Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

joshcryer

(62,536 posts)
79. The amicus briefs to the SCOTUS to shoot down the law tell you which side is REALLY right wing.
Mon Apr 2, 2012, 03:11 AM
Apr 2012

This is just an authoritarian left wing propaganda talking point, that it was a "Republican idea."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/us/politics/lobby-groups-blanket-supreme-court-on-obama-health-care-plan.html?pagewanted=all

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/03/briefs-and-amicus-briefs-in-health-care.html

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/11-398.html

1. Whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision.
Merit Briefs
Brief for Petitioners Department of Health and Human Services, et al.
Brief for State Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Private Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Reply Brief for Petitioners Department of Health and Human Services, et al.
Amicus Briefs

In Support of Petitioners (in support of the federal law)
Brief for 104 Health Law Professors in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for AARP in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Advocacy for Patients with Chronic Illness, Inc., in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the American Association of People With Disabilities, The Arc of the United States, Breast Cancer Action, Families USA, Friends of Cancer Research, March of Dimes Foundation, National Breast Cancer Coalition, National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, National Health Law Program, National Organization for Rare Diseases, National Senior Citizens Law Center, National Women’s Health Network, The Ovarian Cancer National Alliance and Voices for America’s Children in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the American Cancer Society, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Diabetes Association, and the American Heart Association Supporting Petitioners Urging Reversal of the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the American Hospital Association, et al in Support of Petitioner with Respect to the Individual Mandate
Brief for American Nurses Association; American Academy of Pediatrics; American Medical Student Association; Doctors for America; the National Hispanic Medical Association; and the National Physicians Alliance in Support of Petitioners and Reversal on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for California Endowment in Support of Petitioners and in Favor of the Reversal of the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Child Advocacy Organizations in Support of Petitioners on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Constitutional Law and Economics Professors in Support of Petitioners
Brief for Constitutional Law Scholars in Support of Petitioners (Minimum Coverage Provision)
Brief for David R. Riemer and Community Advocates in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for California Public Employees' Retirement System, et al in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Economic Scholars in Support Of Petitioners Urging Reversal on the Minimum Coverage Issue
Brief for the Governor of Washington Christine Gregoire in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Health Care for All, Inc., Health Law Advocates, Inc., et al. in Support of Petitioners and Urging Reversal on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Health Care Policy History Scholars in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, Jewish Council on Urban Affairs, Jewish Social Policy Action Network, New England Jewish Labor Committee in Support of Petitioners
Brief for Lambda Legal Defense Fund, et al, in Support of Petitioner Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Law Professors Barry Friedman and Matthew Adler, et al., in Support of Petitioners and Reversal of the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights in Support of Petitioner Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the National Women's Law Center, et al in Support of Petitioner on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Prescription Policy Choices, Professors of Law, and Professors of Health Policy in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Service Employees International Union and Change to Win Addressing the Minimum Coverage Provision Issue and Supporting Petitioners and Reversal
Brief for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Leaders and Heads of Committees of Relevant Jurisdictions in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Small Business Majority Foundation, INC and the Main Street Alliance in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Issue
Brief for State Legislators from All Fifty States, The District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico Supporting Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the States of Maryland, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont and the District of Columbia in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Young Invincibles in Support of Petitioner Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision

In Support of Respondents (people against the law)
Brief for the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law in Support of Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc., in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the American Center for Law and Justice, 119 Members of the United States Congress, and More Than 144,000 Supporters of the ACLJ in Support of Respondents and Urging Affirmance on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the American Civil Rights Union, the Social Security Institute and the 10th Amendment Foundation, inc. in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for American College of Pediatricians, Christian Medical & Dental Associations, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Catholic Medical Association, Physicians for Life, National Association of Pro Life Nurses, and Medical Students for Life of America in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the American Legislative Exchange Council in Support of Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the American Life League in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Association of American Physicians And Surgeons, inc., and Individual Physicians in Support of Respondents Regarding the Individual Mandate Issue
Brief for Authors Orgins of Authors of the Origins of The Necessary and Proper Clause (Gary Lawson, Robert G. Natelson & Guy Seidman) and the Independence Institute in Support of Respondent on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Caesar Rodney Institute in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Catholic Vote and Steven J. Willis in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Pacific Legal Foundation, 14 Other Organizations, and 333 State Legislators Supporting Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Issue
Brief for Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Judicial Education Project, Reason Foundation, the Individual Rights Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, Ending Spending, inc., and Former Senators George Lemieux and Hank Brown in Support of Respondents Regarding th Minimum Coverage Provision Issue.
Brief for Citizens and Legislators in the Fourteen Health Care Freedom States in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision (associated with ALEC)
Brief for Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, Supporting the Respondents, and Addressing the Minimum Coverage Provision Issue
Brief for Docs4patientcare, Benjamin Rush Society, Pacific Research Institute, Galen Institute, and Angel Raich in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision (supports doctor-patient 'sanctity')
Brief for Economists in Support of Respondents Regarding Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Employer Solutions Staffing Group in Support of Respondent Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Egon Mittelmann, Esq. in Support of Respondents Mary Brown and Kaj Ahlburg on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Former U.S. Department Officials in Support of Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Foundation for Moral Law, in Support of Respondents, Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Independent Women’s Forum in Support of Respondents
Brief for the Insitute for Justice in Support of Respondent
Brief for HSA Coalition, Inc. and the Constitution Defense Fund, a Project of Freedomworks Foundation in Support of Respondents Regardin the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for John Boehner Speaker of the House in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Judicial Watch, inc. in Support of Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Landmark Legal Foundation in Support of Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Liberty Legal Foundation in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Liberty University, Inc., Michele Waddell, and Joann Merrill in Support of Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Members of the United States Senate in Support of Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision Issue
Brief for the Missouri Attorney General in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Montana Shooting Sports Association in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Mountain States Legal Foundation in Support of Respondents
Brief for Oklahoma in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Partnership for America in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Project Liberty in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Rutherford Institute in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Senator Rand Paul in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Single Payer Action, It's Our Economy, and Fifty Medical Doctors who Support Single Payer in Support of Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Stephen M. Trattner in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Tax Foundation in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Texas Public Policy Foundation in Support of Respondent Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Thomas More Law Center, Jann Demars, John Ceci, Steven Hyder, and Salina Hyder in Support of Respondent Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Commonwealth of Virginia, ex rel. Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia Senator Dick Black, Oklahoma Representative Charles Key, the Institute on the Constitution, U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, the United States Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, Inc., Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Policy Analysis Center, Downsize DC Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc., the Liberty Committee, Public Advocate of the United States, American Life League, Inc., and DownsizeDC.org in Support of Respondent on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Washington Legal Foundation and Constitutional Law Scholars in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision

Other
Brief for the Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati in Support of Neither Party Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision


Now, out of all of those, a record number of briefs, one, count them, one that I can see actually supports something better than what's on the books. The rest want to shoot it down because they hate that it takes their "freedoms." They're mostly right wing "free market" policy wonks who hate ACA.

What strange bedfellows the OP and the people recing the OP have. Strange bedfellows indeed.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

seems Phlem Apr 2012 #1
Yea, this site is nothing like it was six or eight years ago nolabels Apr 2012 #6
You know what? There are those of us who feel we are not allowed to say that the mandate is LEFT, patrice Apr 2012 #26
It may be a lot of things ... but it is not 'left'. earthside Apr 2012 #62
Dont forget Dokkie Apr 2012 #69
Just maybe it's Obama's way of ensuring that the individual mandate is off the table forever? nanabugg Apr 2012 #80
Obama is either that smart or instinctivly that lucky nolabels Apr 2012 #142
Or it could be used to provide "universal" health care through health savings accounts or some HiPointDem Apr 2012 #85
Well, that is a telling statement about how far to the right you and a lot of this country have gone MadHound Apr 2012 #86
Universal? Lydia Leftcoast Apr 2012 #130
It was rejected b/c the insurance industry was still being unregulated. FarLeftFist Apr 2012 #2
There's only one meaningful regulation that is in the ACA MadHound Apr 2012 #8
So you say the MLR is meaningless? The PCORI??? wow. patrice Apr 2012 #16
If individual states can strike down MLR restrictions, and they can MadHound Apr 2012 #18
The PCORI doesn't do that for gov't; It's the tool by means of which CONSUMERS affect the exchanges. patrice Apr 2012 #24
You apparently haven't read the bill MadHound Apr 2012 #42
Why do you discount the fact that the PCORI is built out of actual empirical PATIENT CENTERED data? patrice Apr 2012 #57
And deregulation will come again. earthside Apr 2012 #11
With 1/2 a trillion of taxpayer money and ongoing premiums from vast numbers of captured customers Uncle Joe Apr 2012 #25
Question CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #27
I don't think they have been non-profit for a long time now.n/t Cleita Apr 2012 #32
K. I seem to remember them being one. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #41
And most people were never aware of the fact that among the truedelphi Apr 2012 #54
Supposedly from cutting "waste and fraud". But I think that is BS. I think it's more along the HiPointDem Apr 2012 #87
I agree with you - it will go down this way. CrispyQ Apr 2012 #115
The Dems are leaning right CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #14
Don't forget that the Republicans now rejecting the mandate have moved even further to the right libinnyandia Apr 2012 #3
The Republicans are moving further and further. . . Stargleamer Apr 2012 #4
Not Really liberalmike27 Apr 2012 #67
Watching The Sunshine Boys today, I realized that it has been 43 years EFerrari Apr 2012 #5
Nixon: the last gasp of liberalism. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #89
Some of that is right wing padding to make Nixon look EFerrari Apr 2012 #95
I'm not sure how it follows that the existence of AIM (founded 1968) means that Nixon HiPointDem Apr 2012 #102
Um, no one has made the inflated claims for the Civil Rights Act EFerrari Apr 2012 #103
I think wonkette leans left, and I believe her column was tongue in cheek. The nixon library, HiPointDem Apr 2012 #108
Well, I agree with the premise. EFerrari Apr 2012 #110
The mandate ProSense Apr 2012 #7
Yes, and all those plans, excepting Clinton's were Republican plans MadHound Apr 2012 #10
Huh? ProSense Apr 2012 #12
You said it, not me MadHound Apr 2012 #15
I didnt know you were a former Hillary supporter.. DCBob Apr 2012 #20
Umm, I think you are slightly lacking in reading comprehension MadHound Apr 2012 #31
FYI Dokkie Apr 2012 #70
Ok, yes, I did misread your post. DCBob Apr 2012 #73
No ProSense Apr 2012 #23
So you support Romney care, a Republican policy MadHound Apr 2012 #33
Regardless ProSense Apr 2012 #38
So again, you will support Republican policy, MadHound Apr 2012 #40
Again, ProSense Apr 2012 #51
Wow, you're linking to your own posts within the same thread now? MadHound Apr 2012 #81
Nixon's proposal was better, and didn't include a mandate. I believe this is descended from the HiPointDem Apr 2012 #93
Sad isn't it, when a Nixon policy proposal is better than a Democratic law. MadHound Apr 2012 #127
How so? Doesn't look similar to me. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #128
I don't understand: If you don't stand-up for a LEGAL mandate, HOW can you get to Single Payer? patrice Apr 2012 #21
Mandate to purchase a product from a for profit company MadHound Apr 2012 #34
Also a big, big similarity: Government REQUIRED to implement Health Care, ergo a mandate of somekind patrice Apr 2012 #43
You are stretching too far to try and make a point that simply isn't there. MadHound Apr 2012 #47
And you are not stretching far enough, in an extremely complex & dynamic REALITY. nt patrice Apr 2012 #52
Why? . . . please. patrice Apr 2012 #59
There is no such trigger in the bill, Patrice. TheKentuckian Apr 2012 #71
Nixon's plan *didn't* have a mandate. Like I told you before. Why do you keep saying it did? HiPointDem Apr 2012 #91
the mandate will always be a corporatist's wet dream.... mike_c Apr 2012 #9
This is crazy. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #44
Because while the "progressive" judges are indeed progressive on social issues, MadHound Apr 2012 #49
In transition from the GOP. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #55
They're not even all that progressive on social issues.. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #148
Because there hasn't really been a progressive judge on the court Pab Sungenis Apr 2012 #109
What do you think he would have done? CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #116
I honestly don't know. Pab Sungenis Apr 2012 #122
I am trying to figure the diff CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #123
I would have called both of them both. Pab Sungenis Apr 2012 #124
I think CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #125
Why did the Medicare Part D program get by with making us choose an insurance company for that jwirr Apr 2012 #13
Because the huge corporations own all the politicians. It is called Corporatism. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #17
Medicare Part D is a big fat boondoggle because of the corporate welfare factor. Zalatix Apr 2012 #82
Agreed but what I was asking is why it was constitutional and the HCR may not be? jwirr Apr 2012 #113
the notion that ins. cos. won't immediately start working to bypass any regulations in the ACA KG Apr 2012 #19
And there will be NO grounds to defend against those attacks if we yeild the Constitutionality of patrice Apr 2012 #22
This message was self-deleted by its author Uncle Joe Apr 2012 #28
Excellent point. OccupyTheIRS Apr 2012 #29
Stereotypical characterizations don't include minimal hypothetical analysis of any other factors. patrice Apr 2012 #37
You know, it really is insulting when you accuse people of being tools, or victims, of the media MadHound Apr 2012 #46
What is not insulting about the assumptions which YOU make???? I will not attack your right to make patrice Apr 2012 #53
Not trying that shoe on, MadHound Apr 2012 #83
You Got It. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #45
And why, one may ask, has the media never spoken up for the truedelphi Apr 2012 #56
This is likely one reason they are rapidly losing viewership. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #74
I think it's very interesting how so many assume that O yeilded to the mandate out of some kind of patrice Apr 2012 #30
Given that he went from supporting single payer, then promising a public option, MadHound Apr 2012 #39
Well, he as sure as fuck wasn't going to be able to go anywhere with any of it unless he was elected patrice Apr 2012 #50
Refreshing honesty: kiva Apr 2012 #63
So you are admitting that Obama is simply another politician, MadHound Apr 2012 #88
No, he yielded the public option Maven Apr 2012 #76
yup, KNR hfojvt Apr 2012 #35
It really is amazing how the Republicans keep getting what they want obxhead Apr 2012 #36
Makes no sense. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #48
The "Liberal" (ha!) justices are establishing Constitutional authority for gov't implemented HC. nt patrice Apr 2012 #60
I would like to see that road map. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #61
I predict that they will uphold the constitutionality of the individual mandate. And will do so HiPointDem Apr 2012 #96
Yep. Plus, the Republicans will likely lose this election anyway EFerrari Apr 2012 #98
And it's a nice set-up for the Republicans' return in 2016, maybe with Jeb. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #101
There are NO "Liberal" judges anymore, bvar22 Apr 2012 #152
Please, tell us why you know MORE about this than John Kerry does. nt patrice Apr 2012 #58
"Appeal to authority" = logical fallacy. Debate the argument or the information. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #92
Can you spell collusion? woo me with science Apr 2012 #64
Agreed. Heritage came out for the mandate in 1989. Now they're against it. (Wink, wink) HiPointDem Apr 2012 #97
Yes I can spell collusion Autumn Apr 2012 #129
knr Douglas Carpenter Apr 2012 #65
du rec. nt xchrom Apr 2012 #66
K&R /nt Dragonfli Apr 2012 #68
I have been watching the Republicans attack the very SomethingFishy Apr 2012 #72
The FIRE sector took over the Democratic party some time in the 90s.. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #75
It's the only way to get guaranteed issue. Recursion Apr 2012 #77
Thanks for saying this. progressoid Apr 2012 #78
The amicus briefs to the SCOTUS to shoot down the law tell you which side is REALLY right wing. joshcryer Apr 2012 #79
No, it is actually a well documented fact, MadHound Apr 2012 #84
It has nothing to do with "Obama support." joshcryer Apr 2012 #99
So why are Democrats such as yourself now pushing a plan that has its origins MadHound Apr 2012 #126
I'm not pushing it nor advocating it. joshcryer Apr 2012 #131
Ah, so you're saying we should have had the intermediate step MadHound Apr 2012 #141
What? Social Security had its own intermediate steps. It only paid workers. joshcryer Apr 2012 #144
Obama disagrees with you on a mandate for private insurance.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #90
Yep, and we laughed at that junior senator from Ill. joshcryer Apr 2012 #100
With the MLR cap on the insurance companies a sure fire way for them to make more profits is.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #105
It's a way ProSense Apr 2012 #106
No, the aggregate industry will not in fact make more profits. joshcryer Apr 2012 #132
It takes us in exactly the opposite direction.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #137
ALEC would agree with ya. joshcryer Apr 2012 #139
That doesn't ProSense Apr 2012 #104
One of the prime reasons I preferred Barack to Hillary was Hillary's support for a private mandate.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #107
That is one of the MAIN reasons I did not support her, as well. Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2012 #119
That was the only real difference between the two. joshcryer Apr 2012 #134
I suppose you championed his Harry and Louise ads, too. joshcryer Apr 2012 #133
So tell me... Fumesucker Apr 2012 #136
I'm familiar with that Drudge inspired stuff. joshcryer Apr 2012 #138
Hillary was inspired by Drudge? Fumesucker Apr 2012 #140
I post a link to a Media Matters article that references a Drudge talking point and you ... use it? joshcryer Apr 2012 #143
I wouldn't know if it's a Drudge talking point or not.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #147
The link I gave man, it's right there in the link! First paragraph! joshcryer Apr 2012 #149
Personal responsibility.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #150
Single payer would have a very real aspect of personal responsiblity. joshcryer Apr 2012 #151
My point being that "personal responsibility" has been a Republican talking point for quite a while. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #153
Eh, it was in the context of Hillary. joshcryer Apr 2012 #154
Oddly, my comment was also in the context of Hillary.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #155
True that. joshcryer Apr 2012 #156
Now that I look more closely I think I better read up before I shoot off my mouth. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #94
I have to laugh to see so many Dems - Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2012 #111
Obviously ProSense Apr 2012 #112
I don't really care that much about it, but I do not like being framed as a right winger... joshcryer Apr 2012 #135
This: CrispyQ Apr 2012 #114
It's everywhere in the Party. Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2012 #118
The pattern over the last 10 years is frightening: bvar22 Apr 2012 #121
Thank you for that -- Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2012 #145
Hear Hear! grahamhgreen Apr 2012 #117
I'll let THIS guy explain why a The Mandate is BAD for America: bvar22 Apr 2012 #120
Who IS that guy? progressoid Apr 2012 #146
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The individual mandate, a...»Reply #79