Health Care Lawsuit

[cinyc]

The complaint filed by the 13 AGs questioning the constitutionality of certain aspects of the health care bill is available here.  The complaint was filed in the Pensacola Division of Northern District of Florida.

According to reports, Virginia is filed its own separate lawsuit in federal court in Richmond.

Thoughts?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I doubt anything will come of this. The federal government won't rule against itself.

What the states need to do, if they really care about this issue, is exercise their right to nullify this clearly unconstitutional law and defy fedgov.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

The bill allows for states to opt out of the individual mandate.

[Mint]

The bill allows for states to opt out of the individual mandate.

Not really.

[The Mikado]

What the states need to do, if they really care about this issue, is exercise their right to nullify this clearly unconstitutional law and defy fedgov.

And hopefully Obama will have the balls to have the military deployed outside the Capitol Buildings of the states in question until they cease rebelling against the Union.

[Free Palestine]

What the states need to do, if they really care about this issue, is exercise their right to nullify this clearly unconstitutional law and defy fedgov.

And hopefully Obama will have the balls to have the military deployed outside the Capitol Buildings of the states in question until they cease rebelling against the Union.

And hopefully the state governors will have the balls to call out their respective national guard units.

[Хahar 🤔]

What the states need to do, if they really care about this issue, is exercise their right to nullify this clearly unconstitutional law and defy fedgov.

And hopefully Obama will have the balls to have the military deployed outside the Capitol Buildings of the states in question until they cease rebelling against the Union.

And hopefully the state governors will have the balls to call out their respective national guard units.

Those would promptly be nationalized.

[Free Palestine]

What the states need to do, if they really care about this issue, is exercise their right to nullify this clearly unconstitutional law and defy fedgov.

And hopefully Obama will have the balls to have the military deployed outside the Capitol Buildings of the states in question until they cease rebelling against the Union.

And hopefully the state governors will have the balls to call out their respective national guard units.

Those would promptly be nationalized.

As if that would really change anything.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

The bill allows for states to opt out of the individual mandate.

Not really.

I will respond later but first I must attend to the destruction of the New Gods and the take over of earth. Bow down before my awesome power and worship my every whim.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

The bill allows for states to opt out of the individual mandate.

Not really.

From an economic point of view I can see how the individual mandate would make sense, but it would appear that ethical/legal considerations should be considered here as well. Perhaps the states cant outright opt out of the individual mandate, but if they meet a few goals they can. Thus the State can either create their own health care plan and then apply for a waiver, or they can simply stick with the individual mandate. Thus states can opt out of the Individual mandate, as it says so in the bill.

Some people may argue that it is unfair to require individuals who choose to remain citizens to buy health care, but I think it is just as unfair to have citizens go uninsured and thus leading to an increase in premiums for people who already have a plan.

I any event many conservative economists, and Republican law makers have supported the idea of an individual mandate in the past. Thus it appears that Republicans are only opposing this bill because it helps the democrats.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

What the states need to do, if they really care about this issue, is exercise their right to nullify this clearly unconstitutional law and defy fedgov.

Of course, no such right exists.

[Lief 🗽]

How can they sue when the law hasn't even gone into effect yet? Wouldn't someone need to be fined for not buying health insurance before anyone can sue against the individual mandate?

[zorkpolitics]

If the federal government can require a person to buy a product (Health Insurance), because Congress thinks its a good idea, even in the face of a majority of citizens being opposed, as the Health Care law requires, then I see no limit on what Congress can require from individuals. 

Hence I think there is a need for the Supremes to define just what, if any, limits remain on Congressional restrictions of individual choice, otherwise known as Liberty

[The Mikado]

even in the face of a majority of citizens being opposed

That comes into things not one bit.

[muon2]

I caught a piece on the Tavis Smiley Show today with law professor Eric Segall of GA State. He's a liberal constitutional lawyer and weighs in on both the effort to force the GA AG to join the suit and on the constitutionality of the individual mandate. He notes that his peers are all over the map on the question of constitutionality, and his response on the individual mandate becoming a political question before the high court is probably on point. He recognizes the current make up of the SCOTUS, and even goes so far as to say that he wished the individual mandate had not been in the bill for that reason.

[Torie]

Having read about this a bit more, another issue is whether the fine is just a tax, in which event the interstate commerce clause hurdle can be finessed. It certainly is in the nature of a tax economically. Obviously, to even pretend to really have a handle on this, one must read the SCOTUS precedents, and/or articles by heavy duty legal scholars with cites. I have done neither so far.

[Ronnie]

I don't think the individual mandate can be considered as just a tax, Torie.  You are forced to buy something, which is prohibited by the 10th amendment.  At least, that's my interpretation.

This is a real slippery slope subject, though, and I expect the left wingers in the courts to somehow find a way to swivel around the constitution.

[Torie]

I don't think the individual mandate can be considered as just a tax, Torie.  You are forced to buy something, which is prohibited by the 10th amendment.  At least, that's my interpretation.

This is a real slippery slope subject, though, and I expect the left wingers in the courts to somehow find a way to swivel around the constitution.

The counter argument, is that you are not forced to do anything, in the sense, that you can either buy insurance, or pay a "tax/fine" as a moral hazard offset for not buying it. It is not as if, if you don't buy insurance, you will go to jail. So on the tax front, it is whether it is just a Constitutional tax, or a tax which is really a power to destroy (a judicial term), which truncates in an unacceptable manner, individual rights, and extends the reach of the government beyond the interstate commerce power, under the guise of calling it a tax.

I still without having done the research I need to, would be amazed if this "mandate" is struck down. It would make a mess of our jurisprudence in many ways, if it did, because there is no real economic distinctions here, just verbiage about whether a fine is a fine, or a tax.