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. MarcusMACV

    Look, Florida is the state where 2 year old children carry guns to preschool. Florida is the state where ballots mysteriously took a hard-right turn during the 2000 Presidential election. Why is anyone surprised by this ? Ask your Florida representatives how their Health Care is doing, then look at yours. Dummies, each and every one of you!

    January 31, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • tmoney

      annex florida

      January 31, 2011 at 3:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • BFUNK

      uhhhh. Please retake 8th grade social studies. This was a FREDERAL JUDGE in a FEDERAL court. Not the state of Florida.

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

      Florida is also the state where the voters elected a man as Governor who was the CEO of a hospital group that was fined 1.7 billion dollars for Medicare fraud, who spent 5 million of his own money to fight the Healthcare bill and who just got a contribution of $525,000 from Blue Cross/Blue Shield to pay for his inauguration party. Smells awful here these days.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • DMC

      WOW Marcus - I hope you were not trying to rally the forces behind you by calling everyone DUMMIES! LOL

      January 31, 2011 at 3:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Freedom0127

      This was a FEDERAL judge who was appointed by a POTUS. Has nothing to do with the state of Florida.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Freedom0127

      Perhaps you should think twice (key word THINK) before you post! Try doing a little research before jumping to conclusions. And whose the Dummy here?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • MARCUS IS DUMB

      Federal Court ...not State of Florida

      January 31, 2011 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • @Freedom0127

      You provide no evidence to support your statement. Please return with a logical, reasonable, and well thought rebuttal to the above comment. At least Marcus attempted to provide evidence to support his statement, even if it may have been somewhat inaccurate, some evidence is better than simple Blubbering.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Freedom wannabe is dumb

      uh no. Half truths and propaganda are not better. either have facts or keep to ur self. Example: Fact- This is a Federal vs. States right issue as referenced in the 10th Amendment. Fact – It will be decided by FEDERAL courts, not a state court. Fact – How you "feel" is irrelevant.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • LOLOL

      That's awesome...ROFLMAO

      January 31, 2011 at 4:18 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Bill

    This bill was a failure from the start. Just because you can't, or are unwilling to, pay for health care insurance – how does a law requiring you to have insurance change anything? Can you now magically pay for it?

    The problem is that health care companies, and hospitals, are allowed to charge insane amounts to the paying public to help offset costs for the freeloaders.

    Why don't we work on the real problem instead of whatever this bill was trying to do?

    Maybe capitalism just doesn't work for everything.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • john

      poor people get help paying for it under the bill. so do small businesses.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      Bug John, who is paying for this help? My tax dollars, right?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Freddo

      Absolutely!!!! This bill never solved the problem of high healthcare cost: it only shifted how it was being paid. The politicians are too cozy with the healthcare industry to actually address the cause.

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

      "how does a law requiring you to have insurance change anything? Can you now magically pay for it?"

      Thank you for saying this.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • BD70

      No you can't magically pay for it but it does force people to budget for whichever is less. Health Care or the penalty. Either was they are putting money in the pot. Will they jail them if they don't? Probably not...look at Mass. All who were fined had those fines waived so....no one said this is perfect. Its a start and subject to be enhanced not SCRAPPED.

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

      Alot of the cost problems are coming from educational prices.

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

      Education, not educational. Not sure why I added al. lol

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

      Ask the GOP. Obama wanted to get more forceful at controlling costs at the source, but the GOP was totally against it. The health care lobby has spend hundreds of millions of dollars fighting this bill. You know there are some good things in it don't you?

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

    If people are not required to get health insurance, who ends up paying the bill? Our taxes. So we may as well help those in need.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Philabias

      i guess you think that those who dont have healthcare dont pay taxes too?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
  4. bigpete13036

    Maybe hospitals should be able to refuse to treat people without insurance unless they give a multi-thousand dollar deposit to pay any possible bill.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hexdragon

      Or how about hospitals shouldn't be a profit center??? People should NOT make money on other people's misery...

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

      Hexdragon
      You are the winner, your ideal is the only one so far that makes any sense
      BRAVO!

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

      Thats a great idea! Lets have people bleed to death from gunshot wounds in the Emergency Room waiting areas again simply because they can't afford treatment.

      Did you forget why its illegal for ERs to turn away patients?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:40 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Luvin It!!!!

    I love to see that this Judge respects the way of America and our right to choose. We have the right to choose whether we want health insurance and every other aspect of our lives. Message to Obama and the slimy liberals – LET PEOPLE GOVERN THEIR OWN LIVES!!!!! That is the way of America!!!!!!

    January 31, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ol' Yeller

      And you are also probably one of those who scream 'judicial activism' everytime a Federal Judge makes a ruling you don't like. This silly ruling will be knocked down... and if it isn't, it opens the door to single payer... which is much better anyway.
      Win, win for us slimy liberals.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • lankale

      Really? and the 121million americans covered by this law arent americans? They must be from kenya? You ignorant buffoon. You're covered under your job..just the mere fact that youre on here posting and the intellect you show allows me to deduce that this law impacts you in no way (YOU ARE ALREADY COVERED BY YOUR FREAKING JOB)....Get a clue and dont let your ignorance show..that guy you pass everyday looking for construction work with a sick wife at home..yeah that guy..he needs this law....again you buffoon.

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

      Are you kidding me? Very few people can manage their own lives. We depend on government and we are Americans, a group of people who are all in this together – not individuals who do whatever they want. Are you going to manage your own life when you need the fire department because your house is on fire? The police to catch a burglar? Help with paying for your mom in the nursing home? Wake up – the days of individualism have long passed. We all depend on our government!

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

      Let me guess. You are not insured. And you rather have taxpayers pay for your medical bills than buying your own insurance.

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

      Problem is if you want lower taxes then I'm not sure how you comment makes sense. If you have someone that doesn't have insurance and they have to run to the emergency room, who picks up the tab.....we all do through increased premiums and increased tax dollars!

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

      Yes! Just like the conservatives let us marry who we want! And let us decide to high or smoke a cigarrette! And just like the conservatives to let us decide to do what we want with our own body!

      LET PEOPLE GOVERN THEIR OWN LIVES – as long as that agrees with the conservative way of thinking! :0)

      Silly person.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • PJ

      Sure, free not to participate in paying for insurance, but what a tragedy when you bankrupt your family when you get sick. Freedom with no responsibility or consequences is not the American way.

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

      I agree you have RIGHTS...but when you walk into a hospital and receive care, receive the bill and IGNORE it, this results in costs being raised for the masses. It should be illegal to go without medical insurance! 30 years ago you probably was the same dummy saying "i shouldn't be required to wear my seatbelt". Yeah, sounds good until you smash your head on the windshield or get ejected and your closed-head injury costs the government MILLIONS. You have the right to do whatever you want, UNLESS it affects my pocket!

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

      You're right to choose was just taken away when you had to pay for someone elses medical care because they refused to carry insurance. I can't possibly see or relate to your logic. It's very flawed.

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

      The problem is that – when push comes to shove – people CHOSE to not die. So when an uninsured person falls off their roof, they will not intellectualize their decision to not participate in a health insurance plan. They will let the EMTs take them to the hospital, thus creating a bill that needs to be paid by someone, somewhere.

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

      Don't you get it, Luvin it!!!!? Your taxes already pay for people without insurance who have to use ambulances and go to the emergency room and get medical care. You're already paying a lot. And BY LAW these people must be treated. But by requiring everyone to have insurance, YOU then don't have to subsidize these people. In other words, the insurance madate SAVES you money. Now, of course, if you think it's morally okay to let people in need die because they are not insured, then I weep for the country and community that you would make. We all live here together. We are the American family. Don't you think we have a minimum duty to provide for the members of our family? Or do you truly not understand how interconnected we are? By the way, if you're so afraid of socialism then be true to your principles and never drive on an interstate (for example). The interstate highway system was a government program paid for with your tax dollars: in other words, socialism. But I suspect you're the kind of person who ignores parts of arguments that don't fit into your worldview.

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

      Yes...the right to choose. Just like I get to choose whether my taxes are spent are freeloaders who don't have insurance but inendate hospitals ER's with every sniffle they get; skyrocketing my insurance premiums and wasting my tax dollars. You are under some false reality that people go into emergency rooms and run up huges bills and hospitals just eat that bill? Please.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:52 pm | Report abuse |
  6. TJ

    If this goes through, a lawyer could use this to argue that Americans shouldn't be forced to purchase auto insurance...boy that opens up a can of worms because lower income people would opt out on auto insurance, hurting the auto insurance companies and you know what that means...rates go up for the rest of us. This is the logic behind mandatory healthcare. if every one has it, rates will go down.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • kickplate

      Rates will not go down if health insurance is mandated. As usual, the working class will subsidize the rest of the country. You cannot give away something of value (health insurance) and expect its cost to come down–doesn't make sense.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • David

      No, and the reason is that the federal government doesn't require auto insurance, the state governments do. States rights vs. federal rights. Plus, you don't have to have auto insurance – many people in cities do not have a car, and therefore don't need auto insurance.

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

      The federal government doesn't require you to buy car insurance, silly. Next argument.

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

      I disagree TJ. Auto Insurance requirements are for liability insurance, not personal insurance. You are mandated to buy auto ins, in most states, to pay for my car if you hit me, not yours. Health ins is a different animal. I see your point, but think it may be apples and oranges.

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

      TJ you are completely wrong. People can opt out of paying for auto insurance...simply by not buying a car! You have to look at this from the opposite direction. If this ruling is not upheld by the Supreme Court...the government has no limits on telling you what you are required to buy. That is the most troubling thing about this bill...and mandate.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ol' Yeller

      @kickplate.... er, do you know anything about the fundamental theory of supply and demand. If demand goes up, prices go down.
      C'mon single payer. Medicaid for all! I'm lovin' this.

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

      True...but nothing says you have to drive a car.

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

      TJ – the problem with your comparison is that people can choose not to own or drive a car and therefore don't need insurance to begin with. If they were comparable, the guy who rides the bus every day and doesn't own a car should have to pay for car insurance whether he likes it or not. Are you saying that people who don't own a car or even drive should have to buy car insurance to make it cheaper for the rest of us who do? I doubt it and get where you are going, but don't think the two compare.

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

      i dont understand why people keep saying this. there is a big diiference between auto insurance and health insurance. IF ......IF YOU WANT TO DRIVE THEN YOU HAVE TO BUY AUTO INSURANCE. now let me hear all the dummies that say " well then make healthinsurance the same, if you want health care then you must have insurance" talk about taking a step backwards.

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

      yes, you can opt out of auto insurance by not buying a car. I have never heard of opting out of health insurance by not getting sick...

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

      You don't have to have auto insurance; you are only required to have it if you own a car. The law stated you have to have health insurance for merely existing. Big difference.

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

      You are not required to have Auto Insurance in America.
      You don't have to own a car !!

      If you CHOOSE to own a car and drive on public roads, you are required to have insurance.

      With the proposed Healthcare, there is no way to get out of it. The Gov is forcing us to buy something which is not legal.

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

      It's worth noting that as far as Auto Insurance goes, it is the states that set the law requiring certain coverages to be held by vehicle owners. It is not a federal law. I would be fine if a certain state wanted to require their citizens to purchase health care or be fined - that is within the rights of a state. At least I could always move to another state should I not agree with the policies of the one I am currently living in.

      When the federal government oversteps their bounds and tries to require all Americans to purchase medical insurance, what are you going to do to avoid it? It's not as easy as moving to another state. You'd have to move to another country. It also sets a very dangerous precedent. If the Government can force you to buy a product (e.g. Medical Insurance), what's next? You must purchase a GM vehicle or pay more taxes (i.e. a fine) for purchasing another type of vehicle. You never know.

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

      TJ – one big difference. Owning a car and driving it on public streets is a choice. Being forced to buy health insurance (and penalized if you don't) simply because you are alive and breathing is not a choice.

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

      Kickplate – we are ALREADY paying for the care provided by hospitals to those that do not buy insurance. The price of a topnsillectomy was long ago raised by 10%, to cover the costs in the emergency room that would never be paid. This is not a difficult concept. It is basic economics.

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

      B- virtually every country already does tax certain cars. It is called an excise tax, and it encourages people to buy domestic cars. Excise taxes have been part of the federal government since the Monroe administration.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:51 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Gil S

    Well we will have to leave it status quo. Let the hospitals pick up the cost of uninsured patients. Pass it on to their insurance or better still in the premiums we all pay for health insurance. It doesn't matter we all pay for it one way or the other. It is only fair to put it in the hands of those who should be paying. If they are all insured they all are paying. Not all paying for the non payer. We already do this for the person on welfare. Enough said.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
  8. david

    Democrats are basically emotionally driven immuture people. Look whats left of this country. We are too dumbed down to survive much longer.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mark

      I refuse to pay for anyone without insurance getting free treatment from my taxes unless it's life threatening.

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

      But Mark you get the same treatment... DUH!

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

      No u should b saying rebublicans are geedy and self centered and immature as hell I mean u perocites are the reason we are in the mess we r in right now grow up u obama hater where u and the rest of the critics at when bush wanted a blank check to go to war for weapons of mass destruction that has almost destryed this great nation!? That's what I thought just sitting back with a muzzle on your mouth!! I'm not a democrate,independent,liberal,or republican of course. I'm a american citezin that's tired of hearing people like u bicker about another party instead of standing up for what is right.

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

      david: You can thank the GOP constantly slashing the education budget for the "dumbing down of America". Speaking of which, it's "Immature" not "immuture".

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

      "Dumbing down", but yet you can't even spell immature?

      January 31, 2011 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Bill Carson

    Of course, the Dems will fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, where they will lose. Instead of throwing in the towel now and rebuilding their political brand before 2012 to the extent they can, they will double down and set themselves up for a final ruling a few months before the 2012 election. That ruling will totally demoralize the Kool-Aid drinkers who just won't feel like voting for a guy and his party who just will have had all their chips taken from the table. I'll look forward to watching the wailing screaming!

    January 31, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
  10. nfvn3

    Come to Canada, free healthcare is awesome.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • kickplate

      Come to the US. Quality health care is even better.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • BD70

      Go anywhere you deem health care is better. I know US people who went to Mexico for cancer treatment.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • BobJones

      Yes, please libs, go over-populate Canada and enjoy all that goodness.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • navyvietvet2

      come down to the Mayo clinic in Scottsdale....There's plenty of canadiens there seeking quality care without the life threatening waiting periods..

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

      Not just Canada. The US has the highest cost and not even close to the best health outcomes in the world.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • nfvn3

      last summer I broke my ankle really bad.. we had the ambulance come, give me a shot of morphine on the spot, take me to the hospital where i sat in my private room in an uncrowded hospital, had nurses checking on me all the time basically waiting on me hand and foot.. giving me pain medication whenever i asked for it, food and anything else I needed. Had surgery within 6 hours of being admitted, stayed in the hospital for the next 2 days watching my plasma TV and released with all sorts of prescriptions and physiotherapy for the next 6 months and all I paid was a couple cents extra on a bag of chips. How is that not quality?

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

      Visit the doctors on the US side of the Canadian border and see how many cross the line and pay cash for health care they can't get for free in Canada.

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

      When my godchild was 13 she had Crone's. She spent most of that year and part of the next in and out of hospitals. if she had been living here is the US the bill would have been over $1,000,000. But since she lives in Toronto, her parents paid nothing.

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

      Why should I, as a "liberal", go anywhere? This is my country too. If you Republicans hate government so much, maybe you should move to Somalia.

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

      Waiting 4 months to see a specialist who probably isn't one anyway? Pass. I've seen your people's teeth if that is any indication how good your healthcare is I'll pass LOL

      I needed to see a Dermatologist guess how long I waited? 2 days HAHA

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

      If I hear one more person say the quality of care in the US is better than Canada (or compared to MOST "industrialized" countries for that matter), I'm gonna scream. There are SO many reports out there that have researched multiple facets of many health care systems, and we far well short of most of the industrialized world.

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

      Free, huh? I would be excited to see your list of doctors, hospitals, and clinics that offer FREE nationwide health services to their fellow patriots without getting reimbursed from somewhere else. That would be interesting at the least.

      Unless it's for charity, people don't work for FREE. Somebody is paying. The question is: Do you force them to pay or give them the option to participate?

      Usually, who people do decide to participate there is always some quid pro quo involved. Decision making power in exchange for financial participation or the option to pull financial contribution if the program fails to meet certain standards. To force someone to participate in something they feel is not right is not a "healthy" path for success to say the least. I, personally, would like the "option to participate" in something to make it successful. I have that right to do so.

      January 31, 2011 at 4:06 pm | Report abuse |
  11. kickplate

    IIf health insurance worked like auto insurance then I would understand the analogy. Auto insurance has high deductables which keep costs down. Health insurance ought to work the same way–pay out of pocket for all but big ticket items. That would also bring health care costs down since the costs would not longer be hidden to consumers behind corporate and govt subsidies (employer provided health insurance is part of the reason health insurance is so expensive)

    January 31, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
  12. magicrat

    How about this, for all of you who don't want to buy healthcare insurance, please dont go to the hospital then when you need it. I'm tired of paying for you.

    Thank you!

    January 31, 2011 at 3:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • kickplate

      deal

      January 31, 2011 at 3:28 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Phil

    The Social Security benefits are projected to be bust by the year 2035, with this in mind, why would you expect the government to do any better with health insurance? The people who want health insurance are the typical fools who want something for nothing. Tort reform is the answer.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • BD70

      Tort reform? That is the best you can do? Check out how well that is working in Texas.

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

    Auto insurance is only required if you own a car. In many major cities, people don't own them and therefore don't buy auto insurance.

    Home insurance is NOT required by the government, but by your mortgage company to protect the collateral on their loan. If your house does not have a mortgage, you are not required to have homeowners insurance.

    The government cannot force individuals to purchase a product from the private sector. This is not covered under the commerce clause.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jim

      The auto insurance that is required is only liability insurance to protect anyone that you might injure in your vehicle. You are not required to have any insurance to protect yourself our your property. What is planned for Health Insurance is entirely different. The government is trying to tell you that you must buy insurance to protect yourself! It is not governments role to protect us from ourselves.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
  15. Soonerka

    Buying Auto Insurance is required if you DRIVE an automobile by the state governments. If you don't own a car or own one but never drive it you're not required to insure it. If you want it tagged you have to have proof of insurance. Home Owners insurance isn't required at all by state governments. You're foolish to not have it though. Also most lenders will not allow you to mortgage your property if you don't have it. You're idiotic argument about "Auto Insurance" being mandatory is exactly that.... IDIOTIC! So ready to see this piece of garbage legislation to be scratched off. It violates so many laws that are already in place. It also creates issues with the McCarran-Ferguson Act as well. Bye bye!

    January 31, 2011 at 3:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Soonerka

      BTW, some states do not require you to have Auto Insurance. Last I heard there were only 47 states requiring you to be covered.

      January 31, 2011 at 3:25 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