A spokesman for Gov.-elect Paul LePage said Monday that potential benefits would outweigh legal costs if Maine joins 20 other states in a lawsuit challenging the federal health care law.

Dan Demeritt, LePage’s communications director, said the incoming governor believes the legal challenge could benefit from “some Maine-based perspective.”

Outgoing Attorney General Janet Mills, a Democrat, has reportedly estimated that the legal effort would cost about $400,000. Mills said Monday that although multiple states would split legal expenses, in cases that reach the U.S. Supreme Court, “the attorneys fees can be astronomical, no matter how widely they are shared.”

Trish Riley, director of the Governor’s Office of Health Policy and Finance, recently told a Legislative panel that Maine had already landed, and spent, about $26 million in grants designed to prepare the state for implementation of the health care law in 2014.

Such planning efforts don’t appear to be dissuading the incoming LePage administration from joining a suit that Demeritt acknowledged could “diminish” or “eviscerate” the law.

Speaking to the $26 million spent in implementation and planning grants, Demeritt said, “Maybe you can make a better case for challenging it. If you need $26 million to implement something, maybe it speaks to how complicated it is, and how challenging it would be to live with.”

Democrats and advocates for the law have been bracing for the prospect of a legal challenge ever since LePage was elected and Republicans earned majorities in the Legislature.

Republicans last year foreshadowed their intentions when two state representatives, Michael Thibodeau of Winterport and Andre E. Cushing III of Hampden, sought approval for two legislative proposals opposing the federal law’s so-called individual mandate. Both proposals were defeated by the Democratic majority on the Legislative Council before reaching the full Legislature.

The individual mandate requires all Americans to buy health insurance, except those qualifying for low-income or religious exemptions. Republicans argue that the measure is unconstitutional and are using it as the basis for the legal challenge in Florida.

LePage has said repeatedly that he wants the state to enter the lawsuit, which could ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. William Schneider, the state’s incoming attorney general, has indicated that he’s willing to join the legal challenge.

The individual mandate was originally a Republican proposal designed to get younger, healthier Americans into the insurance pool, thereby lowering premiums.

It was supported by the conservative Heritage Foundation and was a key component in the Massachusetts health care reform supported by then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican.

However, since the federal health care law passed, Republicans have declared the mandate unconstitutional.

U.S. Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both Republicans, have cited the individual mandate as the impetus for their joining other GOP lawmakers in supporting the Florida lawsuit.

Mills has spurned previous Republican calls to enter the suit backed by the Maine Heritage Policy Center, a conservative think tank.

Earlier this year, Mills released a memo outlining reasons why she didn’t believe the Supreme Court would overturn the law.

Mill said that the health care law did not violate the U.S. Constitution or state’s rights. Addressing the individual mandate, Mills doubted that the court would find the penalty “burdensome or irrational, particularly when the justification for the fee is to provide an incentive for people to buy insurance and to broaden the risk for insurance companies across the entire population.”

Mills cited other federal laws that have withstood similar constitutional challenges, including the Social Security Act, the Unemployment Payroll Tax, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

Schneider did not respond to calls for comment.

Also, on Monday, Demeritt attempted to clarify comments made by the incoming governor that the health care law would “die automatically” if 35 states joined the lawsuit. LePage reportedly made the comments while talking to a reporter during his visit to Washington, D.C.

The health care law was created and ratified through Congress. It does not contain any provisions allowing for a certain number of states to overturn the law through a joint legal challenge.

LePage’s comment touched off local and national blog commentary assailing the incoming governor and saying he does not understand the law he wants to repeal, or the U.S. Constitution.

But Demeritt said LePage’s comments were “lost in translation.” He said LePage was referring to a constitutional amendment sponsored by U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, that would allow states to repeal federal laws if ratified by legislatures in two-thirds of states.

Demeritt said LePage’s comment was meant to describe the political effect of states joining the lawsuit.

“The governor-elect believes that if enough states oppose the measure, it will have the effect of killing it politically,” Demeritt said. “His intent was to discuss the concept of broad-based political opposition rather than a nonexistent statutory or constitutional trigger.”

smistler@sunjournal.com

Copy the Story Link