Are the AG's who oppose the HCR only seeking to annul the mandate or the entire thing?

[brentspeak]

As politically-motivated as these grandstanding AG's are, it could only be a good thing if the mandate could get ruled unconstitutional. It doesn't seem possible that it would be, but the ideal outcome would be for the abhorrent corporate welfare part of the HCR to get nixed but the regulations kept in place.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. They're using the mandate as cover.

They're batshit crazy wingnuts who really want to dismantle Medicaid in their states.

[DJ13]

2. I agree, forcing Congress to go back and fund this

the right way would be a good thing.

[Hello_Kitty]

7. I personally think every state should have gotten the Cornhusker kickback.

[DJ13]

8. I do too, or just eliminate Medicaid and move them all to Medicare

Either way it would have eliminated the unfunded portion of the expansion of Medicaid that seems to form the basis for those state AG's to sue.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. This is an attack on everything.

If they can kill this, then Medicaid and Medicare will be taken on with the precedent.

[brentspeak]

6. Then I agree with you and Hello Kitty: the AG's should be given the stiff-arm

I hate the new HCR, but I'd hate seeing Medicare/Medicaid get squashed as a result of having the HCR ruled unconstitutional.

[ksoze]

4. Using it for votes in upcoming elections each face

[kenfrequed]

5. Well...

If ONLY the mandate is ruled as unconstitutional it does not mean the entirety of the bill is nixed. The problem with this is that, despite the fact I hate the mandate, these grandstanding repukes might milk some points from the public in attacking or bringing down the mandate.

So...

Would the benefit of having this lukewarm and milquetoast HCR bill improved by the removal of mandates, outweigh the negative of letting a few Repuke AG's put it on their resume when they run for governor of their respective states?

[Jennicut]

9. This is the Rethugs we area talking about. They want to kill everything.

I don't want them to get even close.

[Teaser]

10. mandate is necessary

invalidating it will simply cause congress to re-enact it in another form, more durable. and it would pass easily, with bipartisan support.

You will see why, given some thought.

[Bitwit1234]

11. I saw three articles from lawyers who said they probably won't

even be able to get to court with them because they are not a legal challenge.