Remember that discussion about the people who were profiting from fire departments that they hadn't paid for, and the discussion of whether such people's houses should be saved?
This has its similarities to that - nobody would defend letting people without health insurance die, but if people know they'll get health care when they urgently need it anyway, they have a disincentive to invest in health insurance, except when the choice simply isn't left up to them. Much like in most cities, people don't have a choice about paying for the fire department or not.
This has its similarities to that - nobody would defend letting people without health insurance die, but if people know they'll get health care when they urgently need it anyway, they have a disincentive to invest in health insurance, except when the choice simply isn't left up to them. Much like in most cities, people don't have a choice about paying for the fire department or not.
What makes it so distasteful here, apart from being yet another broken Obama promise, is that instead of making it a universal tax burden for a government service (as with most fire departments in places people haven't lost their minds) people pay taxes for it only if they can't or won't buy private insurance. A public mandate, in name or in fact, without a public option remains the worst of both worlds and should be repealed and replaced with something far better. I've yet to see a good argument it's actually ILLEGAL though, so if the SCOTUS strikes it down for specious reasons it would be disappointing, if not surprising.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law - 
- 13/12/2010 05:21:37 PM
1054 Views
- 13/12/2010 05:21:37 PM
1054 Views
*yawn*
- 13/12/2010 05:46:58 PM
716 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
277 Views
*NM*
- 13/12/2010 05:55:54 PM
277 Views
So riddle me this...
- 13/12/2010 07:23:14 PM
702 Views
He's not "making his own law", just denying the government the ability to.....
- 13/12/2010 08:06:48 PM
670 Views
That wasn't my question.
- 13/12/2010 09:10:39 PM
769 Views
I get what you're saying...
- 13/12/2010 11:30:13 PM
768 Views
Agreed; when do I get a refund for my share of the B2 bomber?
- 14/12/2010 04:40:25 AM
700 Views
But see...you are using the B2 bomber.
- 14/12/2010 03:59:27 PM
630 Views
Much as you are using the healthcare system.
- 14/12/2010 05:55:40 PM
749 Views
*nods*
- 14/12/2010 06:09:42 PM
726 Views
Again we're back to whether individuals deign to tolerate majority rule.
- 14/12/2010 07:27:22 PM
842 Views
It's judicial review
- 14/12/2010 02:47:43 PM
722 Views
I really don't understand why people defend the forced purchase aspect
- 13/12/2010 08:22:03 PM
743 Views
This analogy no doubt has its flaws too, but I was just reminded of it...
- 13/12/2010 08:52:31 PM
754 Views
That's precisely the logic, yes.
- 14/12/2010 04:31:44 AM
712 Views
Forced insurance purchase would indeed be terribly unconstitutional.
- 14/12/2010 04:26:27 AM
668 Views
there is a major problem with this..
- 14/12/2010 01:29:41 AM
710 Views
Bad analogy.....
- 14/12/2010 02:57:28 AM
669 Views
Re: Bad analogy.....
- 14/12/2010 03:23:31 AM
681 Views
Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance.....
- 14/12/2010 03:42:26 AM
668 Views
Re: Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance.....
- 14/12/2010 04:53:39 AM
681 Views
Just to note....
- 14/12/2010 06:11:57 PM
677 Views
yeah, but the courts exist to strike down dumb legislation, which is what this ruling does
- 14/12/2010 03:17:04 AM
630 Views
No, the courts exist to interpret legislation, and the SCOTUS to strike down illegal legislation.
- 14/12/2010 04:36:59 AM
646 Views
I'll excerpt some relevant passages, but the full article is in the link.
- 14/12/2010 02:10:48 PM
819 Views
He partially owns the lobby aiming to make it unconstitutional, which the plaintiff was a client of *NM*
- 14/12/2010 05:35:21 PM
342 Views