Yes, Federal law trumps State, UNLESS the Fed law is unconstitutional

[enigmaingr]

Originally Posted by momonkey

"Constitutional scholars" don't have standing since no one has yet been forced to buy a policy.

Last I heard 37 states were considering suing the federal government with a number of them joining a FL law suit to be filed by AG McCollum today. With that sort of solid opposition, even if they fail in court, a Constitutional Convention is not out of the question.

I agree that a Constitutional Convention could become a reality.

[enigmaingr]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Why would you think that? Why wouldn't an employer just opt to pay the fine instead of providing insurance when they realize the fine for not providing insurance is less costly than providing insurance for their employees?

It remains to be seen what the costs would be. In any event, I don't believe an employer could opt to pay the fine instead of buying insurance. To my knowledge, the fine can only be levied against individuals. Businesses that go against this would likely face the same sort of sanctions as if they decided not to pay into unemployment/workers comp/ect. And keep in mind that only employers who have over a certain number of employees are required to provide the insurance.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by momonkey

Last I heard 37 states were considering suing the federal government with a number of them joining a FL law suit to be filed by AG McCollum today. With that sort of solid opposition, even if they fail in court, a Constitutional Convention is not out of the question.

I think i'd rather see the Constitutional amendment in order to keep out other federal mandates in the future..

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by enigmaingr

It remains to be seen what the costs would be. In any event, I don't believe an employer could opt to pay the fine instead of buying insurance.

Sure they can.