Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 1:00 PM ET, 12/17/2010

Individual mandate on the ropes?

By Jennifer Rubin

Defenders of ObamaCare assured themselves -- and dragged out liberal legal "experts" to assure us -- that this week's District Court ruling finding ObamaCare's individual mandate to be unconstitutional was an aberration. Umm. Not so, it seems.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

A federal judge in a 20-state lawsuit against the Obama administration's health overhaul signaled Thursday he is sympathetic to the plaintiffs' argument that requiring Americans to carry health insurance violates the Constitution.

But Judge Roger Vinson seemed skeptical of the second plank of the states' suit: that the law forces states into a costly expansion of their Medicaid insurance programs for the poor. . . .

Inside the Pensacola courtroom Thursday, plaintiffs' attorney David Rivkin argued that the administration was setting up a scenario in which it could require any citizen to buy any product. That seemed to strike a chord with Judge Vinson.

"If they decide that everyone needs to eat broccoli," then the commerce clause could allow Congress to require everyone to buy a certain quantity of broccoli, the judge said.

Moreover, the judge took exception to the argument that uninsured Americans don't end up paying for their health care:

Ian Gershengorn, a Justice Department lawyer representing the administration, said the health insurance market is unlike any other, since all Americans at some point get medical care. Requiring them to carry insurance is just a way of regulating how they pay for it, and preventing all those with insurance coverage from subsidizing the cost of others' uncompensated care, he said.

"It is not shoes, it is not cars, it is not broccoli," he said

Judge Vinson took issue with the suggestion that the uninsured don't pay for their care. He said he was uninsured in law school when his son was born, and joked that the delivery bill came to about $100 per pound. "I paid it," he told the court.

In other words, lots of people decide to self-insure (or forgo medical care), so how can their inactivity be within the Congress's purview under the Commerce Clause?

True, the judge didn't seem to go for the ObamaCare opponents' argument on Medicaid. But that's why lawyers argue in the alternative. (Or, as Groucho Marx would say, "Those are my principles. And if you don't like them... well, I have others.")

It turns out that the arguments of libertarian and conservative legal scholars and pundits are quite compelling. Moreover, aside from the legal arguments, the common sense issue has been clarified: If the government can force you to buy insurance, is there any limit to its power? We will find out.

By Jennifer Rubin  | December 17, 2010; 1:00 PM ET
Categories:  Obamacare, law  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: ObamaCare: the beginning of the end?
Next: Friday question

Comments

If the government can force you to buy insurance, is there any limit to its power? We will find out.

Jenn,If you have ever worked for a paycheck,then you must be aware,that money is taken out of that Paycheck for Social Security and Medicare/non-negotiable(maybe they are both unconstitutional),and if you've ever been an employer,it is required that you pay for unemployment insurance,workmans comp,and other possibly unconstitutional programs.
Also,users of automobiles are required in my state to buy automobile insurance,like it or not,there is no ability to self insure,and if no private Ins co will sell you auto insurance,you are required to buy it from the State, Whew,it's 1984 time.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 17, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the government to force me to buy anything. This will be STRUCK DOWN!

Posted by: FormerDemocrat | December 17, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: FormerDemocrat
It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the government to force me to buy anything.

Social Security
Medicare
Auto Insurance
Unemployment Insurance
Workmans Comp
BTW,when I was drafted into the Army,I was forced to buy healthcare,it came right out of my $70 Dollars Gross per month.

You forgot to respond to the previous post.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 17, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Apparently a tax would have been constitutional (although I would welcome a climate in which the constitutionality of the measures you mention and others could be inspected), so the point is not money taken from you, but you being forced into a transaction. I haven't seen you address the difference, rcaruth--can the government tell me I have to buy brocolli, since obesity is now a national security issue? If not, why not?

As I have seen many people point out lately, auto insurance is different, insofar as you can choose not to drive (but not to not have a body); and, those mandates are from states.

Posted by: adam62 | December 17, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer, to answer your question, there are NO LIMITS to what the government can ask you to do. They can ask you to shoot your dog, you have to do it. They can request you jump out a window, you have to do it. Put your hand in cow poop? You have to do it.

All of this is the Democrats fault, because they came up with a health care solution much like Mitt Romney's.

Posted by: danw1 | December 17, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Comparing the health care mandate to the requirement to purchase auto insurance is like comparing apples and oranges. You are required to buy liabililty insurance, to insure other motorists in case you damage their cars, or persons. A real comparison would be to require the sexually promiscuopus to purchase liabilty health care insurance in case of infecting partners iwth STDs.

Posted by: garrettc1 | December 17, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Actually I don't like HCR, it's certainly too complex and does little to reign in the cost of Medicare and Medicaid. Having said that though you might at least acknowledge that their have been 8 rulings or dismissal of plaintiff cases at the District Court level so far, one continuation without ruling on the merits, and one victory for the plaintiffs.


"Judge Vinson took issue with the suggestion that the uninsured don't pay for their care. He said he was uninsured in law school when his son was born, and joked that the delivery bill came to about $100 per pound. "I paid it," he told the court"

That means he paid about $900 for the delivery or so, an amount that has nothing to do with today's health care costs.

This is just another reason why people should get out of government at around 70 at the latest, which Judge Vinson is. Not just judges, but legislators in both houses too, measure everything against the world they grew up in, a world that often as in this case no longer exists.

Whther it's the senile Strom Thurmond, or senile Robert Byrd, or Charlie Rangel talking about his service in Korea, or any of the more than 30 calcified members of the Senate 70 or older, time for a change!

Posted by: 54465446 | December 17, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

The principle of insurance involves the idea that many people pay a small fee (relative to the size of a potential loss) to protect themselves from the risk of a large loss, and a portion of those fees collected provides the compensation to those who actually suffer such losses. A typical example is fire insurance, which most homeowners carry.

Such a concept makes a lot of sense in all situations where a catastrophic loss is prohibitive to all but the few who could survive such losses.

But I am not aware of insurance policies for grocery expenses, transportation costs, clothing, and any other expenses that are customarily thought of as ordinary expenses of living. Such expenses are normally considered to be the province of gainful employment or some other source of income.

Today we blithely refer to as "health insurance" what once was called "major-medical" insurance. The latter was designed to protect the insured against catastrophically expensive costs of a major medical crisis.

At some point in the intervening years, this major-medical concept grew to include routine health-care expenses that in earlier times were considered part of normal living expenses.

I think it would be prudent for all to rethink the proper way to deal with what has become a major source of contention in our society.

Posted by: HenriLeGrand | December 17, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Adam/ "so the point is not money taken from you, but you being forced into a transaction".

Adam,pardon me,the above is very funny,like Kafkaish humour. With capital punishment,my life is taken from me,but I'm not forced into a transaction.

" As I have seen many people point out lately, auto insurance is different, insofar as you can choose not to drive (but not to not have a body); and, those mandates are from states."

Quite funny also,if I hit your body with a sled on my way to work(I hope its downhill)because I choose not to have a car,and my body is hurt also,and we have no health insurance,both our bodies are in a world of expensive hurt. BTW,my sled is all steel.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 17, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

It's instructive that the closest thing to a plausible defense being made of the mandate -- that it is merely a tax incentive not unlike myriad other ones, such as the mortgage interest deduction -- is based upon a statutory construction that doesn't even exist.

I suppose it could've been written in such a manner. And, perhaps the constitutionality question would thus take a different form.

But it wasn't written that way -- and I'm guessing that the near-term prospects for a legislative fix are pretty dim.

Posted by: ContrarianLibertarian | December 17, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

"Also,users of automobiles are required in my state to buy automobile insurance,like it or not,there is no ability to self insure,and if no private Ins co will sell you auto insurance,you are required to buy it from the State, Whew,it's 1984 time."

Driving is a privilege, not a right. My existence as a US citizen, however, is a right, not a privilege, and should not be predicated on the purchase of health insurance.

Posted by: grabowcp | December 17, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

@rcaruth: "Also,users of automobiles are required in my state to buy automobile insurance."

******

Yes, but only if they (a) choose to own a car, and (b) choose to operate it on public thoroughfares.

In other words, anybody can decide to not to own a car or operate a car they own on public thoroughfares. And, since the thoroughfares are public provisions, it seems perfectly legitimate that the government would have a lot of leeway to regulate the conditions of their use.

There are better arguments in favor of the mandate -- chiefly the one that the administration is relying on. The problem as I see it is that their argument is based upon a hypothetical statutory construction, not the one that was actually signed into law.

Posted by: ContrarianLibertarian | December 17, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

@54465446: "That means he paid about $900 for the delivery or so, an amount that has nothing to do with today's health care costs."

****

You clearly missed the point Judge Vinson was making. It had nothing to do with the specific amounts -- which matter precisely zero to the constitutional question at hand.

That's like saying that speech and press rights protected by the First Amendment as ratified in 1789 don't apply in the Internet age, because the framers could never have imagined such a world.

Vinson was responding to the DoJ's argument that uninsured people don't pay their own medical bills and, as such, this mandate is somehow constitutional.

Posted by: ContrarianLibertarian | December 17, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Has SS and Medicare ever been challenged? To my view they are taxes.

The other issues you mention are STATE impositions, NOT Federal. Therefore the constitutionality arguments for them are different. The argument here is at the Federal level and looks at the US constitution, rather than the constititions of the various states that impose the taxes or mandates you mention.

It is well within the purview of the state government to mandate that people who operate vehicles in thier state obtain and maintain in force a liability insurance policy. Just as it is well within their purview to mandate that people who operate vehicles in their state prove to the state that they are competent to drive.

the argument that the liberals make is this: uncompensated care is simply too expensive. So their plan is ingenious. They are going to make us pay for it. Well guess what, we already pay for it. It is built into our health insurance premiums.

The agenda is quite clear, more government, less liberty. No thanks.

A reasonable trade of liberty for social order makes sense. For example we have laws demanding that we stop at red lights. Obedience to that simple law prevents auto accidents. There is simply no such trade off in Obamacare. We pay, the government takes, our lives are diminished.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 17, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

contrarian:

You missed my point, which may be my fault.

There was also a time when people did not mortgage homes, and a time when medical insurance didn't exist, but that is a history book world. I wasn't speaking about the amount, but the fact that no one pays for deliveries out of pocket today, because the cost of them makes it impossible. Hospital pricing is not based on the service rendered, but on the likelihood of payment, so all the numbers are skewed out of proportion to the service provided.

I hope that make it clearer, and thanks for the reply.

Posted by: 54465446 | December 17, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Rcaruth: I have noticed that you have a habit of referring to those with whom you disagree as "funny." I guess this is your way of discounting the argument and diminishing the commenter. That seems rather "funny," as in funny peculiar, to me. Tender egos on display are always entertaining. Thanks.

Posted by: DocC1 | December 17, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Rcaruth: I have noticed that you have a habit of referring to those with whom you disagree as "funny."
Posted by: DocC1

I'm referring to their comments not to their persons,and don't worry about Adam,he can take care of himself,and has out debated me many times.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 17, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

People get it wrong. Drivers license, auto insurance, home owners insurance, etc. are voluntary. You don't want to drive, don't get a drivers license. You don't want to own a car, no need for auto insurance. The state and federal government can't force you to do either. Don't want to travel, don't get a passport. Don't want to fly, you don't need a government issued ID. What the federal government is saying here is that even if you do not want health insurance, you MUST buy it. You have no choice, the federal government mandates you do it and you must. And if the Supreme Court upholds the federal government's request, then the Constitution now means you have no rights other than those granted to you by the federal government. Freedom is now inverted. So you can see where this goes. Obesity, the federal government decides that you must eat three plates of vegetables, no fried food or fatty meat. The same argument made for obamacare could be made here. It effects interstate commerce. While some will have no problem with this, they will when the federal government takes a right they cherish. As a famous French priest said during WWII, first they came for the Jews and we said nothing. Then they came for the gypsies and gays and we said nothing. Finally, they came for us and there was no one left to say anything.

Posted by: peterpoway | December 17, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

saying here is that even if you do not want health insurance, you MUST buy it. You have no choice/peterpoway

And even if I don't want Social Security/Medicare????

Posted by: rcaruth | December 17, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

@rcaruth: Good lord I'm sick of this idiotic argument regarding auto liability insurance. If you think for more than 2 seconds about it, you will see it is comparing apples to oranges.

If a citizen doesn't want to pay for auto liability...then they don't have to drive a car. They can instead take public transportation. Lots of folks do. The government can require that a driver possess liability coverage in order to drive a car because it is a privilege to be driving that car in the first place.

By contrast, if I'm born in the USA and I have a pulse, I must buy health insurance, whether I want it or not. How do I get out of having to pay for health insurance under this new law? Renounce my citizenship and leave the country?

Furthermore your argument regarding FICA payroll withholding makes zero sense. These are taxes that we pay to fund a government program that for better or worse our elected representatives have put into place, just as we pay taxes to fund entitlement programs, the military, education, etc. By contrast, this legislation compels citizens to purchase a product from a third party or face legal penalties. This is one of the more brazenly autocratic power grabs I have ever witnessed from the federal government. Who in the world do these people think they are?

I always thought this was a free country. Was I mistaken? The government can MAKE me buy something simply because I'm alive...and I have NO right to refuse without paying a penalty...er...tax...um...penalty...never mind, Obama can't get that one straight either. The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves right about now.

Posted by: easttenndoc | December 17, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Dear Mr Numbers Person,

Can you explain this statement:
==========================
Hospital pricing is not based on the service rendered, but on the likelihood of payment, so all the numbers are skewed out of proportion to the service provided.
===============================

Thank you

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 17, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

@rcaruth: One simple question:

Can you "buy" Social Security from anybody besides the federal government?

Think real hard.

Once again...apples...oranges...get it?

Posted by: easttenndoc | December 17, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

@54465446: "Hospital pricing is not based on the service rendered, but on the likelihood of payment, so all the numbers are skewed out of proportion to the service provided."

****

Understood. And I'm not challenging the substance of what you're saying. I'm simply pointing out that the underlying constitutional question isn't affected by how much medical services cost now, then, or any other time.

The DoJ was arguing that the mandate is constitutional, in part, because it forces (more) people to pay for services they're already receiving but presently relying on other forms of assistance to pay for.

I took Vinson's point to mean that that this isn't even universally true -- which is correct -- let alone germane to the constitutional question.

Posted by: ContrarianLibertarian | December 17, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Folks, Social Security was challenged in the courts. The most significant decision upholding it was 1937's Helvering v. Davis -- which held that it was *not* a contributory insurance program but was, rather, a garden-variety tax and spending program.

Implicit in that decision is that, were it a mandatory contributory insurance program, it would not have been constitutional.

As such, the administration is basically arguing the same thing here: that the "mandate" in the ACA is really just a form of taxation.

There's something to be said for that argument. But, personally, I don't think the legislation was at all crafted in that fashion.

Posted by: ContrarianLibertarian | December 17, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

always thought this was a free country. Was I mistaken?
Posted by: easttenndoc

Yes,you were mistaken,and that mistake has led you to be disillusioned. Have you ever been drafted by your country? To fright in a war that was abhorrent to you? I have.

@rcaruth: One simple question:
Can you "buy" Social Security from anybody besides the federal government?
Think real hard.
Once again...apples...oranges...get it?

apples and Oranges that have this in common.Required payment whether I want the "Service" or not.


Posted by: rcaruth | December 17, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

The mandate is not crucial to the implementation of universal healthcare. In fact, one way around it is to say to Americans in 2014 that they have a choice, a very important choice: either buy healthcare now or never have it at all. And then the fun begins. People like you, Ms. Rubin - crusaders for "peronal liberty" - will likely forego health insurance "on principle" while the poor and middle class finally get the coverage they need.

Then, say, five years from now, you happen to notice a lump in your breast. Oops! It's too late for you Ms. Rubin. You and your right wing friends will not be permitted health coverage unless you can afford it. So you'll sell your house, your car, your wedding ring - anything to get that life-saving treatment you so desperately need. But eventually, Jennifer, the money will run out.

And the poor will have all the coverage they want while the wealth white GOP establishment goes without. Now that is a solution to the individual mandate I could learn to live with.

Posted by: tfburke19 | December 17, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

skip:

If you, me and the illegal immigrant go to a public hospital for an emergency appendectomy, by the exact same doctor with the exact same care, the bill will have three different totals, based on your insurance, my Medicare, and the immigrants inability to pay.

I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.

It's analogous but not the same as the fact that gasoline prices at the pump are determined by the oil companies' assumptions about the wealth of that area's zip code, not the price of the gasoline production, and transportation costs.

Posted by: 54465446 | December 17, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

tfburke19: If, in 2014, Americans are told that they can either buy healthcare now or never have it at all, why would that mean that the "poor and middle class would finally get the coverage they need?"
Do you think that under your scenario the cost of health care would suddenly decline to such an extent that even the poor could afford it? Perhaps you think that the people who are currently driving up the cost of healthcare by not purchasing insurance, and who are instead showing up in emergency rooms, consists of conservative bloggers?

Posted by: CapnRusty | December 17, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

The O Admin's argument is pure sophistry. They try to rationalize the mandate by effectively collapsing each person's entire lifespan into a transaction and arguing, we think you will someday consume health care, so we are going to force you to pay someone for it now. It is government as eternal and omniscient god, regulating all of our activities and inactivities, and balancing the social ledgers, across time. Utterly ridiculous.

And they tease all of this out of the Interstate Commerce Clause that was really written to allow Congress to prevent interstate trade discrimination.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 17, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

The real problem is that current law requires hospitals to treat people who can't pay or don't have insurance. That's an enormous burden on hospitals and doctors.

That was the leverage for Obamacare, but anybody who has watched the history of government entitlements knows that it will end up costing many times more than we've been promised.

I don't want to turn my back on the suffering, but I don't want them to feel that they have a right to other peoples' money, either.

Posted by: athorpe | December 17, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

When congress debated social security back in the 30's, they called it an entitlement for old people. When it went to the supreme court , (conservitives of the day tried to stop it) the progressives of that era agrgued it was a tax and the supreme court let them get away with renaming it a tax during the supreme court arguement of constittionality.That's how it got enacted

The progs/libs have always used double speak, even before it was called that !!

Posted by: jimmiM | December 17, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

"If, in 2014, Americans are told that they can either buy healthcare now or never have it at all, why would that mean that the "poor and middle class would finally get the coverage they need?" CapnRusty

Um, Captain, you must not be paying attention. One tenet of the law is that insurance companies will no longer be permitted to discriminate against the sick and dying (largely the poor and disenfranchised in this country); they must sell insurance to everyone. In addition, the wonderful Democratic Congress and President made sure that everyone would be able to afford it, and there are incentives to help the poor to get it.

Since the poor and middle class are not so moved by ideology the way Rubin and Company are, they will gladly get a policy that will, perhaps for the first time, cover their medical needs for which they can never be turned down.

If we make the law clear that you either buy it now or never have it at all, the poor will get it because they would rather have health care than die on the altar of states' rights.

I would WELCOME this move and invite the Ron Pauls of the world to forego big bad health insurance. And then when they get sick, and I mean deathly ill, they will have to pull themselves up by their boot straps to survive. They would become charity cases and we could dedicate an episode of Dancing with the Stars to help raise money for the poor right-wing extremists who chose states rights over guaranteed healthcare coverage.

Posted by: tfburke19 | December 17, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

I suppopse I should say that actually there will be no charity cases because the law will have to be changed to exclude anyone from ER care or hospitalization who does not have insurance or the money to pay for it. Insurance companies will be legally obliged to pay for coverage, but only to those who pay for coverage.

If we can start a campaign to get the Tea Party, for example, to forego their insurance (even Medicare?) and start paying for medical care out of pocket, the country would save a ton of money. Once the Tea Party people run out of cash, they run out of healthcare - PERIOD. No exceptions. Because you gave up a chance at insurance coverage, now you get nothing... unless... hmmm... maybe the Tea Party will demand a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM of care!

Posted by: tfburke19 | December 17, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Republican sympathetic to the argument that this is unconstitutional. I have difficulty seeing how this is unconstitutional, though, under existing jurisprudence.

The test of whether Congress has acted within its power to regulate commerce -- when the target is not a commercial activity -- is whether the target of the regulation is an essential component to a comprehensive regulatory scheme. The mandate is clearly essential to Obama's scheme of redistributing wealth from the healthy/young to the unhealthy/old.

By precluding insurers from charging actuarially fair rates to those with "preexisting conditions," insurance companies could not stay in the business of providing coverage to the unhealthy. To make up for it, there must be profitability elsewhere. The young and healthy must inevitably be charged higher rates in order to compensate for the inability to charge the unhealthy and old actuarially appropriate rates. But the young/healthy wouldn't voluntarily buy health insurance at the actuarially unfair rates that they'll be charged as a result of the ACA. Therefore, Obama must compel them to buy health insurance in order for his redistributive plan from the young to the old to work.

I think it is an awful scheme and it's egregiously dishonest for the Democrats not to be forthright about what they're doing. But I don't think it's beyond their power unfortunately.

Posted by: TheThinkingMansMan | December 17, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

I think that it would be hilariously ironic if the Supreme Court ultimately rejects the requirement for people to buy health insurance and not eliminate the restrictions on denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Sally will get pregnant, immediately apply for health care coverage, pay for it at the going rate for her age for 9 months, have the insurance company pay for the baby and drop the coverage. She paid a few hundred dollars for the coverage and the insurance company paid thousands for the pregnancy. Assuming that the insurance carriers will not eat this cost, that leaves it to be shared by the other policy holders of the carrier - you and me - to the extent that they can get away with it. So all those who are so ardently supporting Sally's right not to buy health care coverage are literally shooting themselves in the financial foot.

Given the current five corporatists on the Supreme Court, they will either vote to support the purchase requirement or will jury-rig the process (as they did in the Citizens' United case) so that they can declare the requirement against denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions, unconsitutional as well, to protect the insurance carriers. After all, if they can substitute their own unsubstantiated and unsupported bias about the lack of dangers of corporate contributions for the judgement of Congress which held months of hearings which clearly identified the danger to the country, they can and will do just about anything.

Posted by: jdcolv | December 17, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

I think that it would be hilariously ironic if the Supreme Court ultimately rejects the requirement for people to buy health insurance and not eliminate the restrictions on denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Sally will get pregnant, immediately apply for health care coverage, pay for it at the going rate for her age for 9 months, have the insurance company pay for the baby and drop the coverage. She paid a few hundred dollars for the coverage and the insurance company paid thousands for the pregnancy. Assuming that the insurance carriers will not eat this cost, that leaves it to be shared by the other policy holders of the carrier - you and me - to the extent that they can get away with it. So all those who are so ardently supporting Sally's right not to buy health care coverage are literally shooting themselves in the financial foot.

Given the current five corporatists on the Supreme Court, they will either vote to support the purchase requirement or will jury-rig the process (as they did in the Citizens' United case) so that they can declare the requirement against denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions, unconsitutional as well, to protect the insurance carriers. After all, if they can substitute their own unsubstantiated and unsupported bias about the lack of dangers of corporate contributions for the judgement of Congress which held months of hearings which clearly identified the danger to the country, they can and will do just about anything.

Posted by: jdcolv | December 17, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

"It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the government to force me to buy anything. This will be STRUCK DOWN!"


You people are so naive.

Posted by: coqui44 | December 18, 2010 12:29 AM | Report abuse


You know what You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price by searching online for "Wise Health Insurance" If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy it and trust me you are not going to loose anything!

Posted by: juanreeyes | December 18, 2010 1:15 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company