>> “Yes it can survive without the mandate through taxes that the SC would have no problem with congress levying to keep it going.” <<
.
False statement.
You don’t understand what the mandate is all about. The mandate is a crumb for the insurance companies, to offset the cost of covering “pre-existing” conditions. There is no way the court will saddle them with this requirement without the assurance of the mandate.
The whole law is toast for hundreds of reasons, but the biggest is the $2 trillion per year of increase in debt that simply cannot be supported by our economy. That is the real reason that this case is being heard.
.
When is a decision made?
“False statement”
Nope..you are arguing policy not law.
No one can predict what side Kennedy will come down on but I think its more probable than not that the SC will not overturn the entire statute..we will see in June
“False statement”
Nope..you are arguing policy not law.
No one can predict what side Kennedy will come down on but I think its more probable than not that the SC will not overturn the entire statute..we will see in June
“You don’t understand what the mandate is all about. The mandate is a crumb for the insurance companies, to offset the cost of covering ‘pre-existing’ conditions”
Absolutely, and if Obamacare persists without the mandate, the insurance industry will go bust. It would be as if the fire insurance industry had to let people sign up after their houses were on fire. That is not a (to use a currently popular buzzword) sustainable business model.
Now that I think about it, to collapse the market and have insurance companies across the land declaring bankruptcy tomorrow would make for the perfect Saul Alinsky plot to install a single-payer system.