67%

[Motown_Johnny]

33. Only the corporate profits depend on that

from your link:


For health insurers, the worst-case scenario is one where the court overturns the mandate but still leaves standing the requirement that health plans accept all applicants. As less healthy Americans enrolled, premiums would most likely spike. America’s Health Insurance Plans rounds up the research that health-care economists have done, so far, estimating what striking the mandate would mean for health-care coverage and cost:



If the mandate is struck down then this is what happens. The insurance companies profits take a huge hit. They then decide it is better to have their (R) minions in Congress allow a public option to cover those who don't have insurance instead of taking that hit.

The law itself is not affected by this. Insurance companies will still need to allow children up to age 26 on their parent's policies. The "doughnut hole" in prescription drug coverage will not be reopened. The list goes on and on. Insurance company profits don't directly affect the vast majority of the law. Maybe you should visit this site and explore just exactly what is in the law: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/

Then you can read an article that isn't so horribly slanted to defend the insurance companies, try this one: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/gruber_mandate.html


You are simply wrong on this issue. Overturning the mandate is a good thing. We should be so lucky. Odds are the entire law will be upheld as written (damn it).