Toobin: Fight over health care law will end up at Supreme Court
January 31st, 2011
03:01 PM ET

Toobin: Fight over health care law will end up at Supreme Court

[Updated at 10:28 p.m.] The fight over the health care reform law ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge on Monday will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court, said CNN senior legal analyst Jeff Toobin.

"This Supreme Court is very evenly divided between liberals and conservatives. Anthony Kennedy tends to be the swing vote. I would not be at all surprised that he would be the swing vote in this case as well," Toobin said.

"When you consider that this is the signature achievement of the Obama administration, and that it is hanging by a legal thread right now, it's a cause of great concern to supporters of the law."

Because the Florida judge ruled that the individual mandate, the part of the law that says everyone has to buy health insurance, is unconstitutional, “he says the whole law has to go out the window,” Toobin said.

Toobin said it is important to note that several federal judges have found the law constitutional.

"This is why we have a United States Supreme Court, to settle when judges disagree with each other," Toobin said.

The nine justices "have the last word," Toobin said. "Nobody can tell them what to do or when to do it."

[Updated at 5:37 p.m.] The U.S. Department of Justice says it plans to appeal the ruling of a federal judge in Florida, who earlier today struck down as unconstitutional key parts of the sweeping health care reform bill championed by President Obama.

[Updated at 3:47 p.m.] A federal judge in Florida has ruled unconstitutional the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama, setting up what is likely to be a contentious Supreme Court challenge in coming months over the legislation.

Monday's ruling came in the most closely watched of the two dozen challenges to the law. Florida along with 25 states had filed a lawsuit last spring, seeking to dismiss a law critics had labeled "Obamacare."

Judge Roger Vinson, in a 78-page ruling, dismissed the key provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - the so-called "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face
stiff penalties.

"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and
Inequities in our health care system," Vinson wrote.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time
when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled 'The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.' "

FULL STORY

Filed under: Health • Health care reform • Politics • Supreme Court
soundoff (1,747 Responses)
  1. Doug

    If we want to change healthcare to make it more like car insurance that would be great. Bad drivers pay more – fat people should pay more for health insurance. History of DUIs- pay more for car insurance..... want to smoke -- pay more for health insurance. You want to scare liberals... talk about personal responsibility... they hate it.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • dj burn

      Democrat VS Republican 2-2 Now is up to the Supreme Court to break the tie score in overtime to 5-4, the question is who is going to be the winner? Republicans, Democrats or the American people

      January 31, 2011 at 3:42 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Morogers

    If someone doesn't want to purchase health insurance, that's fine with me. But when they get sick or get into an accident and go to the emergency room, they should then be denied "free" treatment. Who do you think pays for the health care of the uninsured? Everyone who buys health insurance subsidizes those that don't buy insurance through increased premiums. We can't have it both ways, where you can't force someone to buy health insurance and at the same time force hospitals and emergency care people to treat anyone regardless if they can't pay.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Renee

    I have a feeling that if those that reside in a large city such as New York City, where most don't own/drive cars, were forced by the government to go out and buy an auto policy they would be irate. Also, their employers being made to pay for their policy or be fined or taxed; I am certain they also would be irate.
    I am for reforming health care. But, let's do it with some common sense. Let's write and READ a bill in full, let's try to understand it's implications and then make it law.
    In my opinion, clue number one that there was something very wrong with this entire bill was when it was announced we had to "pass the bill to see what was in it", there was no time to READ the bill, STUDY the bills implications, or moderate it. After that, take your pick of clues: MANY companies are getting a pass due to this bills devastating affects, Half the nation or more has at the very least serious doubts/questions about this bill and it's validity and effect on us all, doctors are quitting/retiring at reportedly record rates; entire states are dropping child only health care plans, there are many red flags here.
    I do not understand why there has to be such a divisive line in thinking on health care and this bill. Why not scrap it, rework the entire thing, open it for debate, etc? It is most obviously NOT the answer, and we DO NEED an answer to health care. Just my two cents.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • usarnaem

      The healthcare reform bill as it stands is leaps and bounds better than the status quo we had before. Why do you want to scrap decades of work and start all over again instead of building on what took 40 years to pass?

      January 31, 2011 at 4:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • usarnaem

      Side note: As for your bunk about "no time to see it, study it" whatever. I'm not sure where you were during the healthcare debate, but the entire text of the bill was up on the internet LONG before it actually went up for vote. Were you paying attention?

      January 31, 2011 at 4:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • tffl

      Auto insurance vs medical insurance is a false comparison – there is no equivalent to "But I don't own a car" for your health.

      The whole reason for the individual mandate is that the insurance companies wouldn't agree to drop the pre-existing coverage limitation without it – otherwise there is nothing to stop people from avoiding getting insurance until they actually need to make a claim. Allowing that would defeat the underlying mechanism that lets insurance work (shared risk) and would therefore drive the insurance companies out of business. So it seems you will either get the individual mandate (or something roughly equivalent) or accept pre-existing condition limitations. Many of the "problems" that the Republicans have with the bill are similar – they are the compromises needed to get the things that everyone says they want. I'm pretty sure that the Republicans would also be against mandating that private companies like insurance companies would have to give away services for free...

      January 31, 2011 at 4:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • JRR

      The solutions is to have universal base coverage for everyone and to make the system non-profit. The base coverage would be for traditional health based treatments (no boob jobs). Other elective services can be paid for out of the patients pocket or by a separate profit driven policy.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:52 pm | Report abuse |
  4. truman

    Auto insurance is required to protect the other person (liability coverage) and home owners insurance protects the bank.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Mark

    YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR UNINSURED PEOPLE ANYWAY! through higher premiums due to higher cost caused by uninsured using the ER like a primary care provider... or you can just let them DIE! Ridiculous!

    January 31, 2011 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Let's See

    Now the House GOP must put forth a more straight forward better alternative. They need to focus on key provisions the majority of Americans support.
    For example –
    – Tort Reform
    – Allow Cross State lines sales of insurance
    – Protections for patients with pre-existing conditions

    January 31, 2011 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • RodRoderick

      won't happen. Their pockets are too heavily lined with bribes from the Health Care System.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Marvin

      We will just have to see. Because it was never about those things with them. This was all about trying to bring Obama down that's all... This bill is also identical to the one put forth by Bush one

      January 31, 2011 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • ralph

      The GOP answer to the middle class and poor is drop dead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      January 31, 2011 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Political Sage

      How do you suggest that we protect those with pre-existing conditions, without mandating health insurance? If we protect those with pre-existing conditions, nobody will pay for insurance until they need it, and private insurance will cease to exist.

      Also, isn't it interesting that the government could tax each individual, then spend the money buying them health-care from the private market (like it does with defense spending), but it cannot mandate that they buy the health-care themselves?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Paul

      Cross state sales of insurance is a ploy by the insurance industry to be able to sell insurance from the states with the least insurance regulation.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • DwayneL

      @Ralph, no that was obama's death panel who would say that!

      January 31, 2011 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bgoll

      its OK to force someone wear a seatbelt, have car insurance or get vaccinations before starting school...just don't make them get health ins. Let everyone else pay for them when they get sick.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • pbd

      I think you're absolutely right. I'd also throw in dealing with the cost of prescription drugs- half of Big Pharma's money goes to advertising, half to research. We need to outlaw advertising like the entire rest of the world has.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Marko

      Theres nothing to see here. if they strike down this due to the fact that they cant mandate everyone to purchase health insurance, then i will start the next classa action suit for them mandating me to buy car insurance this whole time!

      January 31, 2011 at 3:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rick

      Yeah, the key to our health care crises is lawsuit reform and buying insurance across state lines..lol

      .FFS, think for yourself and stop listening to fox news.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • DUDEMAN

      Unless there is a requirement for EVERYONE to have healthcare coverage NO ONE is free from pre-existing conditions. The Republicans will not try to address pre-existing conditions and you and I will suffer for it. If Public Healthcare coverage is so terrible why don't the newly elected Tea Party Congressman elect out of coverage and find their own policies in a free market?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Brian

      Do you not realize why requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions completely destroys the whole idea of insurance? If you can wait until you get sick/hurt to buy insurance, you have no reason to buy into insurance ahead of time. So insurance companies have no pool of money from which to pay the people who actually do get sick/hurt, and so insurance goes broke, and we're all left paying for our own healthcare directly, and have no way to prepare for the unexpected.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • pbd

      Waiting periods and limited enrollment periods are other ways to convince people to buy insurance without forcing them to. A mandate is not the only way.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jerry Z

      The problem with pre-existing conditions is that the insurance companies won't cover them unless they get a much larger pool of customers to spread the risk around, especially young people who don't get sick much. That's why it included mandatory enrollment in health insurance for everyone, to create the larger pool.

      Like it or not, if you want coverage for pre-existing conditions, you will have to mandate coverage.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Darrius

      The majority of American could care less about Tort Reform and the Health Care Law their throwing out was addressing the rights of Patients with Pre-Exisitng Conditions. So a better response would be now the House GOP can develop a better way to support the big business of insurance companies as the refuse health care to the millions of American's in need and Doctor's who will retain more control over the health decisions of their patients.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • cd

      You do realize that the idea to "let insurance cross state lines" is also what's called the 'optional federal regulator' for insurance. this idea has been on the books for over a DECADE. It could have been passed during Gramm Leach Bliley. the GOP could have passed it ANY TIME they were in control. But did they? No. So - whatever.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jay

      Can hospitals be mandated to provide emergency room care?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • BD70

      The answer to the GOP is to give us the public option or drop their health insurance coverage. Pay for it themselves.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • JJL80922

      Car insurance, seat belts and immunizations at schools are local, county and state laws, they cannot be mandated by the Federal Government.

      States lose Federal Funding if those laws are not encoded and enforced. Plus, they get buckets of money from DC to enforce them, like DUI Stops and Free Vaccinations.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • CWMessenger

      Let's See – we are on the same page. I suspect however this is FAR from over. This will go to the supreme court where newly appointed Kagan will play a role in helping to render a decision. Let's see how THAT pans out first. But I definitely love your three points, support them all the way. CWM

      January 31, 2011 at 3:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Susan

      This is a fundamental right of all Americans. You can not impose Americans to buy. If this is the intention of the US government, then the government has to cover this. Being said that, Congress should be able to address regulations such as pre-existing conditions, etc...

      January 31, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • denmond

      No one requires you to buy car insurance just for being. You only need car insurance IF you CHOOSE to own a car, whereas this law requires you to buy health insurance just for being ALIVE. Owning a car is a CHOICE, being alive is NOT.
      Also, most, if not all, states don't actually require you to have car insurance, you just need to have PROOF of financial responsibility. Auto insurance just happens to be the most common and convenient way of providing it.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joe Fasanella

      Holy moly, can someone tell Nancy you have to read it to know what's in it that this judge read it and said, "She Gone".. Void, void, void, void, void, void void. Did I say VOID?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jordan

      @RodRoderick
      "won't happen. Their pockets are too heavily lined with bribes from the Health Care System". It is sad to see hyperbole stated as fact. The lining of pockets is not the exclusive domain of the GOP, nor is it a new phenomenon. Both parties line their pockets from special interest groups, and both fairly evenly. Big industry gives money to Dems and Repubs fairly evenly. Both Dems and Repubs benefit from the rigged system. You are an absolute joke and hypocrite if you think for one second that Dems are somehow morally clean. You betray your ignorance by believing otherwise.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rob

      Why can't the US government get their act together.
      There are so many working health care plans that other country's have.
      Why can't they use them as a starting point.
      I've heard this is just a running joke in Canada, watching everyone argue about health care.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kirstyloo

      Too bad about this because everyone with the means should be REQUIRED to have health care. If someone decides to buy a new car instead of health care, we can't ethically/morally deny them health care when they get into an accident driving that car or develop a horrible disease. Insurance works by having EVERYONE in the system. In addition, people who don't have health care often cost the system more because they don't have easy, cheap preventative care.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Anonymous

      Tort Reform – a red herring; assumes that insurance companies will lower premiums for malpractice insurance, which is pretty unlikely, and further assumes that physicians will in turn pass the savings on to their patients rather than just pocketing the difference. EXTREMELY unlikely.

      Sell Insurance Across State Lines – another red herring; assumes (for example) that someone from California who buys a policy in Nevada will pay what a resident of Nevada pays for health insurance. WILL NOT HAPPEN. Anyone who lives in CA will pay what it costs to insure a resident of CA, regardless of where the policy is purchased.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |
  7. kevin

    Just another republican judge who would rather see poor and sick people just go away and rot than allow them to have health care. GREED.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • Adam

      I think you are close.... however, still just a tad off. He's actually saying that you can't force someone to have to buy insurance, just because they are alive.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joe

      So Kevin, if those poor people can't afford they're going to go the emergency room like they've been doing anyway and make taxpayers like me foot the bill. I don't ask anybody else to pay for my medical insurance...why should I pay for theirs?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tesch

      ...yes it is as simple as that...

      January 31, 2011 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • jp

      The Poor in America?...you mean the one's with cell phones and 50" TV's with 200 + cable channels??? those guys?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joe

      The idea isn't to make people go away and die. The issue is that the government cannot force private citizens to purchase something. Clearly you're all about getting stuff from the government for free, so I would think you'd applaud this decision as it allows you to keep crashing the emergency room on my dime.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • get a job

      really, ok well how are the POOR going to pay ??????????

      January 31, 2011 at 3:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scott

      every hospital in America has to treat you even if you have never paid dollar in taxes. I would call that free health care. You cant force people to buy something, especially when we dont know what we are buying.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • DwayneL

      @Get A Job, how about they follow your name? Get a job...get help...there are plenty of opportunities for poor people to get help.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kristian

      I guess the lesson here is don't be poor......

      January 31, 2011 at 3:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • rick

      Where are all these poor and sick people you speak of?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rush

      OK, but what the Judge is also saying is that Hospitals shouldn't be FORCED to provide free care for people who refuse to buy insurance or pay the mandate.

      I don't care if it's your 3 year-old who needs the services. You didn't want to pay for the service; You didn't want to pay the mandate; don't tell the rest of us that we should pay for your free care.

      Thank You tea Party. How many deaths will this lead to? failure to provide services leads to over 40,000 PREVENTABLE deaths a year. Tea Party – This blood is also on your hands.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rush

      rick

      "Where are all these poor and sick people you speak of?"

      Hey Rickie, 40,000 of them die each and every year. Do you care? No.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Darrius

      Don't you just love the way they legislate from the bench?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Neil

      Don't know what planet you are on, but most states have programs for people with pre-existing conditions. My GF is a stage 3 cancer survivor and private insurance companies won't touch her with a 100ft pole. The state pays for everything from weekly blood tests for cancer markers to the chemo she's getting now for the barely stage 2 they just found on her liver last month.

      End of story.

      You want to pay for this twice? That's all Obamacare is about, getting money for the same programs twice. I don't know about you, but paying for it once is enough for me.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Brian

      Kevin, Joe responds that the "poor" just go to the emergency rooms and he has to pay for it. That's the mindset of those who are blind with partisan politics – obviously a Republicant. I own my own business – hardly "poor", and hardly a socialist. Since I'm self employed, these insurance companies screw you over. United Health Care, Aetna, Cigna, you name it – if you ever use it they'll either deny out of pocket, or drop you. That's fascism, or the face of the Republican/ Conservative agenda.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ntrain2k

      Me thinks Kevin suffers from a cranial rectal inversion.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Susan

      nothing to do with party affiliation. What the Federal judge said is that you and I are not mandated to buy insurance if we do not want to and get penalize if we do not. That is a concept for socialism. Being said this, the democratic party should know better than impose you and I to buy if we do not want to. Address the other issues such as pre-existing conditions, etc but not mandate individuals to buy OR else... Am okay with the other issues.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joe Fasanella

      Hey Kev, this bill did not cover 26,000,000 people to begin with. Everything about this bill was garbage. Deal with it. My healthcare deductibles doubled this year. I want everybody to have healthcare but at who's expense? Give the power back to the states and back to the people.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:03 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Vet

    Once again CNN posts a headline that misinforms by leaving out the Judges decision the the entire law is void.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Markc

      Yeah moron they also left out that the decision is meaningless because it will be appeals.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Schroeder

    so if I'm willing to pay cash or on a payment program but dont have insurance then I shouldn't be allowed to go to a hospital....it's not govt owned and I pay my bills

    January 31, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • hpynbrk

      Schroeder It is really a good thing you have money just sitting there in case of an emergency; way to take care of yourself. I on the other hand would not be able to pay cash or go on a payment plan. you'll pay for my care in case of an emergency right – you will i'm sure.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • HS

      What about the people who don't have health insurance but can't afford the cost of service? When they go to the hospital, the hospital absorbs those costs – raising health care cost for everyone. There are millions more of them compared to people like you who presumably are willing to pay their own way for services. I wish you luck that you don't get seriously ill before Medicare kicks for you in at age 65. Or, will you refuse to participate in that insurance coverage too just b/c it's a federal program? So, until then, I hope you have enough to cover the $25,000 it might cost if your appendix bursts.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • HS

      Oh, forgot to mention ... hospitals are required by law to treat anyone who comes into the ER. You don't need insurance to be treated, but, if you don't have insurance, you WILL be billed for services rendered. If that law were to change ... you wouldn't even be allowed in the front door if you had an emergency ... without proof of insurance, I doubt a hospital would provide services to you even if you "promised" to pay back the $25,000 on time. Without health insurance, most of us are one major illness away from bankruptcy. In fact, the leading cause of bankruptcy are excessive medical bills.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Death2Poor

    Kill a sick person for Christ

    January 31, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Dr.bucksnort

    This Argument about being forced to buy Auto or home insurance is suck a crock !! NO ONE is forced to buy either . you buy auto insurance if you choose to drive to protect the lenders investment and to protect other motorist on the road . same with home owners insurance .you are protecting the lender . own your home free and clear you do not have to have a insurance policy .. no where near the same as requiring everyone to have health insurance

    January 31, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • David

      You are ALWAYS required to have liability insurance on you automobile/motorcycle.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • James

      In Ohio, if you don't have auto insurance, you can't buy your auto tags. So, you are forced to buy insurance or you don't drive.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Howard

      Just curious, who do you propose should pay for the uninsured? Right now we all do anyway by way of increasing premiums and hospitial fees. Premiums have been going up for years; this isn't new. The uninsured who use our ER's are not all illegals which is what conservatives tend to argue. I work in an ER; not buying that. Many are folks who just can't afford or don't get insurance. As for universal care, my in-laws live in CAN and they are very happy w/their coverage. What's the solution?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bababooey

      Yeah, but you aren't required to own or drive a vehicle requiring insurance. At least you have a choice there. With mandatory health insurance you have to buy it just for being alive.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • ohpuhleze

      If you could choose not to get sick, then your argument would make sense. But unlike driving a car (and public transport is taxpayer subsidized btw) or owning a home, people cannot choose not to get sick.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • speekers

      I don't know what state you live in, but most do not require homeowners insurance. The bank DOES if you have a mortgage and it's part of your contract with the bank, not the gov't

      January 31, 2011 at 3:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Coco

      FYI :In some states you are required to buy auto insurance, if your not insured in Connecticut then you can't register your car.
      Bottomline is we all need healthcare, and all employers do not provide healthcare.
      It should be universal if Cuba and Canada could do it then we can too.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Justin S

      The difference is that when people get without insurance get into car accidents, those WITH car insurance don't pay for the damage in the form of higher premiums, which is exactly what is happening in health care. If you have health insurance, you should want everyone else to have it to that way your premiums aren't affected by someone else's emergency room visit. This story is meaningless though, everyone knows it will be decided by the supreme court that isn't going to be influenced because a bunch of republican federal judges feel a certain way

      January 31, 2011 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      You ARE required to carry insurance for your car even if you own it outright. The difference is that this is a Federal mandate vs. a State mandate. We all incur the cost of uninsured/under insured when it comes to health. One way or the other we all foot the bill for those that can't or won't carry health insurance. If we all have it the overall cost drops because people can actually get preventative care instead of waiting until it's too late and have to go to an E.R. Also the larger the risk pool, the cheaper it is for everyone. It may not taste good, but it will better for everyone in the long run.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • StopTheMadness

      You must be stupid it is a federal mandate that when you buy a house you have to have home owners insurance at the time of closing, or you can not close. Also in many states if you own a vehicle whether or not it is road worthy if you have that vehicle registered it has to be insured, if it is not insured they will suspend your drivers license. So while you are talking all that big man stuff like you think you know let grown people who actually know the law talk and be a good little moron.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • hpynbrk

      Hey Doc who should i talk with concerning this issue; I own my car outright and still i have to pay insurance.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • bonnieb

      The problem with your argument is although you could decide not to drive or own a car, no one can decide he/she will never need medical help. Your premise would hold water if someone who is uninsured becomes sick or injured would not then go to the hospital. I guess you could require only individuals who can pay or have insurance can be treated, but that would require all our medical professionals to rewrite the oath they take. The analogy is a good one. I have even been told individuals who are wealthy may not want health insurance and should not be required to buy any. I don't know any people who are so wealthy that they wouldn't mind having all their savings used up if/when they have a devastating illness or injury which really isn't all that impossible with today's medical costs.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • marty

      Dr. Snort thats a bunch of crock mandatory auto insurance is just a recently passed law in the last 25 years should that be overturned also.It was passed to protect the insured from the uninsured but i still have to pay an uninsured motorist premium. Why because of the insurance companies and their lobby. The same is true with medical insurance I have to pay for the uninsured to bail out the health care providers driving up costs for everybody. Mandatory coverage our costs go down or at least dont go up so fast.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • CWMessenger

      It's like arguing with a wall isn't it?

      Americans have a choice whether or not to purchase a car or not. If an American chooses to pay for a car, they have to own the responsibility of paying for insurance to cover liability on that car.

      Americans don't have a choice whether or not to be born – although parents can choose somehow whether or not certain individuals can be born or not. Upon being born, are we required by law to have insurance for health care?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Rambo

    This country really shows its true values when it leaves its poor in sickness and lets them die.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • DwayneL

      What a crock!!! No one is dying from lack of insurance! We have some of the best charity hospitals around where these people can get help. Drop the drama.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • BuckOfama

      If you don't like it, go live in another country you ungrateful piece of crap.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dude

      Yeah, right, that's happening.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chuck

      You are so right!! Yes they do, especially since Obamacare carried hefty fines if just those people didn't buy the insurance – your sickest and poorest and probably most likely to not buy it. That's what you folks seem to LOOOOOVE to pass over – Obabmacare was never about paying the premiums for those 30M of 330M that don't have insurance – it was about guaranteeing access to coverage (eliminating existing condition language, requiring businesses to pay a minimum amount toward the premium and such). They still had to go out and get it and in most cases, buy it and if they don't – fine or imprisonment. Boy when you guys are right, you're right!! Or left!!

      January 31, 2011 at 3:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • raelalt

      BuckOfama: "If you don't like it, go live in another country you ungrateful piece of crap."
      .
      What's the matter? You can't get Jerry Springer at your trailer park but you can get on the innerwebs?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • hpynbrk

      can you give me a referral to one of these hospitals. I like your point Rambo about charity hospitals but why do they still send a bill to my address? Who should one forward these bills to?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:55 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Food for Thought

    I am alive and I am required to buy food. (In the end, someone has to pay for it!) Biologically, I need it to live.

    No insurance, no medical treatment. Problem solved!

    January 31, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Geo

    This is funny because President Washington already signed a bill back '92 requiring the male population of the US to own a musket and provide no less than 24 cartridges along with other sundries. Militia Act of 1792. I wonder where the lawyers are who have been pointing that out.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Duts

      I think he required us to grow POT too.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:40 pm | Report abuse |
  15. garyinco

    WooHoo.

    I have a feeling the Supreme Court is going to reach the same verdict.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43