What a bummer. Why should a healthy young libertarian/conservative who thinks they are smarter than the average bear and has the morality of that position pay for chemo if they don't have cancer and at least in their own mind are bound to be so rich that they can self insure?
No, the people you reference will pay so that nobody will have to endure being dropped from their insurance after they get sick and so that preexisting conditions can't be used as a basis to deny care or coverage.
Mitt Romney, April 11th, 2006: "Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian." http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Birther Queen, Orly Taitz joins the fun! Taitz Challenges Constitutionality Of Health Reform: It Blocks My Right To Practice Dentistry Along with raising the specter of death panels and charging that Obama, as an illegitimate president, does not have the right to sign the health bill into law, Taitz writes in the new section of the complaint, titled, "VIOLATION OF COMMERCE CLAUSE AND OF PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS TO GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT AS A DOCTOR OF DENTAL SURGERY UPON DEFENDANT'S IMMINENT SIGHNING OF THE HEALTH BILL":
You have a point but that point was largely rendered moot by the Civil War. [/quote]Congress could force everyone to purchase a hybrid car or solar panels and claim it promotes the general wellfare. That's no different than the HC mandate just signed into law. [/quote] I think what is critical is how the force is applied. Under a tax penalty that isn't the same as writing this into the criminal code as others have noted those without income don't suffer a penalty. That is how insurance works.
I didn't think this deserved its own thread since this is only the first round of lawsuits. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39565355/ns/health-health_care Foes of health-care reform law lose key court ruling Judge rules that Congress can require people to buy health insurance by 2014 DETROIT — A federal judge on Thursday rejected an attempt to stop some key provisions of the new national health-care law, saying Congress has the authority to require people to get insurance by 2014. The ruling — the first in a challenge to the Obama administration's health care overhaul — came in a lawsuit filed in Michigan by a Christian legal group, the Thomas More Law Center, and four people who claimed lawmakers exceeded their power under the Constitution's commerce clause. Insurance mandate and penalty is legal But U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit said the insurance mandate, and the financial penalty if someone skips coverage, are not illegal. He said Congress was trying to lower the overall cost of insurance by requiring participation. "Without the minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for some individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times," the judge said. "As a result, the most costly individuals would be in the insurance system and the least costly would be outside it," Steeh said. "In turn, this would aggravate current problems with cost-shifting and lead to even higher premiums." U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler noted the ruling "marks the first time a court has considered the merits of any challenge to this law." "The court found that the minimum coverage provision of the statute was a reasonable means for Congress to take in reforming our health care system," Schmaler said. "The department will continue to vigorously defend this law in ongoing litigation." Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., said he would take the case to a federal appeals court in Cincinnati. Plaintiffs object to forced insurance The four individual plaintiffs said they do not have private insurance and object to being compelled to buy it. They also fear that any financial penalty paid to the government if they don't get insurance by 2014 would be used to pay for abortions. In Florida, a federal judge is overseeing a lawsuit filed by 20 states. They, too, say the law is unconstitutional and claim it would force states to absorb higher Medicaid costs. A decision on whether to dismiss the case is expected by Oct. 14, though the judge said last month that he likely would dismiss only parts while letting others go to trial. There is also a lawsuit pending in Virginia.
These are individuals? Awesome. How about we just make the law that if you knowingly refuse to comply you are not penalized but you are basically blackballed. If you go to the ER and you can't pay out of pocket no services. After one or two of these yahoos sprains an ankle or has a burst appendix maybe that will change their minds.
In case you missed the past 3 years: financial market decline, $1 tillion dollars put in financial market with debt spending, and now people taxed to pay for more money into the financial market. It is a pay twice system. First with debt then with taxes. Except tax will garuntee payment for a long time. Why bail out private insurance companies to only start another government insurance company? Can't we just be honest and say private insurance cannot exist without government intervention. Time to tear down the wall.
