You can be a citizen and not own car insurance (plenty of people don't own a vehicle). Not the same with this law. Also, the auto insurance requirement is for liability, not for your personal vehicle. So the analogy fails there as well.
Without that provision, you can't reasonably keep the part of the bill that prevents insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. Hooray!
You knew when it passed that eventually the SC would have to give the thumbs up or down on it. Can we fast-track this thing on the judiciary process, given the inevitability?
Single-payer is really the only solution. This business of profiting and racketeering on the lives of human beings needs to end. I know conservatives disagree, but I just find the current state of things, even with the new HCR, incredibly immoral.
A bush appointee that has openly been hostile to the new law; this ruling by this "judge" was not unexpected. Two other judges have upheld the law so I have full expectation that this ruling will be overturned on appeal.
There is plenty of profit motive with a single payer system. Just not for the insurance companies who provide no value add to the medical system.
From the little I read about the decision I think it is the difference between state law and federal law, with the commerce clause's implications of constitutionality. It is possible this judge would have said it was acceptable for a state to require health insurance. I think the liability insurance requirement is mandated by the states. However, I think the states may mandate liability insurance because the feds require it before the feds disburse highway money. This could be an interesting case for the commerce clause.
you're under no obligation to buy car insurance unless you own a car. the analogy doesn't even extend to driving, as one can rent a car and decline all insurance, so long as you're willing to assume liability.
AS soon as we can force people who don't buy health insurance to assume liability for their health care costs (IE, no requirement for an ER to treat someone who can't pay), then you will have a point.
If we had any other Supreme Court other than Roberts, Scalia, and Uncle Thomas, this decision by a partisan district judge wouldn't bother me too much.
I'm sure every federal judge in the country already has an opinion on HCR. That this judge was already right-leaning and hostile to HCR doesn't in itself make his decision less legitimate than those of the two who upheld the law. It has the same force anyway. And, we probably shouldn't expect any less bias from the higher-ups either.
