spaceguy said:
Kasz216 said:
Tigerlure said:
Before the oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act, many constitutional scholars had believed that the court would indeed uphold the constitutionality of the reform act. Now, according to some polls, those same people believe that the "individual mandate" will be struck down, if not the bill in its entirety. This article provides some insight into the main questions of how the Supreme Court could rule on the bill and the aftermath of the ruling.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/22/supreme-court-obama-healthcare-reform
However, a new poll released shows that a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the status quo of health care in this country and want Congress to start over on reforming the bill if Obamacare is overturned.
If the individual mandate is struck down, how do you think this ruling affects Americans who would have otherwise benefited from this bill? Moreover, how do you think this will reflect on the Obama administration and Congress?
|
It's interesting how you left out that the same poll found people wanted Obama care overturned, and thought it was unconstiutional.
That said, I imagine whoever wins this... gets hurt politically.
Well, unless just part of the bill gets struck down. If it really is the individual mandate and they say the rest of the law can stand on it's own it's a disaster for Obama.
Despite it being unconstitutional (it really is, the only reason people thought it would pass is that roberts would put ahead view of the court over a good judgement.) it does hold the whole thing togehter.
Without it, but with the rest of the bill in place... prices explode even worse then they have/will with "obamacare."
|
You are right if the mandate is not upheld, the rest falls apart. Also obama's lawyers wanted the whole thing to be taken down if the mandate was taken off.
This is something that has pissed off obama's base. They wanted single payer.
|
For good reason. The law is a disaster. Single payer has some big problems, but this law doesn't have anything positive to work with except the "Kids till 26" part.
Well and the healthcare exchanges are a good idea... though why they have billions budgeted for the implementation of something that is supposed to work like an Esurance, I don't know.
I don't see why health insurance costs are supposed to be lowered when people are forced into the market... because people are being forced into the market.
The poor I'd guess are disproportionatly going to have "prexisting conditions" and be unhealthy, (since that's true even in countries with universal healthcare).
So, wouldn't keeping your bottom plan the same, and basically forcing people to pay for it, or break the law be the best option?
Who's going to be rushing to drop prices to try and get more of the unhealthy poor market?
Why would they do this now, when they weren't doing this to get the poor market when they COULD exclude the healthy?
Why lower prices to get them, when you could just take more of the "Middle and top" forced to get health insurance... and maximize profits.
