uninsured anyway.

would be getting more customers due to the mandate.

So I'm going to vote No.

because of Obamacare. I had a guy complain to me the other day on another board that he no longer makes $250,000 in commissions because of Obama care.

Not unless the insurance companies brought the case and insisted they remove the provision forcing them to cover the sick. And you know that would be as popular as anthrax.

Of course they're up in arms because a Democrat signed it. They know the mandate to buy insurance is a sensible thing, that it becomes prohibitively expensive unless the young and healthy also pay into it.

This is just a Republican hissy fit. Sadly, it will cost us even the tepid health insurance reform that was passed.

The various questions that have been raised do go to fundamental constitutional issues, and the interests of those advancing them would not have changed.

Meme promoted by wingnuts. (I.e., the Republican Party)

so my guess is they would have put it in the court too. The only difference is Scalia and Thomas would be slam dunks for it if it was signed by a Republican. The only reason the case is interesting is because it looks like the court is about to make a political decision rather than one base on precedence. Me I'm worried the justices will severely limit the commerce clause.

This is driven purely out of hatred for the president.

if it came from the TeaPubliKlans.

If the government wants a program or a project we have this thing called taxation. It is not supposed to be telling us how to spend our post-tax dollars and is especially not supposed to be dictating that we buy products and services at the election of our employers.

If Congress wants to build a bridge it comes from taxes not from having us first pay taxes and directing us to buy cement and so many pounds of steel.
Regulating freely entered into activity is also considerably different than compelling activity and then regulating it.

Probably someone would be contesting most of us being excluded from the exchanges too. Eligibility being neither age, location, gender, race, nor income related but rather the offerings and size of your employer which has nothing to do with your relationship to the government or you as an individual.

My biggest lesson of the past decade is that partisans are not ideologically honest and most arguments are made to beat the opposition over the head rather than in good faith.

Democrats have shown their hand by changing tunes in regards to the "war on terror", civil liberties, the environment and the disgusting ass TeaPubliKlans find new depths to their hypocrisy on a daily basis for strictly political purposes on their own fucking initiatives from the Deficit Commision to GingrichCare to payroll tax holidays to Cap and Trade and anything else the lying shitheels have ever espoused.

The lack of principles and honor was a shocker for me. I was foolish enough to think these folks actually believe any of the shit they spout off about. For far too many in both parties what is nothing and who is everything.

Snake like bastards. Many of us are actually fighting a battle and far too often you see the pricks going both ways.

The problem with not mandating health insurance along with a “cannot deny” clause is the fact that some people will not buy insurance until they’re sick. The only way to keep the program solvent is to mandate it or model it after one of the following programs:

"When you are first eligible for Medicare you have an open enrollment period (3 months before, the month of and 3 months after your birth month) when you can sign up for Part B or Part D without a penalty. If you choose to delay enrollment, you will be charged a penalty of 10% per year for Part B and 1% per month for Part D. This penalty is not imposed if you have creditable coverage from an employer, union, VA, etc. If you lose your creditable coverage, you must enroll within 63 days to avoid a penalty."

doesn't exist.

They would have banned employer based plans, and called it the "personal responsibility for healthcare act" or the "healthcare freedom act".

You are correct, it would not have been litigated.

this is`t about politics it`s about whether the supreme court can over turn the will of the people. as thom harmon said yesterday...who made the supreme court kings and qeens?

and no republican ever questioned its constitutionality. That ought to tell you something.