First, they said that in an emergency, ANYONE can go to the emergency room, and receive care. Not everyone, however, has the money to pay for it. When people didn't have the money to pay the bills directly or insurance to pay for it, insurance holders and tax-payers paid out the nose to maintain the system.
So what they then said is this: either make your own arrangements to pay for it, or you will pay a tax that helps with the costs you incur when you go.
We already have the service. The law isn't forcing us to buy it, it is forcing us to PAY for it.
So what they then said is this: either make your own arrangements to pay for it, or you will pay a tax that helps with the costs you incur when you go.
We already have the service. The law isn't forcing us to buy it, it is forcing us to PAY for it.
Eschew Verbosity
Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law - 
- 13/12/2010 05:21:37 PM
959 Views
- 13/12/2010 05:21:37 PM
959 Views
*yawn*
- 13/12/2010 05:46:58 PM
623 Views
Another step closer to SCOTUS.....and that will be 5-4 decision in favor of repeal! 
*NM*
- 13/12/2010 05:55:54 PM
242 Views
*NM*
- 13/12/2010 05:55:54 PM
242 Views
So riddle me this...
- 13/12/2010 07:23:14 PM
640 Views
He's not "making his own law", just denying the government the ability to.....
- 13/12/2010 08:06:48 PM
572 Views
That wasn't my question.
- 13/12/2010 09:10:39 PM
679 Views
I get what you're saying...
- 13/12/2010 11:30:13 PM
667 Views
That's not all they're saying, though.
- 14/12/2010 01:42:27 AM
567 Views
Agreed; when do I get a refund for my share of the B2 bomber?
- 14/12/2010 04:40:25 AM
608 Views
But see...you are using the B2 bomber.
- 14/12/2010 03:59:27 PM
564 Views
Much as you are using the healthcare system.
- 14/12/2010 05:55:40 PM
646 Views
*nods*
- 14/12/2010 06:09:42 PM
636 Views
Again we're back to whether individuals deign to tolerate majority rule.
- 14/12/2010 07:27:22 PM
743 Views
It's judicial review
- 14/12/2010 02:47:43 PM
625 Views
I really don't understand why people defend the forced purchase aspect
- 13/12/2010 08:22:03 PM
637 Views
This analogy no doubt has its flaws too, but I was just reminded of it...
- 13/12/2010 08:52:31 PM
649 Views
Forced insurance purchase would indeed be terribly unconstitutional.
- 14/12/2010 04:26:27 AM
573 Views
there is a major problem with this..
- 14/12/2010 01:29:41 AM
618 Views
Bad analogy.....
- 14/12/2010 02:57:28 AM
574 Views
Re: Bad analogy.....
- 14/12/2010 03:23:31 AM
599 Views
Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance.....
- 14/12/2010 03:42:26 AM
565 Views
Re: Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance.....
- 14/12/2010 04:53:39 AM
589 Views
Just to note....
- 14/12/2010 06:11:57 PM
583 Views
yeah, but the courts exist to strike down dumb legislation, which is what this ruling does
- 14/12/2010 03:17:04 AM
527 Views
No, the courts exist to interpret legislation, and the SCOTUS to strike down illegal legislation.
- 14/12/2010 04:36:59 AM
556 Views
I'll excerpt some relevant passages, but the full article is in the link.
- 14/12/2010 02:10:48 PM
712 Views
He partially owns the lobby aiming to make it unconstitutional, which the plaintiff was a client of *NM*
- 14/12/2010 05:35:21 PM
307 Views