Since the Ds tried to cram this through so fast, they forgot to include a savings clause in the bill (where the rest of the bill stands if any one provision is struck down). This likely strikes the whole bill down because of that bit of legislative incompetence.
It wasn't that the clause was forgotten. The bill, the way it was passed, could not be amended: It could only be approved "as is". It was known at the time that if anything was struck down, it would kill the entire bill. However nothing could be done without having to get 60 new votes.
So you cant force people to buy health insurance? Fine with me. Just dont treat their asses when they get sick. For the record, Im not talking about poor people that cant afford insurance, Im talking about the people who CHOOSE not to have it.
Without being able to force people to have insurance it is hard to do away the pre-existing condition clauses that hurt so many right now.
The important thing to remember here is something Obama and the Dems passed has been overturned. That's all that matters.
You do know two other federal judges, one in the same jurisdiction, ruled in favor of the entire law right?
Even if you agree with its goals, it damned hard to defend the sloppiness of the health care reform legislation. Wouldn't it be amazing after all the controversy and political gamesmanship, the issue is won and lost on the competence of the anonymous functionary putting down words on paper.
going to the supreme court and will be struck down __________________________________________________ It will come down to Kennedy. He will be the deciding vote.
"They don't need insurance. They need care. " You mean like vaccinations, inoculations, mammograms, well checks, annual exams, doctor visits, etc? People, and their children, without insurance usually do without those things.
"You mean like vaccinations, inoculations, mammograms, well checks, annual exams, doctor visits, etc? People, and their children, without insurance usually do without those things." And that is their choice. Like when I was younger and elected not to have health insurance. How about life insurance? I elect to have that coverage today. I allocate money for that in place of other things I could spend that money on.
Most people call it being responsible. People with pre-existing conditions should be able to get insurance through a high risk pool. Each insurance company that sells health insurance is assigned a risk, just like they do for auto insurance. It gets spread around that way, and no one company is on the hook for all the costs. Yes, premiums are higher, but care costs more. I would not have a problem with the government mandating a high risk pool for health insurance companies, but I do have a problem with mandating health insurance for all.
Serious question: Why is it OK for the government to require that people buy auto liability insurance? Isn't this the case or am I mistaken?
Bottom line is that you can not force insurance companies to take any person anytime with no lifetime limits if you don't force everyone to purchase coverage.
Compelled car insurance is more about liability for damage caused to others. Health insurance is more about your own self regarding sphere, within which, you are the master of choice, not the centralizing politicians in Washington hundreds of miles away. For example. your car crash can greatly harm others. Your heart attack however has little influence over the health of others, unless of course it is the cause of your car crash.