Va. federal judge strikes down health care law

Brandon wrote:

AV8OR wrote: Who only drives their SUV @70?

I'd rather drive it @80 than pay your subsidized health care!

How do you think an insurance pool works, idiot?

Shhhhh. You'll open their eyes.

Joe wrote: The public option for national healthcare is not simply a subsidy, it is price fixing.

I don't claim to know everything, I started with a question and LJ provided a link. I do get irritated by "the public option will fix everything" pipe dream.

According to the CBO, the public option would of actually cost more than private insurance under the health care plan. The main reason was because it would offer a wider range of preferred providers (similar to Medicare I think) and would thus attract less healthly subscribers who value a wider choice, which would jack up premiums. But, of course, things could change and the government might (probably) of started to subsidize the private option, had it gone through.

It will be interesting to see what happens when these health care bill challanges reach the Supreme Court. But if the forced health care or pay a fine concept does get struck down, then the government can just raise taxes to pay for it.

Even if the "requirement to purchase" is struck down, it doesn't kill the health-care bill, and the rest of it is separated from the part that didn't pass judicial review. But we'll let the GOP tell all the moms and dads that their kids won't be covered to age 26; and the seniors that the "donut hole" for prescription drugs is back in force; and the kids with pre-existing conditions won't be covered, etc. Let me know how that works out for ya...

I might be missing something, but I don't see how the health care bill could be affordable if the government can't force people to be a part of it. They need to force younger, healthier people (who may chose not to purchase insurance) to buy insurance in order to keep rates lower for everyone else.

Also I don't see how you could cover most pre-existing conditions if you don't have most everyone insured. Cost would go off the roof if someone who chose not to have insurance gets sick, buys insurance, and is expected to be immediately covered. You'd have to put in some kind of waiting period, or premiums would sky rocket.

So if the Supreme Court upholds this recent ruling, I just don't see the health care bill being able to work. Maybe those of you who support single payer should hope it happens?

Brandon wrote: How do you think an insurance pool works, idiot?

Brandon,

Do you have the ability to enlighten us ignorant folks on how the pool works? Or, do you just accuse someone of not knowing and use the name calling tactic?

LadyJazzer wrote: If it was "clearly unconstitutional", the two previous judges that ruled on it would have come to the same result as the third judge. (Interesting fact about the third judge, Henry E. Hudson, a Bush appointee... In August, advocacy group Americans United for Change pushed for Hudson's recusal from the health care case because of the judge's previous stock holdings in Campaign Solutions Inc., a company whose clients have included the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee.)

No bias there...

Care to comment on the president responsible for nominating the two judges who ruled that it was constitutional and the perceived bias that might be incumbent in their rulings? I know that neither you nor I are fair and balanced in reporting our opinions my friend, but to imply that one judge is biased due to which president nominated them and which party they support privately is to open the door to include the rulings which you concur with being reached for the same reasons.

Like in the Prop-8 ruling in California? Don'tcha just love "judicial activism." As long as it's on your side...

pineinthegrass wrote: I might be missing something, but I don't see how the health care bill could be affordable if the government can't force people to be a part of it. They need to force younger, healthier people (who may chose not to purchase insurance) to buy insurance in order to keep rates lower for everyone else.

You've hit upon my largest gripe pine. The general government was instituted to protect my liberty from force and fraud, not to employ them against me.

LadyJazzer wrote: Like in the Prop-8 ruling in California? Don'tcha just love "judicial activism." As long as it's on your side...

You mean the one that said a state, or the voters in that state, gets to decide whether or not the legal definition of marriage is inclusive of homosexuals as that power was never granted to the general government of the union by the Constitution as amended and thus the power is reserved to the states as defined in the 9th and 10th Amendments?

No, I mean the one that said that state voters don't get to vote on whether or not the 14th Amendment, "equal protection under the law", applies to ALL it's citizens... Kind of like Colorado's Amendment-2 tried to do...(but was ruled unconstitutional.)

Sorry...Back on Topic....