Active Users:866 Time:03/08/2025 05:35:23 PM
there is a major problem with this.. rempires Send a noteboard - 14/12/2010 01:29:41 AM
His ruling was based on the fact that the government can't force people to buy or face a fine for not having health insurance. The government passed that clause with the argument it is the exact same as car insurance requirement, you must have car insurance if you drive or face a fine... The reason they could make this comparison is hospitals bills increase in price when people default on the payments, since they are legally required to help everyone they have to charge those who can pay more to make up for those who can't/don't pay. The idea behind this was that this would prevent hospitals from having to charge more because everyone could pay therefore bringing down hospital cost, the exact theory behind car insurance, if everyone has car insurance yours will be cheaper because yours will not always have to pick up the bill on accidents(only if your at fault, otherwise the other will). You'll notice the judge said it was illegal but made no act to repel it, this is because it would open up the flood gates for lawyers to represent those opposed to car insurance. I'll admit i am pro-national health insurance, although the current form we have is worse than nothing actually... It just needs to be challenged legally in other areas, this area will be a disaster.
Reply to message
Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law - - 13/12/2010 05:21:37 PM 1055 Views
*yawn* - 13/12/2010 05:46:58 PM 722 Views
Another step closer to SCOTUS.....and that will be 5-4 decision in favor of repeal! *NM* - 13/12/2010 05:55:54 PM 279 Views
It may very well end up that way. *NM* - 13/12/2010 07:09:36 PM 314 Views
So riddle me this... - 13/12/2010 07:23:14 PM 708 Views
He's not "making his own law", just denying the government the ability to..... - 13/12/2010 08:06:48 PM 678 Views
That wasn't my question. - 13/12/2010 09:10:39 PM 778 Views
I get what you're saying... - 13/12/2010 11:30:13 PM 774 Views
Re: I get what you're saying... - 14/12/2010 01:34:13 AM 797 Views
*heh* - 14/12/2010 04:01:35 PM 716 Views
That's not all they're saying, though. - 14/12/2010 01:42:27 AM 664 Views
At least in my mind.... - 14/12/2010 04:10:38 PM 679 Views
Agreed; when do I get a refund for my share of the B2 bomber? - 14/12/2010 04:40:25 AM 706 Views
But see...you are using the B2 bomber. - 14/12/2010 03:59:27 PM 638 Views
Much as you are using the healthcare system. - 14/12/2010 05:55:40 PM 757 Views
*nods* - 14/12/2010 06:09:42 PM 733 Views
Re: So riddle me this... - 14/12/2010 02:51:35 AM 683 Views
It's judicial review - 14/12/2010 02:47:43 PM 728 Views
Re: It's judicial review - 14/12/2010 03:27:28 PM 705 Views
Re: It's judicial review - 15/12/2010 05:35:17 PM 803 Views
I really don't understand why people defend the forced purchase aspect - 13/12/2010 08:22:03 PM 749 Views
This analogy no doubt has its flaws too, but I was just reminded of it... - 13/12/2010 08:52:31 PM 760 Views
That's precisely the logic, yes. - 14/12/2010 04:31:44 AM 718 Views
This judge... - 13/12/2010 11:26:09 PM 758 Views
there is a major problem with this.. - 14/12/2010 01:29:41 AM 719 Views
Bad analogy..... - 14/12/2010 02:57:28 AM 674 Views
Re: Bad analogy..... - 14/12/2010 03:23:31 AM 687 Views
Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance..... - 14/12/2010 03:42:26 AM 674 Views
Re: Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance..... - 14/12/2010 04:53:39 AM 689 Views
Just to note.... - 14/12/2010 06:11:57 PM 682 Views
Re: Just to note.... - 14/12/2010 06:44:54 PM 672 Views
Re: Just to note.... - 14/12/2010 08:32:46 PM 676 Views
I'll excerpt some relevant passages, but the full article is in the link. - 14/12/2010 02:10:48 PM 829 Views
In other words there may be a painful silver lining. - 14/12/2010 07:46:38 PM 600 Views
Update: the judge's decision is basically nonsense. - 14/12/2010 08:04:27 PM 932 Views

Reply to Message