caught possessing or

selling prohibited drugs and am given the ol' prop 36 op--the one

shown on the Promises page I posted. Do I now have a choice of jail

or my insurance company being ripped off by Promises, or is my choice

jail or a government trickment program if I cannot afford Promises.

Can I get an insurance policy to cover alternative sentencing for bank

robbery?

Tommy

[Guest guest]

If we

> want to file a lawsuit, forming a group might be a powerful way to

> lobby potential allies, such as insurance companies.

>

> Thoughts?

The first thought that comes to my mind is this: Do insurance

companies actually have to pay for " sentencing alternatives " such as

in my last post, " Promises " ? In other words, let's say I have an

excellent insurance policy, which, as mandated by government, covers

" addiction treatment. " Now I go out and get caught possessing or

selling prohibited drugs and am given the ol' prop 36 op--the one

shown on the Promises page I posted. Do I now have a choice of jail

or my insurance company being ripped off by Promises, or is my choice

jail or a government trickment program if I cannot afford Promises.

Can I get an insurance policy to cover alternative sentencing for bank

robbery?

Tommy

[Guest guest]

One more question. Do large medical insurance companies have their own

legal staffs or do they just hire, as needed from law firms?

[Guest guest]

One more question. Do large medical insurance companies have their own

legal staffs or do they just hire, as needed from law firms?

[Guest guest]

This is tough to answer, because it depends on your state law and the

terms of your insurance. Here, first-time DUI offenders are sent to a

3 day " program " which varies a lot from county to county. Some of

these programs might be considered " treatment " by your insurance

company, but others certainly would not.

On the other hand, if you were given the option of " treatment in lieu

of sentencing, " and I'm not even sure if that's available any more

(usually for first time drug offenders, though also usually not

dealers), you would go to an accredited treatment program that your

insurance would probably pay for, again, according to the terms of the

contract.

My husband's policy, for example, which covers me as well, will only

cover 3 sessions with a psychiatrist for prescriptions or

with an accredited professional who belongs to their plan

for psychotherapy. Permission has to be renewed after each three

sessions. They also cover 10 outpatient drug treatment sessions. I

believe they would cover inpatient treatment only after the less

intrusive methods had been tried. So then I would be sol if I were a

drug offender.

> If we

> > want to file a lawsuit, forming a group might be a powerful way to

> > lobby potential allies, such as insurance companies.

> >

> > Thoughts?

>

> The first thought that comes to my mind is this: Do insurance

> companies actually have to pay for " sentencing alternatives " such as

> in my last post, " Promises " ? In other words, let's say I have an

> excellent insurance policy, which, as mandated by government, covers

> " addiction treatment. " Now I go out and get caught possessing or

> selling prohibited drugs and am given the ol' prop 36 op--the one

> shown on the Promises page I posted. Do I now have a choice of jail

> or my insurance company being ripped off by Promises, or is my

choice

> jail or a government trickment program if I cannot afford Promises.

> Can I get an insurance policy to cover alternative sentencing for

bank

> robbery?

>

> Tommy

[Guest guest]

This is tough to answer, because it depends on your state law and the

terms of your insurance. Here, first-time DUI offenders are sent to a

3 day " program " which varies a lot from county to county. Some of

these programs might be considered " treatment " by your insurance

company, but others certainly would not.

On the other hand, if you were given the option of " treatment in lieu

of sentencing, " and I'm not even sure if that's available any more

(usually for first time drug offenders, though also usually not

dealers), you would go to an accredited treatment program that your

insurance would probably pay for, again, according to the terms of the

contract.

My husband's policy, for example, which covers me as well, will only

cover 3 sessions with a psychiatrist for prescriptions or

with an accredited professional who belongs to their plan

for psychotherapy. Permission has to be renewed after each three

sessions. They also cover 10 outpatient drug treatment sessions. I

believe they would cover inpatient treatment only after the less

intrusive methods had been tried. So then I would be sol if I were a

drug offender.

> If we

> > want to file a lawsuit, forming a group might be a powerful way to

> > lobby potential allies, such as insurance companies.

> >

> > Thoughts?

>

> The first thought that comes to my mind is this: Do insurance

> companies actually have to pay for " sentencing alternatives " such as

> in my last post, " Promises " ? In other words, let's say I have an

> excellent insurance policy, which, as mandated by government, covers

> " addiction treatment. " Now I go out and get caught possessing or

> selling prohibited drugs and am given the ol' prop 36 op--the one

> shown on the Promises page I posted. Do I now have a choice of jail

> or my insurance company being ripped off by Promises, or is my

choice

> jail or a government trickment program if I cannot afford Promises.

> Can I get an insurance policy to cover alternative sentencing for

bank

> robbery?

>

> Tommy

[Guest guest]

This is tough to answer, because it depends on your state law and the

terms of your insurance. Here, first-time DUI offenders are sent to a

3 day " program " which varies a lot from county to county. Some of

these programs might be considered " treatment " by your insurance

company, but others certainly would not.

On the other hand, if you were given the option of " treatment in lieu

of sentencing, " and I'm not even sure if that's available any more

(usually for first time drug offenders, though also usually not

dealers), you would go to an accredited treatment program that your

insurance would probably pay for, again, according to the terms of the

contract.

My husband's policy, for example, which covers me as well, will only

cover 3 sessions with a psychiatrist for prescriptions or

with an accredited professional who belongs to their plan

for psychotherapy. Permission has to be renewed after each three

sessions. They also cover 10 outpatient drug treatment sessions. I

believe they would cover inpatient treatment only after the less

intrusive methods had been tried. So then I would be sol if I were a

drug offender.

> If we

> > want to file a lawsuit, forming a group might be a powerful way to

> > lobby potential allies, such as insurance companies.

> >

> > Thoughts?

>

> The first thought that comes to my mind is this: Do insurance

> companies actually have to pay for " sentencing alternatives " such as

> in my last post, " Promises " ? In other words, let's say I have an

> excellent insurance policy, which, as mandated by government, covers

> " addiction treatment. " Now I go out and get caught possessing or

> selling prohibited drugs and am given the ol' prop 36 op--the one

> shown on the Promises page I posted. Do I now have a choice of jail

> or my insurance company being ripped off by Promises, or is my

choice

> jail or a government trickment program if I cannot afford Promises.

> Can I get an insurance policy to cover alternative sentencing for

bank

> robbery?

>

> Tommy

[Guest guest]

As a rule insurance companies have their own inhouse legal staff to

handle their own day-to-day legal needs and to handle smaller claims.

If litigation becomes complex or the claim is very large, they often

hire more specialized attorneys from law firms.

Again, this will vary from company to company, and I am told that

nowadays such companies are often prone to hire lawyers on a temp

basis to handle litigation, since the fees are lower but litigation

specialists who don't want to work for one firm full-time are more

available than they used to be.

Why do you ask?

> One more question. Do large medical insurance companies have their

own

> legal staffs or do they just hire, as needed from law firms?

[Guest guest]

The reason I ask is because if a large company had a full time legal

staff, for instance Blue Cross, then the top lawyer for that company

would of course be a well paid company man who would be willing to

listen to someone who was working on something that would save his

company and his industry millions. That's were our goal might fit in

and where we, as mentioned, may have an ally. I'm sure the

insurance companies have wised up to the point that they know what a

scam drug/alcohol treatment is, but as pointed out in his

excellent post, they are between a rock and a hard spot. Suppose we

could create an alliance with them somehow and let them know that if

12-step coercion is unconstitutional, then they would not be mandated

to cover 12-step treatment, and they would save millions.

> > One more question. Do large medical insurance companies have their

> own

> > legal staffs or do they just hire, as needed from law firms?

[Guest guest]

This is a multi-faceted question. First of all, I don't believe

insurance companies are willing to step up to the plate and argue that

12-step treatment is unconstitutional. They don't believe in big

outlays for future savings. Second of all, while not paying for

12-step treatment would save money, the companies' emphasis seems to

be on paying for less, not paying for effectiveness. Hence they

would probably fight paying for any addiction treatment at all, as

opposed to effective treatment.

I do believe in the parity issue, that is, that behavioral problems

should be afforded the same kind of coverage that cancer and diabetes

and so forth command. The hitch is not only finding effective

treatments, but convincing lawmakers, and not insurance companies,

that they are effective, because lawmakers are the people who can

mandate effective treatment. I think we are way outclassed and

outgunned in this fight, because of the very effective lobbies that AA

advocates have. One of the most insidious things is that they are

hidden, as Ken has pointed out before. Highly placed policy makers

are AA members or AA advocates, and they are reaching the finishing

tape before we even realized there was a race. This is one of the

toughest things to fight, and given the general reverence for AA from

many people who have not the slightest idea what it entails, it's hard

to imagine how to mount an equally effective counterattack.

> The reason I ask is because if a large company had a full time legal

> staff, for instance Blue Cross, then the top lawyer for that company

> would of course be a well paid company man who would be willing to

> listen to someone who was working on something that would save his

> company and his industry millions. That's were our goal might fit

in

> and where we, as mentioned, may have an ally. I'm sure the

> insurance companies have wised up to the point that they know what a

> scam drug/alcohol treatment is, but as pointed out in his

> excellent post, they are between a rock and a hard spot. Suppose we

> could create an alliance with them somehow and let them know that if

> 12-step coercion is unconstitutional, then they would not be

mandated

> to cover 12-step treatment, and they would save millions.

>

[Guest guest]

This is a multi-faceted question. First of all, I don't believe

insurance companies are willing to step up to the plate and argue that

12-step treatment is unconstitutional. They don't believe in big

outlays for future savings. Second of all, while not paying for

12-step treatment would save money, the companies' emphasis seems to

be on paying for less, not paying for effectiveness. Hence they

would probably fight paying for any addiction treatment at all, as

opposed to effective treatment.

I do believe in the parity issue, that is, that behavioral problems

should be afforded the same kind of coverage that cancer and diabetes

and so forth command. The hitch is not only finding effective

treatments, but convincing lawmakers, and not insurance companies,

that they are effective, because lawmakers are the people who can

mandate effective treatment. I think we are way outclassed and

outgunned in this fight, because of the very effective lobbies that AA

advocates have. One of the most insidious things is that they are

hidden, as Ken has pointed out before. Highly placed policy makers

are AA members or AA advocates, and they are reaching the finishing

tape before we even realized there was a race. This is one of the

toughest things to fight, and given the general reverence for AA from

many people who have not the slightest idea what it entails, it's hard

to imagine how to mount an equally effective counterattack.

> The reason I ask is because if a large company had a full time legal

> staff, for instance Blue Cross, then the top lawyer for that company

> would of course be a well paid company man who would be willing to

> listen to someone who was working on something that would save his

> company and his industry millions. That's were our goal might fit

in

> and where we, as mentioned, may have an ally. I'm sure the

> insurance companies have wised up to the point that they know what a

> scam drug/alcohol treatment is, but as pointed out in his

> excellent post, they are between a rock and a hard spot. Suppose we

> could create an alliance with them somehow and let them know that if

> 12-step coercion is unconstitutional, then they would not be

mandated

> to cover 12-step treatment, and they would save millions.

>

[Guest guest]

This is a multi-faceted question. First of all, I don't believe

insurance companies are willing to step up to the plate and argue that

12-step treatment is unconstitutional. They don't believe in big

outlays for future savings. Second of all, while not paying for

12-step treatment would save money, the companies' emphasis seems to

be on paying for less, not paying for effectiveness. Hence they

would probably fight paying for any addiction treatment at all, as

opposed to effective treatment.

I do believe in the parity issue, that is, that behavioral problems

should be afforded the same kind of coverage that cancer and diabetes

and so forth command. The hitch is not only finding effective

treatments, but convincing lawmakers, and not insurance companies,

that they are effective, because lawmakers are the people who can

mandate effective treatment. I think we are way outclassed and

outgunned in this fight, because of the very effective lobbies that AA

advocates have. One of the most insidious things is that they are

hidden, as Ken has pointed out before. Highly placed policy makers

are AA members or AA advocates, and they are reaching the finishing

tape before we even realized there was a race. This is one of the

toughest things to fight, and given the general reverence for AA from

many people who have not the slightest idea what it entails, it's hard

to imagine how to mount an equally effective counterattack.

> The reason I ask is because if a large company had a full time legal

> staff, for instance Blue Cross, then the top lawyer for that company

> would of course be a well paid company man who would be willing to

> listen to someone who was working on something that would save his

> company and his industry millions. That's were our goal might fit

in

> and where we, as mentioned, may have an ally. I'm sure the

> insurance companies have wised up to the point that they know what a

> scam drug/alcohol treatment is, but as pointed out in his

> excellent post, they are between a rock and a hard spot. Suppose we

> could create an alliance with them somehow and let them know that if

> 12-step coercion is unconstitutional, then they would not be

mandated

> to cover 12-step treatment, and they would save millions.

>

[Guest guest]

> If we

> > want to file a lawsuit, forming a group might be a powerful way

to

> > lobby potential allies, such as insurance companies.

> >

> > Thoughts?

>

> The first thought that comes to my mind is this: Do insurance

> companies actually have to pay for " sentencing alternatives " such

as

> in my last post, " Promises " ? In other words, let's say I have an

> excellent insurance policy, which, as mandated by government,

covers

> " addiction treatment. " Now I go out and get caught possessing or

> selling prohibited drugs and am given the ol' prop 36 op--the one

> shown on the Promises page I posted. Do I now have a choice of

jail

> or my insurance company being ripped off by Promises, or is my

choice

> jail or a government trickment program if I cannot afford

Promises.

> Can I get an insurance policy to cover alternative sentencing for

bank

> robbery?

Sure you can, Tommy. All you have to do is say you were drinking

while you did the robbery, or anything you do wrong, and your

insurance company has to pay for Trickment at Promi$e$, Betty Thief,

or Ha$elton.

They even send peeping toms, molesters, rapists and mother-smotherers

to Trickment now.

http://www.aahorror.net/sentenced_to_alcoholics_anonymou.htm#Wackos

Best,

[Guest guest]

> If we

> > want to file a lawsuit, forming a group might be a powerful way

to

> > lobby potential allies, such as insurance companies.

> >

> > Thoughts?

>

> The first thought that comes to my mind is this: Do insurance

> companies actually have to pay for " sentencing alternatives " such

as

> in my last post, " Promises " ? In other words, let's say I have an

> excellent insurance policy, which, as mandated by government,

covers

> " addiction treatment. " Now I go out and get caught possessing or

> selling prohibited drugs and am given the ol' prop 36 op--the one

> shown on the Promises page I posted. Do I now have a choice of

jail

> or my insurance company being ripped off by Promises, or is my

choice

> jail or a government trickment program if I cannot afford

Promises.

> Can I get an insurance policy to cover alternative sentencing for

bank

> robbery?

Sure you can, Tommy. All you have to do is say you were drinking

while you did the robbery, or anything you do wrong, and your

insurance company has to pay for Trickment at Promi$e$, Betty Thief,

or Ha$elton.

They even send peeping toms, molesters, rapists and mother-smotherers

to Trickment now.

http://www.aahorror.net/sentenced_to_alcoholics_anonymou.htm#Wackos

Best,

[Guest guest]

> If we

> > want to file a lawsuit, forming a group might be a powerful way

to

> > lobby potential allies, such as insurance companies.

> >

> > Thoughts?

>

> The first thought that comes to my mind is this: Do insurance

> companies actually have to pay for " sentencing alternatives " such

as

> in my last post, " Promises " ? In other words, let's say I have an

> excellent insurance policy, which, as mandated by government,

covers

> " addiction treatment. " Now I go out and get caught possessing or

> selling prohibited drugs and am given the ol' prop 36 op--the one

> shown on the Promises page I posted. Do I now have a choice of

jail

> or my insurance company being ripped off by Promises, or is my

choice

> jail or a government trickment program if I cannot afford

Promises.

> Can I get an insurance policy to cover alternative sentencing for

bank

> robbery?

Sure you can, Tommy. All you have to do is say you were drinking

while you did the robbery, or anything you do wrong, and your

insurance company has to pay for Trickment at Promi$e$, Betty Thief,

or Ha$elton.

They even send peeping toms, molesters, rapists and mother-smotherers

to Trickment now.

http://www.aahorror.net/sentenced_to_alcoholics_anonymou.htm#Wackos

Best,

[Guest guest]

If anyone is seriously interested in pursuing these issues with the

insurance industry, the appropriate organization to contact would be the

HIAA (Health Insurance Association of America) which is the principal

(virtually only, if I'm not mistaken) representative of the various health

insurance companies when it comes to PR and gov't lobbying. You'll find a

few position paper type things on parity issues on their web site

(www.hiaa.org) .

However their interest is really only a second-order kind of thing. Insurers

just pass on the costs of mandated coverages to customers; they are hurt

only to the extent that such coverage jacks up costs, making insurance more

expensive for customers (who are mainly businesses buying group policies for

employees) which shrinks the market.

The real economic victims of mandated coverage for quack treatments are

consumers: businesses that pay for group health insurance, their employees,

and individual subscribers to community group plans, HMO's, etc.

--wally

Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

> This is a multi-faceted question. First of all, I don't believe

> insurance companies are willing to step up to the plate and argue that

> 12-step treatment is unconstitutional. They don't believe in big

> outlays for future savings. Second of all, while not paying for

> 12-step treatment would save money, the companies' emphasis seems to

> be on paying for less, not paying for effectiveness. Hence they

> would probably fight paying for any addiction treatment at all, as

> opposed to effective treatment.

>

> I do believe in the parity issue, that is, that behavioral problems

> should be afforded the same kind of coverage that cancer and diabetes

> and so forth command. The hitch is not only finding effective

> treatments, but convincing lawmakers, and not insurance companies,

> that they are effective, because lawmakers are the people who can

> mandate effective treatment. I think we are way outclassed and

> outgunned in this fight, because of the very effective lobbies that AA

> advocates have. One of the most insidious things is that they are

> hidden, as Ken has pointed out before. Highly placed policy makers

> are AA members or AA advocates, and they are reaching the finishing

> tape before we even realized there was a race. This is one of the

> toughest things to fight, and given the general reverence for AA from

> many people who have not the slightest idea what it entails, it's hard

> to imagine how to mount an equally effective counterattack.

>

>

> > The reason I ask is because if a large company had a full time legal

> > staff, for instance Blue Cross, then the top lawyer for that company

> > would of course be a well paid company man who would be willing to

> > listen to someone who was working on something that would save his

> > company and his industry millions. That's were our goal might fit

> in

> > and where we, as mentioned, may have an ally. I'm sure the

> > insurance companies have wised up to the point that they know what a

> > scam drug/alcohol treatment is, but as pointed out in his

> > excellent post, they are between a rock and a hard spot. Suppose we

> > could create an alliance with them somehow and let them know that if

> > 12-step coercion is unconstitutional, then they would not be

> mandated

> > to cover 12-step treatment, and they would save millions.

> >