Can someone explain the validity of these state bills being passed against HCR?

[ejbr]

Will people in these state be stuck with the status quo because of these bills?

Update: Thanks for all replies, I am reading as you post. :)

[LakeSamish706]

1. I read yesterday here that Federal Law trumps State Law so not much

will come of it.

[derby378]

3. Depends on the Federal law

The National Firearms Act of 1934 says I can own an M-16 if I get Federal clearance from the ATF. California, Illinois, and New Jersey don't give a damn about the NFA tax stamp - they won't allow civilian ownership of automatic weapons at all. That's one example of state law trumping Federal law.

Then there's the ever-changing legal position of marijuana laws in California. Federal law calls all forms of cannabis Schedule I controlled substances and thus illegal to own or prescribe for medical use. So why did I see a report on CNBC about what may be the first medicinal hash bars in Oakland and surrounding environs?

[depakid]

9. That's not an example

States are entitled to regulate in excess of what federal law provides for in many cases, unless there's a specific provision preempting them from doing so.

[derby378]

13. That's why I cited California's marijuana policy

Here's a state that claims it can regulate less stringently than the Federal government in terms of marijuana possession with the supposition that state law will ultimately keep Federal law at bay.

[NightWatcher]

2. I think people opposed to this HCR are laying groundwork for a Supreme Court challenge

the argument that the SC will have to settle is can the Gov MAKE you become a customer of a PRIVATE corp?

[DFLforever]

4. They do with Medicare Part D

Where is that lawsuit?

[Hello_Kitty]

5. You are not forced to enroll in Medicare. eom

[DFLforever]

8. Kitty, see #7 below

Attached it to the wrong post.

[DFLforever]

7. That's true But if you want health care coverage over

the age of 65, you will need to ...thus Medicare Advantage.

The penalties are in-direct rather than direct through the IRA. But then I'd rather pay a tax penalty than be denied emergency room care if I needed it.

Just as I'd rather purchase prescription drug insurance I never use than not be able to access it when I need it.

[Jennicut]

6. I think they will not be seen as valid. Federal law triumps state law unless the Feds

decide to ignore some state laws like med marijuana.

[depakid]

10. That depends

Federal law is limited to enumerated or implied powers and is additionally encumbered by traditions of federalism and comity.

So for example, if the federal government wanted to usurp the authority to regulate insurers' solvency, for example- they could do so via commerce clause authority, but that would encroach on an area traditionally left to the states and would duplicate entire departments in 50 local governments.

Similarly, the regulation of medical licenses and practice is also a matter left to states- though federal law can and does limit (often in Byzantine ways) what physicians and group practices can legally do.

Bottom line is that it's not always so clear cut where federal authority and state authority take precedence, and as you mention, it's sometimes done with a tacit agreement not to assert the federal authority, even though technically the federal government has the right to do so- or in the case of Bush v. Gore, had the power but not the right to do so.

[CreekDog]

11. A state law is not going to override a federal requirement on preexisting conditions or

what insurance companies can charge, or what they can cover, etc.

and if the Feds say Medicaid has to do X, then it has to to X.

[ncteechur]

12. They did the same thing with civil rights legislation. A plethora of lawsuits against it.

[HughMoran]

14. If my company used Federal Law (ERISA) to prevent me getting benefits of my state laws in MA,

...then I think in this case that, once again, Federal Law will trump State Law. Though I'm not at all sure of this - not my field of expertise.