individual mandate don't you?

that without the mandate the whole thing will fail.

somethings on the news this morning. Especially that this mandate nearly pays for the whole bill.

What started out as a case about a movie that was in reality a political film, ended up opening our election process to the highest bidder...with few restrictions.

I wouldn't put it past the 4+1 to decide that the entire law is unconstitutional...but we'll have to wait and see what is decided.

...both parties have agreed that the ban on pre-existing conditions is tied to the mandate -- if one is thrown out, the other goes, too. And, without that ban, the rest of ACA is merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, as, no matter how nice the rest of the act's provisions may seem, insurance companies would still have the right to end anyone's coverage if they get sick -- which is the heart of the problem. Give them that right, and we're still right we are now.

Rather than those sorts of emotional tangents. I hope anyway.

Bryant

...by law they can't let their personal opinions/emotions affect their judgment.

Fat chance

...I should have said "shouldn't". This country would be in worse trouble if all judges ruled on their emotions instead of the law. I'm sure some do.

x

Their decision will be based solely on the law. That is, whatever legal precedent they can find to justify their personal political mindset.

The fact that health care is "different" when it comes to the Constitution seems tenuous. Which is why I see again and again that our Constitution, far from being the shining beacon of law and justice, just has too many strictures and is too inflexible to render it useful in many respects. I am not talking about the Bill of Rights (except that I think it should be expanded), but more about the Commerce section and what the wrangle on the health care mandate is all about. Our Constitution is pretty creaky in many regards...no wonder justice Ginsburg recommended to the insurgents in Egypt last year that they not look to our Constitution but to that of South Africa for a more workable model...and boy did she get shit for that!

Last edited Wed Mar 28, 2012, 11:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Unfortunately, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts have already shown they don't give a damn about the repercussions so long as it advances their RW Federalist agenda. Kennedy might. He did end his questioning on the mandate with a comment/acknowledgement that health care was "different", so it is hopeful.

They seem to have a serious insensitivity to those who are harmed
by their policies, and a very strong sensitivity to their own welfare.

Alliteration aside, I think that answers your question.

Hell - the cover practically draws itself!

No amount of humanity will match our corporate masters' uncontrollable lust for profit.

Since that's what would seem to make the most money for our corporate masters, right?

But I still think they will find it unconstitutional. Single payer plus tax is OK but making me give money to a fucking corporation is bullshit and unconstitutional.