Sudden paranoia: This teabagger blather about states sueing against HCR is a non-starter, right?

[argonaut]

There's no way, say, Idaho, could succesfully sue against this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/17/idaho-state-sign-law-health-care-reform/

[Warren Stupidity]

1. They can sue but they will likely lose.

There is basically nothing in this bill that breaks new legal ground.

[terrell9584]

5. Did you miss the individual mandate?

That actually does break new legal and policy ground and how it is decided in court would be an important decision in so far as legal precedent operates.

[msanthrope]

7. That's a great deal of pseudo-legal gobbledygook. Please state

clearly the justiciable controversy you think would be decided 'in court.'

Show your work.

[karynnj]

10. Actually the mandate is not totally a mandate

You have a choice, buy insurance or pay a fee that will cover the fact that people without insurance, as a group, end up costing the system given that our values, Democratic or Republican, do not allow refusing emergency medical serves.

Not to mention, this has become an issue only as they lost every other reason why it shouldn't happen.

Note the lack of honesty. How many people are speaking of "nothing this big" having gone through reconciliation. the fact is that at this point the passed bill will have gotten 60 votes in the Senate and more than a majority in the House. What will go through reconciliation is the smaller package of "fixes". Now, if the Republicans were honest, they should vote for that package and not obstruct it - as it does many things they wanted done.

Think how much fun it will be arguing that they tried to preserve the Cornhusker deal?

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Nah. But have fun here while you can.

[vaberella]

2. Why are you wasting your time on FauxNoise? They spend their time lieing like the Repubs. n/t

[argonaut]

3. Rollcall retweeted it on Twitter.

I'm jittery tonight. :D

[On the Road]

4. I Would Not Dismiss the Issue

of the government forcing individuals to buy a private product.

Especially since there are parts of the country where the bill is very unpopular. A conservative federal court may sympathize with the argument. Then the Supreme Court would probably have to decide.

However, even in the event that that provision of the law were ruled constitutional, I don't think it would invalidate the entire bill. One way to bring the law into compliance with that particuar reading of the constitution would be to offer a true public option, so that no one would be forced to use a private insurance company.

[msanthrope]

8. How is one being forced to buy a private product?

You have a choice--buy the insurance, or get taxed.

Explain to me how you think this is a Morrison/Lopez case, and not a Raich (and, Wickard)....I mean, you aren't seriously going to argue that health insurance is not economic activity, are you?

[On the Road]

11. They May Use That Argument

and it may down to semantics such as whether people are being "forced" or "mandated," and whether the payment for not buying insurance is a penalty, a tax, or something else.

While I'm sure many cases will be used by both sides to establish precedent, I am not sure the courts see either medical marijuana or penalties for domestic violence as constricting how they rule on health insurance mandates.

[DeschutesRiver]

9. I believe that is the end goal

or at least one of their possible ways to achieve a public option, while blaming the necessity of it on the opposition due to a lawsuit on the issue.

I suspected that might be the case, because the only highly questionable area of this HCR revolves around the legality of this type of mandate. And this team we elected isn't striking me as sloppy or careless at all. Just measured and determined in a way I haven't seen for a long time.

[Ikonoklast]

6. Federal law supercedes state law.

They can sue all they want, but it is a non-starter.

And even though there are mandates, you still will not be forced to buy health insurance.

You will be fined if you don't, but it will be your choice.

[karynnj]

12. I would actually seek a different word than "fined", but I can't think of one

The reason is that the logic behind it is to recoup the cost of providing emergency medical care for all the people without insurance. But, if fined is the word, it at least seems a fair fine to assess.