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. kncjr

    There go those activist judges again. LOL

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

      I heard a Spanish guy speaking broken English say this...I believe it explains all the issues, including healtlh insurance and if we should adopt a Medicare, not Medicaid system for all.
      He said, "Hey Zeus had a pre-existing condition, so he would not qualify for health-care under the old rules, or if the Republicans have their way." That this is appoximately a 78% Christian Country, it strikes me as odd that many Christians suggest they are chosen over minority Christians...if so....Christianity is false and we should stop spreading it around the world. To end...perhaps this Spanish guy has found a better god in Zeus! On a serious note; health is #1 for all of us...so lets put it first and then we can all benefit. How can we learn Mandarin Chinese from Hu Jintao, the President of China and the Secretary General of the Communist Party of China, if we are too sick to get to class!

      January 31, 2011 at 4:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Havildar

      Has any of the Republican teaparty beggers torn up their taxpayer provided universal Health care cards? ZERO all talk No Action NO JOBS Bills. NO Brains. NO Solution. The teabegging Republicans are a party of the brainless elected by the braindead.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:29 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Magis Trate

    Ah ha, legislating from the bench! Just what the Republicans abhor.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • jimmyc1955

      IT seems this judge ruled that congress was not empowered to mandate that people purchase a product from a vendor. I can't understand how anybody can conceive that the power to tax individuals permits the government to mandate we buy health insurance. If that is true they could also mandate that we need by by GM cars since that is in the nations best interest. If you can explain how congress's power to levy taxes enables them to say I have to by a product from a firm – I am willing to listen.

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

      Sweet! I hope this means I no longer can be required to buy auto insurance! Now i can just cross my fingers!

      January 31, 2011 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jacob

      @Jimmy C – The issue is not whether or not Congress has the power to Levy Taxes (which they do), but whether the Commerce Clause can be extended this far. I recommend you research ALDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 394 U. S. 165 (1968)

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

      Why the goverment can order a mandatory insurance if you have a car. Is this also an intrusion in a private matter. Why we have to protect property damage and we can not protect ourself.
      Giorgio

      January 31, 2011 at 4:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jay

      Dave,

      You are only required to buy auto insurance to pay for damage you may do to ME if you hit my car. You are not required to by insurance to protect your car unless you borrow the money and your lender requires that you have insurance to protect them. Just like in auto insurance, you don't have to buy insurance to protect yourself in the case of an accident unless YOU want to.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • why not

      Dave, you are not forced to purchase auto insurance. you have the right to walk or ride a bike if you so choose.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rick

      Dave... if that is the BEST you can do you need to stay in grade school for a few more years. ~moron~

      January 31, 2011 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Michelle

      Dave – you are comparing apples and oranges. You are not required to pay a penalty if you don't buy auto insurance. If you don't want to purchase auto insurance, you simply don't own and operate a car (which is a privilege by the way). This healthcare law made it illegal to not own healthcare insurance and if you don't purchase it, you are assessed a tax penalty. If you don't understand the difference in the situations, have someone explain it to you.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • G

      dave – you are not required to buy auto insurance if you choose not to drive. It is kinda difficult to choose not to live and not buy health insurance.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Frank

      While he was at it, this conservative activist judge should have struck down the laws that require people to carry vehicle insurance. Of course, it's all a waste of taxpayer money anyway. Our spineless president will give in to the Repubs and let the entire law be rescinded anyway.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Robert

      The federal government does NOT require you to buy auto insurance. That is under the 10th amendment and is under state jurisdiction It is amazing how many people don't even understand how our form of government works and who has autority to do what. The primary power of the United States is in the STATES. Also – you only need auto insurance if you drive. if you don't want to buy auto insurance then you don't have to drive. Your choice.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • BlueDem1

      Oh no, they're only activist judges when conservatives disagree with the ruling!

      January 31, 2011 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tim

      No one is forcing you to drive a car though – that is your voluntary choice – just as being a contractor or homeowner requires you to have insurance. The health reform act requires that every man, woman and child of this country buy health insurance from a private company.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dezzy

      @jimmyc1955

      Congress mandates thru taxes that you pay for the public option for education and national defense. You don't see our national defense run by a private army/mercernares do you? And primary and secondary education is publicly available, unless you want to pay for private education. So why not have a mandate to pay/tax for healthcare?

      January 31, 2011 at 4:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • T

      @Dave. Ah yes, the "car insurance" argument. Somehow people continue to delusion themselves into believing that it is an equitable comparison. The fact is, you don’t have to purchase liability insurance if you don’t want to. You can avoid doing so by not driving a car. Simple as that.
      Additionally, you are only required to purchase liability insurance to protect OTHERS from the damage you might cause while operating your car. You aren’t required to purchase insurance to protect YOURSELF from these accidents. This is the difference.
      The healthcare bill is apples-to-oranges in this regard. It stipulates that by simply breathing, you are required to purchase insurance to protect yourself from what ailments might befall you.
      Education, people… it’s the key to overcoming ignorance.

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

      As I sed, it is just about the money and property. You do not care of people, but for sure I know that you go to church and you pray a lot. You are a good man but nobody can touch your money. I hope your healt is good.
      Giorgio

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

      If you don't have insurance on your car you have to pay for damage done to it yourself. If you don't have health insurance, the public carries the cost of your care.... which means your tax dollars. Not quite the same.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ben

      Dave, you do not have to buy car insurance because you do not have to drive. If you CHOOSE to drive, then you must have car insurance. If you CHOOSE not to drive, then you do NOT have to buy it.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • The Patriot

      I don't know about you guys, but in the state of Louisiana if you get pulled over and you don't have auto insurance you get ticketed. In addition, if you had auto insurance and you decide that you don't want it anymore, the insurer can report you to the DMV and they will flag your license worth a couple hundred dollars.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lookitup

      Car insurance isn't required. Proof of financial responsibility is, which is most commonly proof of insurance, but can also be done by placing a deposit with the secretary of state that ranges between 30-50k. Before you say it's cost prohibitive, I know, I'm just saying there is no requirement made by the government that you purchase insurance from a private company.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • giorgio

      In America we do not have an efficient public transportation system like in Europe. Here own a car is vital. Sometime without it you can not go to the grocery store. What about work? Always close to your house, right? The car is a necessity, is vital if you want to survive. And what about the people tha work for 7-10$/hr. How thay can affort to buy a private health insurance. Nobady care about them. We just say if I have it they can too. But life is not equal for everybody.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:27 pm | Report abuse |
  3. duramax

    its good to see that the american dream and innovation are dead when we all want a nanny state to take care of us. what ever happened to working hard to get ahead in life and trying to create a better life for ourselves. since when did it become a sin to be wealthy and to be better off then our parents, isnt that the american dream? If i outwork and outsmart people why should i feel bad for someone who doesnt try and sits on the butt and collects govt checks. Im 26yrs old and have run my own farming and cattle operation since i was 18.if i outwork the next guy im not gonna feel sorry if he doesnt try.i have more respect for someone who trys and fails then someone who dont try all. it doesnt matter if your republican or democrat, quite the damn arguing and lets all do alil better the we did yesterday for ourselves and make ourselves and this country great again.

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

      Yeah, try electing Mchael Steele for anything.

      So if someone can't get a job with insurance, and he has a preexisting condition, then he deserves to either die young since he can't afford medical procedures.

      Very christian of you

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

      Thank you good sir!

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

      I totally agree with you Duramax! My hats off to you.

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

      @Duramax:
      I realize that it's convenient for you to think that the only reason you are successful is because of your hard work and skill and that luck had nothing to do with it.
      But guess what.
      It did.
      That one teacher that motivated you? That one school that accepted you The bank that gave you the loan to start up your business?
      Without a little luck, you could've easily been so badly off that if you got sick, you wouldn't be able to afford health care.
      And you would die.
      Think about that the next time you call this country a nanny state.

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

      Do you honestly think that the millions of people without health care just "sit on their butts and collect checks"? many, many working people have no health care because the deck is stacked in favor of the rich and powerful.

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

      Great, but what does your comment have to do with Government mandated, privately purchased healthcare insurance? Interesting that you are a farmer.....Ever gotten subsidies? Do you know where subsidies come from?

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

      So what happens if you work hard, but something goes wrong? You slip or get in an auto accident and, God forbid, break your back? How do you take care of yourself if your insurance company decides that you're not covered? Something beyond your control happens and your business has to close and you get sick while you don't have insurance because you can't afford it?

      It is possible to do everything right, and still have Stuff Happen. The purpose of insurance isn't to "take care of all the people who sit on their b&tts;" it's to take care of *you*.

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

      Just don't forget the subsidies you've been handed by the government. Sure is hard work, when the government hands you a check to reduce your overhead costs, eh?

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

      Want a cookie??

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

      Yes, and lets not forget all those government farm subsidies farmers get. No complaints about the nanny state in that case, duramax.

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

      Nope, that isn't the American dream. Your parents just taught you how to be selfish and take advantage of others.

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

      Rodeoguy – Yes he's racist because he supports and respects hard work and taking his own initiative to get ahead. Some of you people really are from a different world...

      January 31, 2011 at 3:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • jimmyc1955

      Rodeoguy – Well that reply came right out of the progressive manual. If you don't like what they are saying but can't logically, rationally or morally disagree then call them racists – because the only people who would disagree with a progressive HAS to be a racist.

      I think using the same level of intellectual power you demonstrated the proper response to you would be: I know you are but what am I?

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

      Rodeoguy, How is anything that duramax said racist?
      Imbecile

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

      Damn right! Maybe you should run for congress

      January 31, 2011 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • pmcg

      I am turning 26 this yr. when i was 18, i was diagnosed with cancer. i am just now finishing college. luckily, my dad a great healthcare plan that is still covering me. this may not be the case for long. now, if my healtcare runs out, what is my incentive to work when i will never be able to get ahead due to the inability to get coverage for a pre-existing condition and my expenses skyrocket? the positive externalities of healthcare will offset the cost in the long run....most people don't appreciate their health until they lose it. It is absurd to think that everyone that is helped by the gov't is abusing the system.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • MJ

      If you have owned and operated your own farm sense you were 18, where did you get the money? I am work with a bank. My focus is on business loans. I have been doing this for 20 years and I can assure you that at no time in the past 20 years were any banks giving loans to 18 year olds who wanted to start a farm. Typically, a farm is a very bad investment. Did you inherit the farm? Did you get capital from family? If so, that really does not count. You did not really work your way up from nothing and you should keep quiet...

      January 31, 2011 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • JMiller

      I want to see data (from a reliable source) that shows how many people in this country die every year because they don't have health insurance. It's very easy to scream "people will die without this mandate!" Well let's see if the data backs up your statement.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • thatisright1

      To quote a great man and reflect my sentiments "I'm a firm believer in luck, and I've found the harder I work, the luckier I get." So yes, I'm an absolute believer in "luck", thank you very much!

      January 31, 2011 at 4:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • DYLANSDADDY

      @ jimmyc1955- ROFL

      January 31, 2011 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      A lot of good that respect will do to the person who died because he tried and failed to be able to come up with the thousands of dollars needed to be able to afford decent health care. Health care in this country is only really feasible for those who have decent careers. Hard work alone does not give you the type of job you need to be able to afford it. Some people just don't have or aren't capable of acquiring the skills needed to really succeed. There's a difference between health care and a flat screen TV. The flat screen TV is your reward for being successful. Health care is what all people need so they don't die, for crying out lout.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Harry Pelosi

      Wow! Look at all of the cry babies that respond to Duramax. Get a freakin job. Rodeoguy – you are an idiot.

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

      Rodeoguy: based on the depth of your insightful analysis, concluding duramax is a racist, I can only conclude that you are an idiot. “Racism” is always the first club out of the bag for you clowns – why is that?

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

      So, you're 26 and now you know everything. Good for you for being a hard worker. I just have to ask. Are you so naive that you think everyone who finds themselves ina tough situation financially and needs help is LAZY? Wow. I hope you stay healthy and never find yourself having to depend upon your insurance company to pay your health care bills. Then you might find out, as others with insurance have, how conniving and dishonest most medical insurance companies are. Be thankful though, that you live in a country that will allow you to not die on the street. You can get the medical help you need even when the insurance company refuses to pay for it. What happens is, after your credit is ruined, the hospital charges it off, writes it off their taxes and then justifies the cost of everyone else's health care being so high because of it. Meanwhile, had the insurance company paid the bill, it would have been substantially less than the bill you would recieve. They in turn, will cite the high cost of health care for the reasons for denying your coverage AND for charging you too much for your premiums. They make money hand over fist, hospitals AND insurance companies...and it will continue as long as we have the current system in this country. Most of the money earned in this company goes to three industries: Health care, Insurance, Petroleum...all of which are major republican donors...hmmm.

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

      Duramax,
      you are right. It has nothing to do with luck, most of the time. I live in the midwest and we do things different and have different perspectives. From the time I graduated high school, I beat the door down at many local companies to get a decent job. If they said no, I asked why and what I could do to be an ideal candidate. I went through training, off hours unpaid. Dont tell me it was easy because I had no responsibility. By 19, I had a son. Yes it wasn't the smartest move but my wife and I have worked from nothing. Driving rust bucket, multi colored beat up piles and living in apartment to now owning a nice home and driving decent vehicles. I worked 14 hours a day while my wife went through RN school and she is now a nursing manager at 24 and I am 25 working a damn good job. Both of us make good money and provide for our family and have a college education now. Our drive and motivation come from within to give every opportunity to our son everything he needs and we did not have. And dont start with the materialist crap because we dont have an elaborate house and brand new vehicles. The are nice, decent and well taken care of. And besides, at the end of life you wont look back on everything you had. You will look back at everything you did and the experience of it all.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • cwby

      @duramax, at 18 years old, you bought land, cattle, all of the buildings and equipment that goes along with that. All on your own. Without daddies help, right?

      Please confirm how an 18 year old just out of highschool buys all of that, with little or no credit or cash.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • timd

      I agree with the sentiment completely but wait until you get older and you get hurt – watch the hospital take you for everything you have and then quietly kicks you to the curb when your insurance and money run out. That's the crime here. The current system is designed to suck every cent out of your pocket be giving tons of unnecessary tests and weeks in ICU – then your insurance runs out and low and behold – they proclaim you are now healthy enough to go home – that is unless you have assets which they will counsel you on liquidating in order to pay for additional treatment. This is the new standard.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • Knucklehead61

      You're probably healthy and don't need a doctor. I know a plumber who gave up his business to work for the city because he couldn't afford his health insurance. His kid needed tubes in his ears and the price was so exorbitant he couldn't keep his business. You think this is good for America? People abandoning their businesses to work for the govt? This needs to be fixed.

      If everyone doesn't pay in, it won't work. Then the young and healthy won't buy in, until they get sick. Then you have too many ill people on the system and not enough paying in. By spreading the costs across the whole country, it makes treating the minority of ill people possible. The demand for medical services isn't like the demand for food. It's not spread out equally. And as for death panels, you can bet there's one in every single insurance co. in this country. Be practical.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rodeoguy

      Hey, I was joking, I agree with everything you say, I'm tired of paying for everyone else. My employer does not provide health coverage, and Obama care won't help me because I'm "rich", I own 2 houses and make more then 52K per year. So under Obamacare I have to pay for your healthcare and I'll also be fined or taxed (what ever you want to call it) for not purchasing my own healthcare coverage that I choose that I don't want! Insurance should be illegal anyway, its just a form of gambleing, Insurance is THE reason medical cost are too high. Eliminate the insurance industry and problem solved.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • Syndrome Zed

      Enjoy your farm subsidies and price supports, Duramax, courtesy of the Federal Government.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • yuddhaoshaanti

      Sorry, but I have just a few things that I need for you to clear up for me. 1) Do you know how difficult it is for people born in poverty to get out of it? 2) Do you really believe that welfare is a lot of money or something?
      I applaud you for running your own business. That really is an outstanding feat. It just sorta bothers me that you aren't willing to help people in need. There are a lot of good, hardworking people in our nation that cannot afford healthcare and are truly suffering because of it. If you have the ability to help someone, why not? I don't think the government is planning to take all of your income and force you into a one-room shack as they spread your money around...

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

      Duramax you need to get off the farm and go to school. The lazy poor people you claim to take care of qualifies for free or reduce health care. It is people like you, your parent, and grand parents who will suffer the most. One episode with cancer can wipe out a saving, without insurance. On the other hand, the insurance companies can increase your premiums beyond belief. You Republicans are finally getting what you deserve.

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

      What an insensitive, un-Christianlike Darwinian person you are. WE NEED HEALTHCARE REFORM. This country is an embarrassment when it comes to taking care of it's unfortunate who can't afford the ridiculous premiums Insurance companies charge. Leave Healthcare just the way it is? RIGHT DURAMAX? Your ridiculous "survival of the Fittest and most weatlhy" SICKENS ME.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dana

      How is duramax racist? He never mentioned race. Only good work ethics. Are you insinuating that only certain races work hard by saying he made racist statements when he only he only said we should work to get ahead. Maybe you are racist?

      January 31, 2011 at 4:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Terry

      So, if someone gets a disease through no fault of their own and they don't have a job that offers health insurance and can't afford treatment, they should just suffer the consequences? Maybe even die? Is that really the America we want? Example: My son has Type 1 diabetes. This is the type that's caused by a malfunction of the immune system - nothing to do with obesity, etc. What if he lost his job through no fault of his own and in the midst of a recession can't find another one? He needs insulin daily. Not to feel better - to stay alive! You'd just let him die?

      January 31, 2011 at 4:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Peter

      I just want to affirm that you are an idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      January 31, 2011 at 4:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • I call bs

      Not all jobs refuse to cover prexisting conditions through insurance. When I started working here they covered me and my son. I have MS and my son is recovering from cancer ....so go get a damn job!!!!

      January 31, 2011 at 4:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jay

      I agree with Dura's statements for the most part. However the underlying implication that everyone who might need some assistance with health care are is a lazy bum is quite fallacious. If you don't believe that the majority of benefits in this nation are in favor of the wealthy or well off then you just aren't paying attention. Sure, a poor single mother may get government housing and $200 a month, but a fortune 500 CEO will get millions in tax breaks. Who's really getting the bigger handout here? And you may argue that the CEO is working and runs a company, which is true, but you also have to look at all the breaks, loans, and other aid he received along the way to get into his current position. And btw guys I think Rodeo was being sarcastic with the racist comment...as in he was poking fun at the "liberal types" who see race in everything and are always "playing the race card". Ironically that's exactly what he just did by making the comment and got the same sort of rise out of a lot of you.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • JGD

      Duramax, good for you for knowing the value of hard work. As for all the other quitters who have replied to this post, stop blaming subsidies, government, luck, racism, or anything else. You are given one chance at this life! If you dont do your best at everything you do, even if it leads to failure time and time again, and you dont keep trying your best at something else...then you are a quitter. You think the billions of Chinese people in Asia hate their government (yes) and that they slack off and expect help (no). They work hard...and each and every one of us should as well from the top to the bottom and vice versa. If everyone did we'd ALL be better off. If the guy at the burger king worked hard, right up the POTUS...all of us would benefit and we would need subsidies, racism, healthcare reform, social security, sales at WalMart... So SACK IT UP EVERYONE and do your best.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
  4. sharon

    EVERYONE is one step away from: finacial ruin,health problems.......just how many steps backwards do the good ole' party of the "I have it all, nah,nah,nah......reload........palin/bacucman/newty do they want the enitre country to go?
    Oh......those in office RIGHT NOW......give up all those perks,ride in a taxi,don't go home,all stay together like at C-street.........brown bag your sandwich....cause the poor folk won't be at work......wash and mend your own stuff,
    but as of today....GIVE UP YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE that "We the People" were paying for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

      A little convoluted, but I think we agree. I always find it amusing that the christ eaters care little about taking care of the poor but do want to talk about marriage equity and abortion clinics.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • jimmyc1955

      Todd – If you have ever been aware of all the christian groups that aid the poor, feed the hungry, cloth the unfortunate, supply housing . . . the list is endless. Look at all the foodbanks – most are church based.

      What many don't believe is that we should abdicate our duty to our fellow man by making Government take from one to give to another. Charity is something all should have. Christians demonstrate it every day – you just choose to ignore those efforts in your bigoted view of Christians. Even the Catholic Church runs hospitals all over the country that nobody is turned away from. St Judes is a leading childrens hospital – but I guess those don't count.

      Oh and just an FYI – per capita charity is highest in conservative Christian states and lowest in progressive states. For example Mississippi, one of the poorest states in the nation, gives more per person as a percent of total income than any other state while Massachusetts is the lowest. I surmise that Mississippi believes in taking care of the poor personally while Massachuesetts believes it's the governments job.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • D-man

      Todd,

      I think you will find that the 'christ eaters' in this country do more to take care of the poor in this country, and the world, than anyone else. I'm just trying to figure out why you had to somehow throw a slam at people in when none was needed, relevant, nor called for.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joscelyn

      We "christ eaters" aren't against helping the sick and less fortunate. This article is about the provision FORCING people to purchase health insurance by penalty of law. How is that helping the poor? We have the richest poor people in the world. If health care is a priority for someone with budget issues, maybe they could give up things like cable and iphones. And for those that are truly impoverished and don't have those things to give up, they already more than likely qualify for their state health plan. Yes, emergencies happen. But so does emergency preparedness and savings accounts and the ability to negotiate with hospitals. We have free will (for now), but that also comes with, say it with me, personal responsibility.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:23 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Shawn

    To the canadian person and your national health care. I am a doctor in detroit and most of my patients are from Canada because they dont trust their nationwide insurance.

    So there you go....

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

      Funny that. You don't write like a physician...

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

      I I don't know a single Canadian who would give up their UHC for the "American Way". After all you are simply offering them car insurance not health care.

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

      I hear this all the time but never get any specifics about why the system in Canada doesn't work. The only thing i hear is that some ELECTIVE surgeries are delayed. However, if it is a procedure that is an emergency, i am sure they don't wait around.

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

      No you are not. More like you are a liar from Detroit.

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

      Shawn, then shouldn't your name be "Dr. Detroit"?

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

      I wouldn't go to Detroit even I was ill. I've been there once. That was enough.

      But humor me – out of 33 million Canadians how many have you treated ? If you ask the reason they cross the border I'm sure lots will say that. But even if 100% of the Canadians you treat (?) say that, it is so insignificant as to be meaningless. And if that is the critical thinking you employ in your work, god help your patients.

      You also miss the other point – you fail to demonstrate that the Canadians are CORRECT in lacking trust. Just because I may not trust someone, does NOT mean they are actually bad at what they do.

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

      Hey doc in Detroit,

      I am a doc in Jaurez Mexico and most of my patients are Americans. So there you go. Also I got a job offer from a hospital in India treat patients from US. So good luck with your candian patients and your willful blindness to see your messed up system.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Aaron

      Canadians have a longer life expectancy and less bankruptcies per capita than America...Not that I would ever want to live in Canada, but I'm just saying...since you're a doctor maybe you could explain that.

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

      that's why every time someone in canada contracts a serious disease the first thing we say is thank god we don't llve in the states.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • John

      Dr. Shawn, this is a first! Can you prove your claim? How do they pay you and did you claim it as income? 8 years of schooling and you didn't capitalize Detroit.....Oh, on a lighter note...I thought Nationwide was on our side.......not Canada....Ha! Republicans represent business and you my friend have no business with them....unless you are a biased or greedy...in which case good luck if you lose your job because in the end they won't be there for you.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sean Murphy

      Shawn, I don't trust American doctors either, why would I trust someone that is paid by in insurance company that tries to manage profit by cutting benefits.

      your thoughts.

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

      this is the kind of thing that makes me sick and ashamed of some Americans.
      people "posing" as someone they are not and give their "opinions", as if they are fact.
      Shawn is a liar, and his information is a lie from any REAL doctor in Detroit, or elsewhere.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Paul

      Doctor in Detroit,
      know wonder most of your patients are from Canada, no american in Detroit can afford your services. What is the unemployment rate again in Detroit USA

      January 31, 2011 at 5:00 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Michael Gonzales

    Im against this bill but I really wish we could hit a fast forward button and get too the main show, the Supreme court. All of these lowercase rulings dont really mean that much because we know this is were it is headed and it's fate will be decided.

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

      I am for the bill. Not because I think this is the be all end all fix to health care...but because its the best one anyone has come up with and was able to get passed! The bologna is out, the wall is prepped, we threw the meat, and it stuck! Now lets see it stay there before someone instantaneously peels it off and declares.."SEE, IT WON'T STICK!"

      We elected this man with one of his biggest agenda items be Healthcare. He got it passed. Can we let it work and see if it is viable prior to declaring it dead?

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

      Michael you were for the bill before you were against it!

      January 31, 2011 at 4:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Havildar

      Hey Michael tell me why you are against this Healthcare Bill? Are you against 50 Million Americans being able to buy affordable Health care? Are you against Children being covered by their parents' health insurance until age 26? Are you against Seniors not having to come up against the "republican provided medicare 'donut hole'"? Are against any American being able to buy affordable Health Insurance without being denied dur to so called pre-existing conditions? Have you torn up your govenment provide healthcare?

      January 31, 2011 at 4:17 pm | Report abuse |
  7. blahblahblah

    In the end the ultimate destination is to ensure all citizens of the U.S. have an equal base level of healthcare available to them. Those that can afford more, will have more. Those that can't will still have a basic level of coverage which will provide that base healthcare at a much lower cost to all, than what currently happens.

    Because many health care providers cannot refuse service to those in need, the "cost" of adminstering that care at no cost is then shared by those with the insurance through higher fees for something as simple as a shot or an x-ray or something major such as a surgical procedure. Ultimately when determining the cost for a procedure, the hospital or urgent care facility determines what the true cost is and then weighs a set number of negative cost terms. A variant to off set the expected number of those who will not pay a dime for said procedure. Then they adjust the "price" of the service accordingly to ensure profitability. Reminder here....Hospitals want to make money too!!!

    The argument people continue to make is that the federal goverment should not force people to buy health insurance. Well, that may have been true in the past...but maybe we need to change that philosphy? Perhaps we DO need to have that a forcible regulation.

    Here is an example...not too long ago, a business owner looking to hire someone to sweep the floor, make coffee, fill a sales or service role (any position at all) could CHOOSE anyone they wanted for any reason they liked. If they did not want to hire someone who was african american....no problem. Now, along came the Equal Employment Opportunity act and commission. And suddenly it is forcible to ensure the best candidate is hired, regardless of race, religion, etc. Would you want to renig that if someone said..."Hey, I should hire anyone I want!!!"

    No, it would be ludicrous. Ultimately we want an environment and society where the EEOC is not necessary. Where people hire and fire based on performance and qualifications. Additionally, the health care system should be affordable for all and having health insurace should not be a necessity for good decent health care.

    As it stands, it is not. It is times like these that the federal government is trying to do exactly what it is SUPPOSED to do. Step up and defend the rights of the citizens of this nation for the greater good of ALL of its people....remember that thing called democracy?

    If anything, people should not be miffed at an elected President for putting this on the agenda. People should be miffed at the greedy industry that usurped and manipulated the system to fatten their own wallets. Many people have become incredibly wealthy in and around the business of health care. We scrutinize Wall Street for its profits and gains against the damage they wrought to our economy in the name of a buck, yet we do not hold the health care providers to the same standard of scrutiny...instead we cast the blame at the President's feet and say its his fault.

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

      Well said. I don't know why we need to beat around the bush so much. Why didn't they just go there and call it a day? The Dems shouldn't have pussed out so much...If 2012 puts the dems back in control of the house I think we'll see a move to a basic universal care by 2014 when the "Mandate," as it has been called, would take effect.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mother G

      Enough said...Now the order of business should be jobs, jobs and more jobs. Listen Republicans....You told me to elect you so we would have more jobs and that's what we want. Please stop wasting time and money on Healthcare and lets get those jobs you promised me. Jobs Jobs and more Jobs.....

      January 31, 2011 at 4:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • smarterthan you

      Amen!

      January 31, 2011 at 4:07 pm | Report abuse |
  8. cyberCMDR

    I think everyone understands that the healthcare industry has been broken for a while, so something has to be done. There are lots of reasons, but most of them revolve around money. Insurance companies want lots of money in, and little $$ out so they deny coverage and dump chronically ill people when they can. The doctor that treats you has an inherent conflict of interest, as he can make more money if you get sicker or decide on more expensive procedures. Drug companies are pushing their products, and charging what the market will bear. With all this, people are surprised that health care is expensive. We need a better model.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:46 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Eddie (Confused)

    Makes me really confused........I do not get it. If all states obligate you to have a drivers licence to drive car in which that car needs registration and proof of insurance so that if you get into an accident you are covered how is this any different from someone needing healthcare insurance...You drive you need insurance, if not tough luck...You live you need insurance, if not you die cuz no-one wants to take care of you.....Where are our frikiting values...

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

      Eddie, You are required to have insurance for damage to you do to other people and their property. You do not need to insure yourself or your vehicle. Most choose to because to make sense.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • rr528

      It's different because the auto insurance is to protect the person you (potentially) HIT.

      If all car accidents involved only one vehicle (yours) crashing into something that belongs only to you, it wouldn't be an issue. But in most accidents, you hit something that doesn't belong to you – property, another car, or a person. THAT'S why you have to have insurance.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • equus6

      Different, if you chose not to own or drive a car the government can not force you to buy insurance...

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

      driving is a privilege not a right.

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

      All states don't require insurance. You're comparing apples to oranges.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Navyvet50

      I bet you are confused! You only have to have insurance IF you drive a car, or OWN a car....If someone never drives a car because they are crippled, YOU seem to think they should HAVE to buy auto insurance, if we use your analogy.... The mandate in Obamacare would be like making all people that physically could not drive, buy auto insurance JUST so all the other people could have lower rates.... NOW do you understand? IT IS WRONG!!!!

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

      Eddie...our vlues went out the window when people like you started saying frikkin...

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

      Drivers license and insurance are State Laws and State Regulated. Only CDL's are Federally regulated under the commerce clause. Health care reform is needed but stop making laws that force me to do things because the government thinks I am too stupid to do it on my own.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • BT

      You are confused, you have a choice to drive. Where you are also confused is that you are required to only carry car insurance that covers other people, not yourself, it is called liability coverage. Also, if you get into an car accident your rates go up, because you have a "pre existing condition" let's call it.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • willie

      Eddie...i am definitely not claiming to understand all of it...but if i had to try and guess on the answer to your question...then my thought would be that one could just choose not to drive...and thus one still has freedom to choose. Thoughts?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lee

      #1. You aren't forced to buy a car.
      #2. In Texas you don't have to have insurance if you have a certain amount of money in the bank.

      You have moot point.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • RRMiami

      You are not required to drive and therefore you do not need insurance unless you chose to do so. You have no choice as to healthcare because as long as you breathe you are being forced to buy it under Obamacare.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • George

      Here is what you do not get!! A Driver's License is by choice. The Government does not force a person to get a Drivers License, nor are you penalized if you do not get one!!

      If you choose to not drive, anytime in your life, it is not mandated that you have to get a license.

      If you choose to drive, a license is mandated including insurance.

      Mandating that everyone must have and pay for insurance is NOT A CHOICE!! Is it?

      January 31, 2011 at 4:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • D.W.Berger

      Think about this: I don't have a car. Am I still required to buy auto insurance? If no, then your argument is irrelavent.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Meredith

      If you drive on your own property you need no insurance. If you drive on public roads you only need to buy insurance to protect someone else you might hurt. If you make someone sick by being in public, then it would make sense to force you to purchase insurance. I suppose we could force people to buy insurance if they go out in public when they have the plague, HiN1, or some other deadly illness but that's pretty complicated. Got it?

      January 31, 2011 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mr Melvin

      Its called a choice. Choose to ride the BUS

      January 31, 2011 at 4:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • David

      This is also a states rights vs. federal rights issue – a state can make you purchase auto insurance if you own a car, but the federal government cannot.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • rep

      ummm...actually not having health insurance does affect everyone else who does. unless of course these same people would (or could) elect not to receive care even in emergencies. because hospitals do care for people in those cases (at at much higher costs that they pass on to you and me through our insurance companies). anyone want to sign up for that?

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

      You say driving is a choice not a right...what about the money I pay in taxes toward the DMV? That pays for driver's licenses to be issued and people...but yet, I don't drive. The "mandate," as it's called, is the same exact thing as paying for anything else in life that we don't have a choice about. Public Schools, police, fire department...come 2012 when the dems take control back in the house they will make this Universal Health care paid for by a slight increase in taxes and start to really take a bite out of the massive cost health care is taking from our economy.

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

      Forced insurance? Not sure that's the answer, but for me it's not that clear.
      food for thought... If you have no insurance and show up at the ER w/ life threatening injury, I believe they are required to treat you.(those in the know pls help here) That cost gets passed on to me b/c the hospital will raise its prices , my premiums go up, etc. I can see a similarity to auto liability insurance in that your failure to cover yourself damages me..indirectly not directly like being hit by your buick.. but I think it reasonable to try and find a way to protect others financially from someone who decides to risk it..

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

      @meredith – so only people that crash cars in public need to buy car insurance?

      January 31, 2011 at 4:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • MissMacinTX

      Proof of Insurance for driving is sort of a misnomer...really the issue is Proof of Financial Responsibility. Most people cannot pay/post a $50K demand bond, to demonstrate ability to pay for any accident that they may be at fault and therefore, responsible for. So, most people purchase insurance. Your premium is the bet/or risk margin that the insurer takes to assume that bond value of coverage, on your behalf. The insurance company stands in the at-fault driver's place to demonstrate financial responsibility criteria is met. The government mandates that if you drive, you should be able to pay for any damage you cause, or be subject to being sued for assets sufficient to cover the damage.

      We buy additional coverage voluntarily, to insure our own losses, even if we are at fault. Not everyone insured will have an accident, the risk is spread out over a large group, and what the insurance company does not pay out in losses/claims, becomes profit...for assuming the risk for the insured person.

      If you ever have an accident and are not at fault, God help you if THEY are uninsured, and your policy did not have UNISURED/UNDERINSURED coverage! You will pay for an accident that someone else caused...and they may go to jail or be subject to direct suit for damages. But you will pay your attorney costs and legal fees up front, in addition to your repairs/replacement, medical bills, property being damaged, etc. Then, you will hope that the person you are suing doesn't a) file bankruptcy , or b) has assets, like a house, they can sell to pay you, if you ever win in court!

      Now, really folks, do you still hate having to buy auto insurance?

      January 31, 2011 at 4:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • matt

      And here is what all of you dont get. You say that you dont need insurance for yourself, but you need it to cover the person you hit. So driving requires some sort of insurance. So when YOU hit a person, Their costs are covered, they ARE NOT paying for something that is YOUR problem.

      Why is this actually very much like healthcare?

      What happens when an uninsured gets injured, sick, whatever and goes to the ER? And YES, Every single person eventually WILL get sick/diseased/injured at some point. Well, someone else pays for it! How the heck is this any different from car insurance?

      You MIGHT get in a car accident, so you MUST buy CAR insurance so OTHERS dont have to PAY for YOU!

      You WILL get sick at some point, so you MUST buy HEALTH insurance so OTHERS dont have to PAY for YOU!

      Simple really. Except you dont have an option to LIVE like you have the option of driving a car!

      January 31, 2011 at 4:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Havildar

      Not having Health Insurance is TEN times as bad as not having Auto Insurance. If only the Republican Activist Judges would have any Brains.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Max

      Well, here's our solution. To not have the burden of car insurance on our backs, we could simply refuse to drive. To not have the burden of health insurance on our backs, we could simply refuse to breathe. How can that get more simplified? This confirms Eddie's point; there is no difference. Yes, one doesn't require you to die if you are not up for paying hefty costs, but, common, this is America. Its our "progessive" obligation to make certain the entire nation has health insurance. Although anyone (be it with or without insurance) can go to an ER in an emergency, we also need to provide free office visits and routine testing when you're healthy, just because you the Government thinks it is a nice thing to do. But, since the Government does not have its own funds, we, taxpayers (most of whom pay for their own health insurance), "must" pay for the insurance of those who most likely also don't even pay taxes. Since the Govt's our father, we can't refuse. In truth, though, I do support the ban on pre-existing condition refusals (if you have the money for insurance, it should not be refused) and I am for allowing children to stay on their parents policies longer (dependants are still paid for; its not charity on the part of the insurance companies), but why can't we just leave those popular regulations in place and sever the rest? Every democrat defending this law only remarks on these famous provisions, staying mum on all the rest. But, in reality, these provisions are one small part of the entire law. So, if they are so well liked, let's keep them and delete the rest. Very simple. Very few democrats talk about the rest of the law, so, if the remainder of the law is so horrible to even talk about, why keep it? I am sure republicans are mostly in favor of those two aforementioned regs, and maybe even a few others in the law, so let's keep what is liked on both sides and excise the rest, replacing it with something superior.

      January 31, 2011 at 5:11 pm | Report abuse |
  10. karek40

    Disagreeing with the president does not imply hate as some seem to imply

    January 31, 2011 at 3:46 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Cynthia Newman

    Thank goodness. No one should require any one of us to purchase something that we don't want!

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

      And when you get sick...you should not be allowed to access treatment!

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

      So if you get sick and cannot afford it, are you saying that doctors should have the right to turn you away if you can't pay?

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

      @Jacque

      We should refuse treatment to sick people? That's very compassionate of you to say.

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

      Every time I pay my bill at the doctor's office I am in part paying for all the people that don't pay. I don't have a choice. I can't say I only want to pay what this really costs. I bet you don't like that either, so what do you choose?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • shaun

      If they repeal this law, EMTALA, the law requiring people to get care in the ER without insurance should also be repealed! That will lower the cost of everyone’s health insurance because individuals with insurance would no longer be subsidizing the care of those without.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Matt

      @shaun

      Where would people who can't afford insurance go when they get sick?

      January 31, 2011 at 4:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      I agree with Shaun. If you don't want to pay for insurance fine. But the laws that force your treatment for free should be abolished.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • JustReal

      Don't we have to buy Social Security? Why is healthcare different? You have to pay for your social safety net if you can afford it.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:10 pm | Report abuse |
  12. cel

    the law was poorly written and rushed thru at a time when congress should have been working to create jobs. It needs to be rewritten and then passed when it meets the needs of the people, not the needs of the politicians.l

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

      The repubs had 6 years to work on this. They didnt

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

      Isn't the current congress pushing legislation through without delay now? Why is rushing some things ok and rushing others bad? I also remember First Lady Clinton talking about health care reform. That is hardly rushing.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:58 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Lucy

    I work for a small law firm which does not offer health insurance to their employees. When I checked into gettin my own insurance I was very overwhelmed at the cost. It would seem that I would be working for free just to have health insurance for just me. Thank goodness my husband was able to get our two kids and I on his health insurance plan through his work. Although he has to pay a good bit for the family plan but it was cheaper than me getting my own health insurance with a private company.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:47 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Shelly

    What a joke America has become. I guess I can stop purchasing auto insurance now too.

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

      Big difference. If you do not drive, you do not have to have insurance. Additonally, many states do not require comprehensive, just collision. So you self insure your auto. The issue the judge calls out is this requirement to purchase something. It is like requiring everyone in California to purchase Earthquake insurance. It may be good to have, but sounds a lot like an insurance lobbiest dream.

      January 31, 2011 at 5:31 pm | Report abuse |
  15. Matt

    Tough call here, I'm not terribly sad to see the mandate go since it was a payoff to insurance companies. I'm sick of people acting as though that was the "evil communist" plot by Obama to control your life, it wasn't. Obama gave the insurance companies the mandate so that they would go along with reform in general, surprise surprise, they spent millions trying to defeat the bill anyways.

    So this is the new America, any piece of legislation trying to actually assist Americans will be shouted down and destroyed by any means necessary. If this legislation goes away you are absolutely dreaming if you think it will be "replaced" by ANYTHING else. The insurance companies will have won and we will all lose.

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

      Sorry but this legislation really helped very few people and cost the rest of us about $1B a year.

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

      You know ralph, "very few" is really millions. And 1 billion? You think that is more, or less than the taxes you pay when you have to bail out hospitals because too manyof their patients are indignant?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rodeoguy

      the new America? What do you mean the new America? When 70% of the country does not want Obamacare what do you think they are susposed to do?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Margot707

      Todd – "manyof their patients are indignant"

      Did you mean indigent? The problem is with all the people who really are indignant that Health Care Reform finally got passed.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Aaron

      @Ralph – is it not the role of the American government to protect those that cannot protect themselves, the minority? I believe our country was founded on that principal – and stated by one Paul Ryan in his SOTU response, and I quote, "...and to help provide a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves."

      This is more a civil rights issue than anything else. The Haves vs the Have Nots.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:42 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