Supreme Court Names Lawyers to Argue Healthcare Case

By | November 21, 2011

  • November 21, 2011 at 6:05 am
    johnparker54 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Healthcare is not subject to normal market forces! Anything that you have to buy at any random moment in order not to die is not something to which a rational supply/demand calculus can apply. Check out “Penny Health” articles on how to reduce the cost of insurance.

    • November 21, 2011 at 2:55 pm
      Always Amazed says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      I went to penny health and found a link to Assurant for a quick quote. I used to be an agent for them and they are not cheap by no means unless you are in your 20s, height and weight proportionate and have no pre-existing conditions. Are you just looking free advertising?

  • November 21, 2011 at 1:53 pm
    DS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If the individual mandate is struck down, they better strike down the guarantee-issue provision which bars insurers from refusing to issue coverage to a person because of a pre-existing medical condition. Otherwise it’s a worst case scenario where people don’t have to have insurance, get sick or have a horrible accident, and then decide to purchase insurance and can’t be declined for pre-ex. That’s bad for everyone. At least right now if a person does that, the private market can decline them but they can still get insurance in the state high risk pools.

    • November 21, 2011 at 3:56 pm
      Veteran Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      I’m with you DS. Millions of people will not buy it until they need it since they can’t be turned down due to a pre-x. If they are diagnosed with cancer, they can run down and apply so they can get their surgery or chemo treatments. They didn’t pay in premiums all the prior time, but they can suddenly get insurance. What a system! The kids can stay on the parents insurance until 26, then go without for years and then buy it just in the nick of time. This is just one of the hundreds of things wrong with this bill.

  • November 21, 2011 at 2:36 pm
    GL Guru says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    There is no severability clause in the law which does not bode well for the argument that you just throw out the part that is unconstitutional and leave the rest alone. It is all or nothing regardless how you stand on the issue.

    • November 21, 2011 at 4:50 pm
      Lisa Lincoln says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Which is why Congress should strike down the entire law NOW and start from scratch, addressing each problem area separately.

      • November 21, 2011 at 5:28 pm
        Veteran Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        It won’t happen until we get the Senate changed out and a new Republican President. Harry Reid will stymie any attempt to get anything done in the Senate just like the 22 bills sent over by the House to help the economy. He pronounced them all DOA. With a new Senate majority leader, they can get bills debated and voted on in rapid order. A new President can then sign bills that will make a difference.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*