So far...

The primary purpose of the "healthcare reform" was never healthcare reform per se, in the sense of providing healthcare to those without coverage. It was set in motion to be the means to invent millions of new government jobs for the next wave of regulators, analysts, monitors, litigators and tax assessors... in other words, bureaucrats... my :2c:.
 
Whatever the primary purpose...

(and I seriously doubt there were fewer than many hundred, depending on who was involved in the thing) the outcome will, to a large extent, be as you describe. The tragedy of this from a critical thinking point of view is that these consequences could have been unintended but also blindingly obvious. The inability and/or unwillingness of the Administration to get a grip on this or to abandoned the scheme when it was clearly getting out of control is, for me, the most damning criticism available of Obama's leadership.
Better the small gains made (if there were any) by the law be given up and a return to the drawing board be considered or take a wait and see on the whole thing would be wise.
 
Given that most areas mandate auto insurance, where's the controversy about requiring health insurance?
 
The application of the...

'commerce clause' will almost certainly be the narrow controvery in the Court if chooses to decide narrowly. The difference with auto insurance is manifold:
1) Driving is a licensed privledge where restrictions an requirements are normal. Being sick is just something that happens to everyone and it is difficult to make getting sick into some form of personal liablity issue.
2) the required insurance is liablity payable to injured parties, any other provisions of insurance are there to protect the owner from loss of the vehicle or other losses like medical expenses for you and maybe your passengers.
3) Car insurance requirements are long established state prerogatives, not a federal mandate.

But I imagine that the whole thing will turn on the issue of whether the 'commerce clause' is the lynch pin Constitutional issue. It is one thing to regulate commerce among the several states and quite another to use that provision to mandate the purcahse of something from private industry by citizens under penalty of law. Personally I would favor overturning the mandate part on pure liberty and Constitutional grounds. If the rest of the law is unable stand the loss of the mandate it is simply an indication that this is a bad law.IMHO
 
The 1099 provisions are not....

going to stand as I recall. I thought Congress either did or was going to remove them. The recision had strong bipartisan support.
Just checked this now and those 1099 provisions were repealed in April with Obama signing repeal legislation. Ir was a House originated bill.

I can't imagine the Robert's court allowing the law stand as is in any event. If the mandate and only the mandate is ditched there will be little way to keep the insurers on board unless some alternate giveaway to them is cooked up to offset the 'pre-condition' requirements. They may willing to play ball on some other terms but those will be extortionate no doubt.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top