Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have a democratic governor and a republican attorney general who are arguing over the issue. The AG wants to challenge the bill and the governor says he has no authority to do all on his own.
Who is going to pay for all of these challenges? The taxpayers.
Ultimately it will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court as one case. Only one challenge is necessary.
The rest is Republican politics and phony political posturing and self interest by a handful of lame power tripping AG's, and, a waste of even more of your taxpayer money. Get rid of them!
The challenges will not repeal the bill and do not threaten the whole legislation. If, in the unlikely case, the courts rule that the gov't can't mandate purchase of health insurance then the act will just be tweaked to remove or modify that provision. In that case we are back to where we are today - people using emergency rooms for treatments and not paying for it. The legislation will still be in effect - just a couple of paragraphs tweaked.
The challenges will not repeal the bill do not threaten the whole legislation. If, in the unlikely case, the courts rule that the gov't can't mandate purchase of health insurance then the act will just be tweaked to remove or modify that provision. In that case we are back to where we are today - people using emergency rooms for treatments and not paying for it. The legislation will still be in effect - just tweaked.
The whole bill is premised on the inclusion of 30+ million new health insurance customers. If the mandate goes away, the support of Big Insurance, and others, goes right out the window. Could they keep the legislation and stick a finger in Big Insurance's eye? Sure, but it won't happen. A tweaked, watered-down bill will seal the fate of Democrats for many decades to come if they fouled this one opportunity up over Constitutional issues.
The challenges will not repeal the bill do not threaten the whole legislation. If, in the unlikely case, the courts rule that the gov't can't mandate purchase of health insurance then the act will just be tweaked to remove or modify that provision. In that case we are back to where we are today - people using emergency rooms for treatments and not paying for it. The legislation will still be in effect - just tweaked.
If that occurs, there is a Public Option framework already in place, ready to go. No mandate will force Ins premiums up, Public Option would provide relief for that and people will shift rapidly to Public Option. When they do that, Ins Cos will raise rates. More in Public Option. How long do you think that cycle would go on? It would stop when UHC system gets established.
If that occurs, there is a Public Option framework already in place, ready to go. No mandate will force Ins premiums up, Public Option would provide relief for that and people will shift rapidly to Public Option. When they do that, Ins Cos will raise rates. More in Public Option. How long do you think that cycle would go on? It would stop when UHC system gets established.
What 'public option'? The exchange only has plans at group rates run by insurance companies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
