I have a feeling that the court challenges to "insurance mandates" will eventually prevail.

[Stinky The Clown]

Were you to read that as cheering, you would be way off base.

There are 24 separate suits against it. That is an all out assault. Obama and the Dem leadership have clearly demonstrated their inability to protect themselves or us from such right wing assaults.

This is the work of 24 right wing state attorneys general building their own political capital.

This could turn out to be a good thing if some leader comes along who has the guts to do it, to give us some type of public funded health care. There is a fair degree of ill will toward the mandate - for very different reasons, of course - all across the political spectrum.I would not be one bit surprised if this whole insurance mandate in lieu of a "public option" was a compromise given repubicans by an overly conciliatory non-negotiator that came back to bite him in the ass. The simple fact is, the repubicans can actually play three level chess and win.

[Uben]

1. I read somewhere this morning......

...that it could easily be tweaked for people to opt out of the mandate making it more desirable to the AGs, so I doubt seriously it will be repealed.

[badtoworse]

3. I do not believe the judiciary has the power to "tweak"

As I understand the power of the judiciary, they can rule on whether legislation is constitutional or not, but cannot make changes to legislation because that power is given exclusively to Congress.

The bill does not have a severability clause and without one, the court could throw out the entire law because part of it is unconstitutional. On the other hand, the court could make a determination as to whether the law can stand without the offending provisions. In my opinion, if the courts rule the mandate unconstitutional, then they will throw out the entire law. Without the mandate, insurance companies would be unable to spread the cost of covering pre-existing conditions over a population that includes healthy people. The result would be either bankruptcy or prohibitively expensive insurance premiums, neither of which would achieve the intended result of the legislation. The court will (reasonably, in my opinion) conclude that the entire law should be struck down.

I'm not an attorney, but I would be very interested in the opinions of people who are.

[HereSince1628]

2. An appeal to three dimensional chess...Really?

Defending an argument by claiming people are too stupid to understand it is not only a logical fallacy it's intentionally insulting.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. Your message was obtuse. Were you implying I was insulting you?

[HereSince1628]

8. Nothing obtuse about it, arguing that people are too stupid to understand

is both a logical fallacy as an argument ad hominem, and it is simultaneously an insult.

Moreover, the freaking 3D chess argument it attempts to defend stands without evidence behind it and is worn so bare as to be beyond use for rags.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Maybe I'm the obtuse one, but I have no clue who you are talking about.

Try a simple yes or no to this one question: Was your comment aimed at me, personally?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. i haven't heard the chess argument in a while. i guess people finally realized

that chess was not being played.

[wiggs]

5. Does Massachusetts have an insurance mandate? They have a similar

plan to HCR...how is that working?

[pocoloco]

6. Hard to think the court would even think about turning

turn down such a large windfall for insurance companies.

[Greybnk48]

7. Agreed. Where is the Insurance lobby on this one.

They stand to lose lots of cash if this is overturned.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Unless they own some activist right wing judges . . . .

Oops. never mind.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. So

what you're suggesting is that the insurance companies are buying off some activist right-wing judges to strike down the mandate that would supposedly make them richer? Er.......does.not.compute. :crazy:
That's almost as weird as suggesting- as some people have- that Republicans are trying so hard to either repeal HCR or get it declared unconstitutional because they actually love the mandate because it makes them and/or their corporate buddies richer. :crazy:
They must all be playing some really wicked game of five-dimensional hyper-chess! :silly:

[Stinky The Clown]

15. No, that's not what I'm suggesting, your snark notwithstanding.

Reread. If if is still unclear to you, then it will have to remain so.

Have a swell day.

[Scurrilous]

11. Your predictions are usually spot on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8999017

[Stinky The Clown]

13. I was half right. Making you half wrong.