Twenty U.S. states sue federal government seeking end to Obamacare

MSN ^ | Feb. 26, 2018 | Reuters

[xzins]

Could this be true? Could they have been this cagey?

This puts Roberts and his mandate/tax on the spot.

[DoodleDawg]

But maybe this will give them a little more incentive.

If the courts decide it's unconstitutional then there's nothing to repeal.

[DoodleDawg]

At this point, especially with the mandate gone, I think the best approach is to develop the ‘right approach’ and leave original Obamacare plans in place. Release the miriad of regulations and let the free market develop better solutions at lower prices. Obamacare will essentially die on the vine with its bloated expensive plans.

If they win this case then Obamacare is dead instantly.

[ArmstedFragg]

So here’s the question we may hear the left raise, “is it unconstitutional to pass a law that will cause a prior law to become unconstitutional?” “If so, which law has to fall in order to clear up the problem”?

One reason that question may not be asked is that it’d force the Democrats (or, more likely one of their shill groups) to sue to reimpose fines on millions of Americans. Bit of a political downer there.

[Jacquerie]

Yes, the provision for direct taxes was removed from Constitution by the 16A. A real shame.

[Still Thinking]

The man-date still exists (much to Ebola’s pleasure); they changed the penalty amount to $0.

[The Duke]

I seriously doubt it. I am sure there could have been something that you attribute to Obamacare, but I am sure you would have been taken care of some other way..

That's a good question. I once worked for a company that had insurance that would cover pre-existing conditions after 1 year of employment. Do those terms still exist?

Maybe I could have gotten a government job??

Other than that, nothing I can imagine would have help (in my case I required double hip replacement - quite costly)

[ilgipper]

That’s true. I would love it, but not hopefully with this broken judiciary.

[EVO X]

I haven’t seen any news reports that dems are going to contest the mandate at the federal level. All the chatter was about blue states creating their own mandates. 20 red states did sue the feds the other day to end Obamacare since there is no tax.

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3635594/posts

[Svartalfiar]

Lastly, the easiest way, I can think, of farking the 17th is very simple: Every State must pay it’s share, based on the last census data, of each Federal budget.

EG: If FL accounts for 10% of the Citizenry, it must pay 10% of the Fed. budget.

Then we’ll see how much each person enjoys paying their ‘fair share’ for the other 56 States

Well that doesn't seem very fair. Why not give each state an equal share? Take the budget, divide by 535. Each Congresscritter then brings their share of the budget back to their state, which can then raise the money how it sees fit.

[i_robot73]

>
Well that doesn’t seem very fair. Why not give each state an equal share? Take the budget, divide by 535. Each Congresscritter then brings their share of the budget back to their state, which can then raise the money how it sees fit.
>

Fair? Who said anything about being FAIR? The whole contention of the budget are the fraudsters, excuse me elected representatives, each bloating the bottom-line because 49+ OTHER States will be shouldering the cost for whatever project they pork-barrel through.

I don’t see the low-census States, those in the West\AK or even lower-economic (lot in the South), would be willing for CA to soak them w/ the check.

Your proposal is no different than what we have today.

Since they all now wink-n-nod vs. Commerce Clause, We need to press for other ways to stem the tide of illegal/unconst. spending.

[Svartalfiar]

Fair? Who said anything about being FAIR? The whole contention of the budget are the fraudsters, excuse me elected representatives, each bloating the bottom-line because 49+ OTHER States will be shouldering the cost for whatever project they pork-barrel through.
...
Your proposal is no different than what we have today.

Uh, the whole point of fixing this is to be as fair as possible. Your method of taxation means that small states with no population are paying very little money, while their representatives have the same amount of influence as those from a big state that pays tons of taxes. The way I describe it makes the tax base the most equivalent based upon representation. And if it ends up causes the states to become more equal (small states combine, so less Senators mean less taxes), then that just means the states will be more equally represented, instead of dozens of small states having outsize influence compared to their populace.