Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

August 2, 2010

CUCCINELLI'S 'WIN' IS ONLY PROCEDURAL.... Virginia's comically-right-wing state attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli II, filed suit in March, hoping to undermine the Affordable Care Act by claiming that an individual mandate is unconstitutional. Most legal experts, including many conservatives, find the case to be pretty frivolous -- a former Bush/Cheney U.S. attorney said the litigation not only lacks merit, but should be "seen as a political exercise" -- and Cuccinelli has struggled to explain why this isn't a waste of taxpayer money.

Obama administration attorneys hoped to bounce the case right out of court before the proceedings could get underway in earnest. In a move that will probably delight the far-right, a district court judge announced this morning that the case can proceed.

A federal judge Monday refused to dismiss a Virginia lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal health-care law, handing the law's foes their first victory in a courtroom battle likely to last years.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson rejected arguments from Obama administration lawyers that Virginia has no standing to sue over the law and no chance of ultimately prevailing in its constitutional claim.

Before anyone gets too excited about this, it's a procedural victory, not a measure of success on the merits. The judge didn't say Cuccinelli's right; the judge said he'd give Cuccinelli's argument a full hearing. The issue at hand today was one over "standing" -- whether Cuccinelli is in a legally justifiable position to file the lawsuit in the first place, giving the court the jurisdiction to hear the case. The administration hoped to convince Hudson that the Virginia AG hadn't even met this threshold, but the court disagreed. So, the suit lives to see another day.

Regrettably, Judge Hudson's objectivity is already in doubt. He's a Bush/Cheney appointee, and more importantly, the Huffington Post noted that the judge "has financial ties to both the attorney general who is challenging the law and to a powerhouse conservative law firm whose clients include prominent Republican officials and critics of reform."

Nevertheless, the issue continues to be over the legality of the mandate. Folks who never seemed especially troubled by mandatory auto insurance or mandatory flood insurance in some parts of the country have now concluded that a health care mandate is the most offensive idea they've ever heard. It's the basis of GOP litigation, and ballot measures at the state level touted by right-wing activists.

It's worth taking a moment, then, to remember a couple of things. First, the concept of an individual mandate as part of health care reform was, in fact, a Republican idea. Indeed, leading GOP senators were on board with the mandate as recently as a year ago. It's a detail that seems to be easily forgotten by those who hope you're not paying attention.

Second, note why the mandate exists. If a policy bans discrimination on those with pre-existing conditions, it must also include an individual mandate. It's not that complicated -- if those with pre-existing conditions are to be protected, the mandate is necessary to keep costs from spiraling and to prevent the "free rider" problem.

Of course, if there's an individual mandate, then it's also necessary to include subsidies to those who otherwise couldn't afford coverage. And once you put this string together -- protections for those with pre-existing conditions ... which requires a mandate ... which requires subsidies -- what you're left with is the Affordable Care Act.

But let's say the Republican crusade against their own idea is successful. It probably won't be, but let's just say it is. Here's the question for the GOP: how are you going to clean up the mess? The mandate brings everyone into the system and keeps costs down. If the right scraps the mandate, the new health care law will still exist; it'll just be more expensive.

Is this the Republican plan, or have they just not thought this through?

Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

To this judge and the ones in Louisiana (re oil drilling) with financial conflicts of interest: Where is your integrity? Why have you not recused yourselves?

Posted by: Hannah on August 2, 2010 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not a fan of this ruling, but I don't think it's accurate to characterize it as merely procedural. The opinion does contain a significant amount of legal commentary favorable to the challenge to the ACA. Note that this case turns on a question of law -- is the law constitutional? -- and not on evidence (documents and witnesses), so the judge's views on the legal questions are extremely important.

Posted by: alkali on August 2, 2010 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Right-wing response:

Auto insurance and Flood insurance are *STATE* mandates, while Health Insurance is *FEDERAL* -- let the states sort it out without Federal interference!

Posted by: zmulls on August 2, 2010 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Yes they have thought it through because creating chaos and assuring Democratic programs won't work as advertised is at the core of their MO....create disaster, blame it on Dems, get back in office.

Of course the question them would become....and just what do you plan to do then? Nobody seems to worry about that too much.

Of course the biggest risk is that this case might make it far enough for Alito and Roberts to get a chance to rule on it. Having seen the Citizens United results, I get real nervous about such an idea.

Posted by: dweb on August 2, 2010 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Don't call it a mandate. Call it a tax break for folks who choose to get health insurance.

Because that's what it is.

Posted by: dob on August 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Taxes, Teabags, and 2012...

Steve Benen: Nevertheless, the issue continues to be over the legality of the mandate.

Only overtly Steve.
They want the case to go on for years...
They want it to belly up with the 2012 elections.

Here is why: NYT: Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”
You can see how the right wing will "play" this out right here:
After Denying Insurance Mandate Was a Tax, Obama Now Defends Constitutionality of Health Care as Exercise of Taxing Power

The Administration needs to figure out how to deal with this juxtaposition right now.
As it will likely be the right's biggest trumpet in 2012.

Posted by: koreyel on August 2, 2010 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

while i see the reasoning behind the mandate under the ada's provisions, it does seem silly to compare mandatory auto/flood insurance to mandatory health insurance. in both of the first two cases, a choice is involved (to drive or to live in an area susceptible to floods). mandatory health insurance then, is predicated on...being alive?

by such reasoning i cannot support the mandate - not to mention it is a republican idea - and one in my opinion that has the primary aim of benefitting the insurance industry.

let's hypothesize that the aca allowed for a single enrollment period each year (as my employer does). people cannot simply apply for insurance when they fall ill, and if they sign up during the enrollment period they are required to pay in for the following year, at which point they can opt in again or drop coverage. i don't see why this wouldn't be better than the mandate.

Posted by: sadly on August 2, 2010 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think flood insurance is even state mandated in many cases. From what I understand it is typically "bank mandated" as in "you will have it or we will not loan you money." Once your mortgage is paid for, you are free to drop it and in many cases people do, figuring (rightly), they will get money from FEMA or some disaster program anyhow.

Posted by: Vondo on August 2, 2010 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

mandatory health insurance then, is predicated on...being alive?

No, mandatory health insurance is predicated on not being a dead-beat. People who can afford health insurance but don't purchase health insurance in intend to be dead-beats should they need medical care. Why do conservatives love dead-beats?

Posted by: Christopher on August 2, 2010 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

As the poster "Vondo" notes, flood insurance isn't really mandatory, and auto insurance is a weak analogue in any event because you aren't required to drive; driving is a privilege, not a right.

I also wouldn't use the term "frivolous" to describe this suit; if it were frivolous, it wouldn't have just survived a motion to dismiss. Frivolous suits aren't just weak cases (like this one); they're cases that have absolutely no basis in fact or law. If this suit were truly frivolous, it would've been dismissed and Cuccinelli would've been sanctioned.

Posted by: rrindy on August 2, 2010 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Remember when calling something a "Republican idea" wasn't an endorsement of the soundness or constitutionality of a policy proposal?

Posted by: square1 on August 2, 2010 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Y'all miss the health care reform forrest for the insurance mandate tree. Obama and the Dems spent a lot of time and political capital to pass a weak insurance reform bill that IS difficult to explain benefits that occur in future years --- instead of real health care reform with immediate benefits. It occurred because they didn't see the need to kill the filibuster about 3/09 (tactical error) or to aggressively campaign from the get go against Republican policies to change public opinion (major strategic error). They continue to make both these errors.

Posted by: gdb on August 2, 2010 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

christopher,

correct me if i'm wrong, but your argument is essentially that purchasing private insurance is akin to a civic duty?

also, i'd like to get your thoughts on my last paragraph, which pertains why a limited enrollment period wouldn't solve the 'dead-beat' problem, as you put it.

Posted by: sadly on August 2, 2010 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

There seems to be a memory gap over Medicare Part D
When the Bushites put that in, you either bought a policy or paid a penalty if you ever decided to get into it.

Posted by: random thoughts on August 2, 2010 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

There is a reason why there are so few analogues to the individual mandate. Because, historically, if something needed to be provided to all Americans and paid for by all Americans then the mechanism for revenue generation was the income tax.

BTW, two can play the "it was your idea" game. I predict that Democrats will rue the day that they endorsed the concept of funding de facto government programs with privately-collected and non-progressive fees rather than progressive income taxes.

Soon Republicans will suggest that we abolish the progressive income tax altogether. Need money for schools? Mandatory "education insurance". Funding for the USDA or FDA? Mandatory "food and drug safety insurance."

Voila! A flat tax. And it was "a Democratic idea!"

Posted by: square1 on August 2, 2010 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

I don’t know if anyone’s noticed but the ACA has a savings clause of sorts which I read as saying that if the individual mandate requirement is struck down the rest of the law would still be in effect. Thus, as I understand it, the requirement that insurance companies offer insurance to people with preexisting conditions, price controls, etc will all remain in effect. Basically, all of the other more beneficial aspects of ACA will still be the law.

Ironically, if Cuccinelli wins then insurance companies will lose. Nobody will buy insurance until they need it and so the current downward spiral will continue until the insurance companies are bankrupt and everybody who wants insurance has shifted to the exchanges (which will become a de facto single payer system).

As I see it, Cuccinelli is striking a blow for “single payer” national health insurance. Since I have always supported "single payer", I hope he wins. Who knew the guy was such a totally committed liberal?

Posted by: Mitch Guthman on August 2, 2010 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

"Folks who never seemed especially troubled by mandatory auto insurance or mandatory flood insurance in some parts of the country have now concluded that a health care mandate is the most offensive idea they've ever heard."

I don't have to buy auto insurance if I don't drive a car, and I don't need to buy flood insurance if I don't live on a flood plain.

Apples and oranges.

Posted by: SteveAR on August 2, 2010 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Addendum for a modern asshole

I don't have to buy auto insurance if I don't drive a car, and I don't need to buy flood insurance if I don't live on a flood plain. And if I get sick I can just go to the emergency room and have the taxpayers pick up the cost of my treatment...

Apples and oranges....
Assholes and teabaggers....

Posted by: koreyel on August 2, 2010 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

This is a procedural decision, but the judge ruled that it will not be thrown out summarily. And from what I have read, the decision cannot be appealed.

No matter what happens, now this suit goes to SCOTUS, maybe three years from now.

Posted by: mikeyes on August 2, 2010 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

There you go again, thinking that a Republican position has something to do with reality or an intent to govern well. They don't work that way anymore.

Posted by: biggerbox on August 2, 2010 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

To argue that you have a choice as to whether or not to drive is foolish, and the people making that argument know it. The majority of people do not live within walking distance of their jobs nor do they have public transportation available. For most jobs, living within walking distance of work isn't even possible. So what the people making that argument are really saying is that you can chose to have a job or starve. The argument that driving is only a privilege is pure legalism, and in no way connected with reality. I would hope that most people are capable of differentiating between legal constructs and realities.

Posted by: Texas Aggie on August 2, 2010 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

gdb: Obama and the Dems spent a lot of time and political capital to pass a weak insurance reform bill

No, Obama and the Dems spent a lot of time and political capital to pass a health insurance reform bill that will lower costs and provide coverage to millions more americans. Despite overwhelming and unprecedented obstruction from republicans and consevative dems, Obama actually did what six former democratic presidents had tried, and failed, to accomplish.

Why are these simple facts so hard to understand?

Posted by: cr on August 2, 2010 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

Is this the Republican plan, or have they just not thought this through?

Republicans? Thinking? It's an impossibility, since they lack the basic equipment. You know, a brain...

Posted by: TCinLA on August 2, 2010 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

There has been more than one of these suits filed so expecting them all to get thrown out was probably never realistic. If this judge had thrown out the suit, they could have just filed again in one of those other AG's territories, judge shopping. (Actually given the financial entanglements of the judge they got, they may have done some judge shopping already.) The only way to get these suits to go away is to let one complete and have a precedent-setting decision establishing, no really, tax breaks/penalties for economic choices don't suddenly become unconstitutional just because they're attached to a Democratic policy objective.

The car insurance analogy is stupid. Here's a better one for these purposes: The homebuyer credit. People last year who failed to buy a new house paid more taxes than people who did. The government rewarded one group for engaging in an economic activity and penalized another group for failing to engage in the economic activity. It is incredibly easy to find precedents for the government using the tax code in exactly this manner.

Posted by: mcc on August 2, 2010 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

The argument that driving is only a privilege is pure legalism, and in no way connected with reality. I would hope that most people are capable of differentiating between legal constructs and realities.

Most legalisms only have a tenuous connection to how people actually live their lives. It is a legalism, but it's a significant distinction. When the activity at issue is a "privilege," courts have held that the government has essentially unfettered discretion to regulate the activity. So, from a legal standpoint, the distinction makes a huge difference - government can regulate activities deemed privileges in almost any way it chooses. There's a real distinction to be made between that and the individual mandate, which applies to all living individuals.

Ultimately, I don't think the mandate will be found unconstitutional, but I doubt the judicial opinion on the matter will reference auto or flood insurance.

Posted by: rrindy on August 2, 2010 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

mcc: The key word in your analogy is "taxes". nobody disputes that the federal government has the right to regulate the economy by using tax law to create incentives and disincentives.

The real problem, IMHO, is not the fine that the government imposes if you fail to purchase insurance. The real problem is that the government has de facto privatized the power of taxation; that is, the government has created a system of universal insurance, but rather than taxing citizens and using the proceeds to pay private contractors, the government has effectively authorized the private contractors to levy and collect the necessary taxes.

And unlike legal tax increases, which are subject to Article I limitations, including the Presentment Clause, the insurance companies can effectively raise our taxes at will.

Posted by: square1 on August 2, 2010 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

If the argument was over standing I fail to see why the State has standing to challenge the individual mandate part of the law. Indeed in the Mass v EPA suit over whether the States could challenge the EPA's decision not to regulate greenhouse gases the four ultra conservatives on the Court (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas & Alito) argued that the State didn't have standing since it couldn't show how it (the State) would be injured. So how is the State injured by the "individual mandate" part of the ACA.

Posted by: Camus on August 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

square1, you may donate to Cuccinelli's re-election campaign here. I urge you to go support the candidates who support your values rather than wasting time here on liberal websites.

Posted by: mcc on August 2, 2010 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

"the judge "has financial ties to both the attorney general who is challenging the law and to a powerhouse conservative law firm."
I would not characterize that as an accurate statement (although Steve has quoted the article accurately).

The Huffington Post article explains that the judge has "financial ties" to a firm that has donated money to him, and that Cuccinelli is a client of that firm. That's a long way from establishing financial ties between the judge and Cuccinelli. In fact, it's the kind of sloppy journalism that keeps me from taking the HuffPost seriously.

Posted by: retr2327 on August 2, 2010 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

Camus: I didn't read the briefs or the opinion in this particular decision. But, in general, state AG's have the power to litigate on behalf of their injured state residents.

Once again, even if the individual mandate is not struck down as unconstitutional, I would caution people against dismissing these suits as "frivolous." The fact that people have such a difficult time thinking of a proper analogy to the individual mandate, should make people realize how novel this approach is. Even if constitutional, we should think long and hard about whether it is good policy.

Posted by: square1 on August 2, 2010 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

You've got a lot of balls, mcc.

I have long been a proponent of the public option and Medicare buy-in, if not single-payer. I am sorry if pointing out the downsides to a half-assed version of health insurance reform -- that Steve Benen just said was a Republican idea -- makes you uncomfortable. Suggesting that I don't belong on liberal websites because I don't march in lockstep with centrist leadership is offensive.

It seems to me that a lot of Democrats are looking at the short-term benefits of the ACA bill (Yes some people with pre-existing conditions will be covered. Yes, some lower-middle class people will benefit from subsidies) and ignoring the negative consequences, both intended and unintended. As I said before, I predict that Democrats will rue the day that they okayed the replacement of funding of fundamental government services by progressive income taxes with flat private-sector levied fees.

I don't know jack shit about Cuccinelli or the intellectual rigor of his legal arguments. My observation is that the Republican legal opposition to ACA runs the gamut from genuinely frivolous to fairly-well reasoned.

My point is that, even if all the law suits lose and the law is held to be unconstitutional, it still appears to be a poor implementation of a good idea.

For years, Republicans have cared more about pissing of liberals than debating policy intelligently. It seems that many of the defenders of ACA have the same attitude in reverse.

Posted by: square1 on August 2, 2010 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Square1. I'm not sure how this case differs from the EPA case but debating standing here isn't really that interesting. I agree with your response above that engaging in name calling rather than intelligently debating policy doesn't help. Since you support a public option we probably aren't that far apart. However, the ACA is what we could get through Congress at this point in time. So back to whether individual mandates are unconstitutional. You are right that it is hard to find a perfect analogy but that really isn't the issue. The issue is whether the federal government has the power to do it. Despite the rants of the right it is hard to imagine an argument that doesn't acknowledge that the health industry is involved in interstate commerce and that Congress might reasonably assume that regulating the provision of insurance is a reasonable regulation of commerce. While an imperfect analogy it isn't that far from the original creation of social security. Granted SS and Medicare didn't require one to participate but how is that a violation of the commerce power. Congress has longed required males to participate in the Selective Service system (under another Constitutional provision) so absolute participatory requirements aren't per se unconstitutional. Indeed, people can be required to be on a jury. Allowing people to opt out if they don't use health care might sound like a good idea if one is hung up on the mandate provision but opting out creates silly public policy. No you can't go to the hospital for that traffic accident because you opted out years ago.

Posted by: Camus on August 2, 2010 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

Virginia's comically-right-wing state attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli II,[...] -- Steve Benen

Steve, the word you're looking for is "creepy". There's absolutely nothig "comical" about Cuccineelli or, for that matter, about any rabid zealot in position of power.

Regarding auto insurance mandate. The last I saw, in Virginia, you could eat your cake and have it too. When you come to renew your license, you're asked who your insures is. But, if you don't have insurance, that doesn't disqualify you at all. You just pay a certain amount to the VA DOT ($350, I think) and you're "good" for the next 10 years. There are *a lot* of people in my -- well-to-do in the city and mostly poor in the county -- area, who don't have auto insurance. They figure that, if they're in an accident, the other person's insurance will pay.

Posted by: exlibra on August 2, 2010 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

camus: Thank you for the respectful response.

I will simply note that the examples you give (Social Security, Medicare, and Selective Service) are all examples of the government mandating participation in a public program. Agree or disagree with the programs, nobody disputes that the government may compel participation in government programs. The issue is much less clear when you are talking about compelled participation in a private industry, particularly an industry with serious antitrust issues.

One of the best examples that I have seen offered in support of the constitutionality is that the original Militia Act passed by Congress had a requirement that every eligible male purchase provisions (e.g. bullets, etc.) for serving in a militia. I still think that is a far cry from forcing someone into a perpetual contract with a private entity in a non-competitive market. But it is an example.

Posted by: square1 on August 2, 2010 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

square1:

"I don't know jack shit about Cuccinelli or the intellectual rigor of his legal arguments"

However you're perfectly happy to defend his legal arguments in internet comment sections, despite knowing jack shit about them. I suggest in future you learn about something before you defend it.

"For years, Republicans have cared more about pissing of liberals than debating policy intelligently"

Well, you're the one here attacking liberal policies and legislation. I don't think you're doing what you think you're doing.

Earlier in the thread you said this:

"Democrats will rue the day that they okayed the replacement of funding of fundamental government services by progressive income taxes with flat private-sector levied fees."

Democrats did not do anything of the kind. Health insurance has been a private sector service since the 1930s. Health insurance in America is not, and never has been, a "fundamental government service" unless you are over 65. If you are over 65, it is a fundamental government service funded by a non-progressive flat tax (FICA). This was the case before the ACA. It is the case after the ACA.

If the idea is that leaving an essential service to be run by private industry rather than being adopted by the government is like creating a stealth tax, then the mandate is hardly the cause for this. Insurance is hardly optional right now. What happens if you don't have insurance right now is you could maybe die. This is worse than the potential of a $750 government fine.

When you discuss the effective stealth tax that are health insurance premiums, you say that the private companies who collect this stealth tax can charge as much as they want. This WAS the case before the ACA; after the ACA, it is not. Right now we have a system where health insurance is essential, and insurance companies can charge whatever they want for it. Once the ACA goes live, the government steps in to broker insurance purchasing for individuals. Insurance companies are required to charge level prices which can vary based only on a limited set of demographic data. They are limited in how high those level prices can be set by the ACA's profit cap. And to the extent the mandate is making people buy health insurance than wouldn't otherwise, the insurance companies are actually limited in how high they can raise their prices by the mandate itself-- because (a) the mandate loses some of its teeth if health insurance for a year is more expensive than just paying the fine and (b) the mandate ceases to exist entirely if the yearly cost for health insurance goes above 8% for a given individual.

It would be much, much better if in America, as in for example Canada, health insurance was a fundamental government service funded based on taxes which scale with ability to pay. No provision like that was on the table last year. The public option and medicare buy-in are good policy, and make natural extensions to the ACA which hopefully Congress will return to soon, but wouldn't have changed the fundamental problem you're complaining about, that health insurance is a fundamental, essential service which in America you must buy on the open market. Removing the mandate, again, wouldn't fix the problem either.

You say that you're "pointing out the downsides to a half-assed version of health insurance reform". You're not, since the things you're complaining about aren't part of the health insurance reform bill, they're parts of the reality of health care in America over the last eighty years. You're pointing out problems with health care in America, and blaming these things on the Democrats even though the Democrats just took the only meaningful step in fixing the exact things you're complaining about since that eighty years started.

If you want to get further health care reforms passed, like a public option, going and trashing the notion of government involvement in health care on internet message boards is not a way of doing it. Don't expect to be treated like you're doing something other than what you're doing just because you were thinking progressive thoughts in your head real loud while you were doing it.

Posted by: mcc on August 2, 2010 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

The comparison of requiring insurance for the "privilege" of driving with requiring health insurance IS valid.
To be completely brutal about it; just as there is no law "requiring" anyone to own an automobile, there is no law that requires any adult to seek medical care. However, for those that wish to operate a vehcle, insurance "is" required. There is no valid legal reason not to require anyone who wishes access to medical care - at any time - to have health insurance.
If they don't want the health care, they needn't have the insurance. ID bracelets, such as those used for medical conditions would be a nice touch...

Oh, and I used the term "adult" specifically. I would dearly love to see the Republicans be forced to campaign against, not just vote against, but campaign during an election against insuring children. Oh my yes, would I like to see that...

Posted by: Doug on August 2, 2010 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINK

Auto insurance and flood insurance are state issues and bare no correlation to the federal insurance mandate. Flood insurance: No States I'm aware of mandate flood insurance. Mortgage companies requires you have flood insurance if you are in a flood zone. That's simply is a private company protecting their interest in the property they loaned you money to buy. You don't have to agree, you don't have to buy a house in a flood zone. If you choose to you can cancel your flood insurance after the home is paid off. Car insurance: First of all not all states mandate auto insurance (though most do), and only people how own and operate automobiles are mandated to have LIABILITY insurance, to cover damage to OTHERS. There is no state the requires you to purchase insurance to cover yourself. If you don't own a car you don't have to have insurance. period. The health care bill mandates you must have insurance simply because you are alive.

The bleeding heart hack who wrote this article can spin the judges ruling whatever way he likes. However, it is as apparent as the chip on the author's shoulder that the judge feels the constitutionality of the mandate is, to say the least, highly questionable.

Posted by: Ed on August 11, 2010 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly