Florida Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

[TominNH]

Do you know the difference between a State and the Federal Government and how they are treated in The Constitution?

btw, I don't support RomneyCare - it's a dismal failure as all government overreaches tend to be.

I dont understand your first point!!! Are you saying that states can pass laws that violate the US Constitution???? That is what you SEEM to be saying!!

No. She is saying that things that are unconstitutional for state governments to do might not be unconstitutional for the federal government to do.

Likewise, what is unconstitutional for the federal government to do may be well not be unconstitutional for the state governments to do.

That isnt possible. NO state law may violate the US consitution--- the Supremacy Clause of the constitution guarantees that the federal government trumps state law. If it were NOT true, we would still have segregated schools since states would be able to establish separate but equal schools!! The fact that they can not is settle law.

So, in this case, Romneycare has NOT been declared unconstitutional. It hasnt even been challenged because everyone knows the state has that power to mandate insurance!! And that state mandate may NOT violate the US constitution! So, we shall see what the USSC has to say. Most constitutional scholars say that the federal government does ineed have the power to mandate the healthcare law. Only strict constructionists think otherwise and they are in the distinct minority! And it wasnt that long ago when Republicans were saying that the only way to get national healthcare to work was to mandate it! So, one has to wonder if Republican opposition NOW is based on principle ( doubtful) or on political considerations! Im convinced that Republican opposition is purely politically based since they've supported the mandate in the past! Average Americans need to be very careful when following what the GOP leadership is taking them. There are things afoot that are certainly NOT in the best interests of most Americans!

 

[Flopper]

and that is what's being challenged as unconstitutional
the mandate

Yep.
I disagree with a lot of people that say the law will not work without the mandate. I read an article recently that estimated that the mandate would increase insurance coverage by less than 3%. Without the mandate, you know insurance companies are going to cover their ass so they are not stuck covering people that wait till they are sick to take out coverage. Most people get their insurance through group plans which offer open enrollment usually once a year, however it could be longer which makes taking out insurance only when you get sick a lot harder. Even if government is not allowed to mandate coverage, employers can, particularly if they are faced with higher premiums if employees elect to be uninsured. I'm sure there other ways that insurance companies and possibility government can persuade people to carry insurance.

The whole thing has pretty well become almost a joke anyway with more than 200 exemptions from the mandates already given to folks who didn't want to live under them, such folks of course being people the Administration does not wish to offend such as big unions.

For the mandates and associated taxes/penalties to kick in years before all the benefits kick in, it is inevitable there will be more exemptions.

The opinion from the Florida court is thoughtful and well written. Some say why not just eliminate the mandates and allow all the rest? I think that is a really bad idea because while the judge can and did specify what part of the law is unconstitutional, once the court starts plucking this or that out of it or inserting this or that into it, you have the courts actually writing legislation. And that, in my opinion is also unconstitutional.

The exemption are temporary and expire in 2014 when the remainder of the healthcare law goes into effect.

Unions exempt from obamacare - Topix

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That isnt possible. NO state law may violate the US consitution--- the Supremacy Clause of the constitution guarantees that the federal government trumps state law. If it were NOT true, we would still have segregated schools since states would be able to establish separate but equal schools!! The fact that they can not is settle law.

So, in this case, Romneycare has NOT been declared unconstitutional. It hasnt even been challenged because everyone knows the state has that power to mandate insurance!! And that state mandate may NOT violate the US constitution!

Ok, for the 115th fucking time for the galactically stupid among us, RomneyCare is Constitutional UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT! Capiche?

 

[Trajan]

Yep.
I disagree with a lot of people that say the law will not work without the mandate. I read an article recently that estimated that the mandate would increase insurance coverage by less than 3%. Without the mandate, you know insurance companies are going to cover their ass so they are not stuck covering people that wait till they are sick to take out coverage. Most people get their insurance through group plans which offer open enrollment usually once a year, however it could be longer which makes taking out insurance only when you get sick a lot harder. Even if government is not allowed to mandate coverage, employers can, particularly if they are faced with higher premiums if employees elect to be uninsured. I'm sure there other ways that insurance companies and possibility government can persuade people to carry insurance.

The whole thing has pretty well become almost a joke anyway with more than 200 exemptions from the mandates already given to folks who didn't want to live under them, such folks of course being people the Administration does not wish to offend such as big unions.

For the mandates and associated taxes/penalties to kick in years before all the benefits kick in, it is inevitable there will be more exemptions.

The opinion from the Florida court is thoughtful and well written. Some say why not just eliminate the mandates and allow all the rest? I think that is a really bad idea because while the judge can and did specify what part of the law is unconstitutional, once the court starts plucking this or that out of it or inserting this or that into it, you have the courts actually writing legislation. And that, in my opinion is also unconstitutional.

The exemption are temporary and expire in 2014 when the remainder of the healthcare law goes into effect.

Unions exempt from obamacare - Topix

so? why were they necessary?

 

[Flopper]

The whole thing has pretty well become almost a joke anyway with more than 200 exemptions from the mandates already given to folks who didn't want to live under them, such folks of course being people the Administration does not wish to offend such as big unions.

For the mandates and associated taxes/penalties to kick in years before all the benefits kick in, it is inevitable there will be more exemptions.

The opinion from the Florida court is thoughtful and well written. Some say why not just eliminate the mandates and allow all the rest? I think that is a really bad idea because while the judge can and did specify what part of the law is unconstitutional, once the court starts plucking this or that out of it or inserting this or that into it, you have the courts actually writing legislation. And that, in my opinion is also unconstitutional.

The exemption are temporary and expire in 2014 when the remainder of the healthcare law goes into effect.

Unions exempt from obamacare - Topix

so? why were they necessary?

The Affordable Care Act is designed to provide Americans with affordable, high-quality coverage options – while ensuring that those who like their current coverage can keep it. Unfortunately, today, limited benefit plans, or “mini-med” plans are often the only type of insurance offered to some workers. In 2014, the Affordable Care Act will end mini-med plans when Americans will have better access to affordable, comprehensive health insurance plans that cannot use high deductibles or annual limits to limit benefits. In the meantime, the law requires insurers to phase out the use of annual dollar limits on benefits. In 2011, most plans can impose an annual limit of no less than $750,000.

Mini-med plans have lower limits than allowed under the Affordable Care Act. While mini-med plans do not provide security in the event of serious illness or accident, they are unfortunately the only option that some employers offer. In order to protect coverage for these workers, the Affordable Care Act allows these plans to apply for temporary waivers from rules restricting the size of annual limits to some group health plans and health insurance issuers.

Waivers only last for one year and are only available if the plan certifies that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a large increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage. In addition, enrollees must be informed that their plan does not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. No other provision of the Affordable Care Act is affected by these waivers: they only apply to the annual limit policy.

Helping Americans Keep the Coverage They Have and Promoting Transparency | HHS.gov

 

[Bern80]

Possibly the compact is a good idea. We do need some regulation on health insurance companies but it certainly doesn't have to be that different from state to state. I spoke to a friend of mine that worked at Humana. He said that 95% of the state requirements are the same from state to state but the remaining 5% causes a lot of problems. It's also difficult for a company to offer it's product in a new state if they do not offer it in surrounding states since there are so many regional companies that prefer to have the same insurance company for all of it's branches. Then the insurance person(s) in their HR dept does not have to deal with several different companies each offering a number of plans.

In the state I live in now, the Insurance Commission is very strong political so changes are not that easy to make.

And the best way to make the regulations the same in each state is for there to be NO regulation. The best thing you can do to get premium prices to come down and improve society in general is to give people a reason to be more responsible for themselves.

Instead all government knows how to do is tell insurance companies what they have to offer, employers what they offer, and people what they have to purchase. That make things WORSE, not better.

 

[Liability]

What good is a government that cannot micromanage the affairs of its people?

Like, now, in NYC, the City government has decided not only that you can't smoke in bars and restaurants, but they have gone further. Now they say you can't smoke in a park. And no. They aint kidding.

Someday people could look back wistfully at the concept of personal liberty.

The nanny state knows what's good for you and me and everybody in between and outside and everywhere else. I know: for, they not only tell us so, they give directives.

 

[Flopper]

Possibly the compact is a good idea. We do need some regulation on health insurance companies but it certainly doesn't have to be that different from state to state. I spoke to a friend of mine that worked at Humana. He said that 95% of the state requirements are the same from state to state but the remaining 5% causes a lot of problems. It's also difficult for a company to offer it's product in a new state if they do not offer it in surrounding states since there are so many regional companies that prefer to have the same insurance company for all of it's branches. Then the insurance person(s) in their HR dept does not have to deal with several different companies each offering a number of plans.

In the state I live in now, the Insurance Commission is very strong political so changes are not that easy to make.

And the best way to make the regulations the same in each state is for there to be NO regulation. The best thing you can do to get premium prices to come down and improve society in general is to give people a reason to be more responsible for themselves.

Instead all government knows how to do is tell insurance companies what they have to offer, employers what they offer, and people what they have to purchase. That make things WORSE, not better.

Surely you jest.

Most people get there healthcare through their employer. A summary of benefits is provide to employees but usually not the policy nor any contracts between the employer and the insurance company. I have seen the complete policy of my last employer. It was several hundred pages loaded with fine print, medical mumbo jumbo, with liberal sprinkling of legal language. I can say with certainty, very few people including my employer would be able to read that policy and determine it there were serious coverage exclusions or limitation not included in the Summary of Benefits. Employers can contract for insurance plans and employees can sign up for them knowing that the insurance company cannot offer worthless plans or plans that contain language in the policy that unfairly limit claims.
For example, most all states will have rules that require plans be renewable, portability to COBRA, ability to add dependents, etc.. Also state regulations provide protection for the insurance company.

 

[Flopper]

FYI

I you want to know what's in the healthcare law along with a timeline for implementation check out the following. It's in very readable form.

Implementation Timeline - Kaiser Health Reform

 

[uscitizen]

Some would say that the constitution is unconstitutional because fo the ammendments.

 

[Bern80]

Possibly the compact is a good idea. We do need some regulation on health insurance companies but it certainly doesn't have to be that different from state to state. I spoke to a friend of mine that worked at Humana. He said that 95% of the state requirements are the same from state to state but the remaining 5% causes a lot of problems. It's also difficult for a company to offer it's product in a new state if they do not offer it in surrounding states since there are so many regional companies that prefer to have the same insurance company for all of it's branches. Then the insurance person(s) in their HR dept does not have to deal with several different companies each offering a number of plans.

In the state I live in now, the Insurance Commission is very strong political so changes are not that easy to make.

And the best way to make the regulations the same in each state is for there to be NO regulation. The best thing you can do to get premium prices to come down and improve society in general is to give people a reason to be more responsible for themselves.

Instead all government knows how to do is tell insurance companies what they have to offer, employers what they offer, and people what they have to purchase. That make things WORSE, not better.

Surely you jest.

Most people get there healthcare through their employer. A summary of benefits is provide to employees but usually not the policy nor any contracts between the employer and the insurance company. I have seen the complete policy of my last employer. It was several hundred pages loaded with fine print, medical mumbo jumbo, with liberal sprinkling of legal language. I can say with certainty, very few people including my employer would be able to read that policy and determine it there were serious coverage exclusions or limitation not included in the Summary of Benefits. Employers can contract for insurance plans and employees can sign up for them knowing that the insurance company cannot offer worthless plans or plans that contain language in the policy that unfairly limit claims.
For example, most all states will have rules that require plans be renewable, portability to COBRA, ability to add dependents, etc.. Also state regulations provide protection for the insurance company.

I don't jest at all. healthcare is a HUGE expense for an employer. Can you imagine the productivity a company, and growth to the economy and jobs if business wasn't saddled with that expense? But instead government has decided to make the lives of business that much more burdensome by tell them what types of plans they must purchase for their employees. The fact that 700+ business have been granted waivers because the increased burden it will put on them is only more evidence of what a wholly illogical solution to the problem obamacare is.

 

[Bfgrn]

Possibly the compact is a good idea. We do need some regulation on health insurance companies but it certainly doesn't have to be that different from state to state. I spoke to a friend of mine that worked at Humana. He said that 95% of the state requirements are the same from state to state but the remaining 5% causes a lot of problems. It's also difficult for a company to offer it's product in a new state if they do not offer it in surrounding states since there are so many regional companies that prefer to have the same insurance company for all of it's branches. Then the insurance person(s) in their HR dept does not have to deal with several different companies each offering a number of plans.

In the state I live in now, the Insurance Commission is very strong political so changes are not that easy to make.

And the best way to make the regulations the same in each state is for there to be NO regulation. The best thing you can do to get premium prices to come down and improve society in general is to give people a reason to be more responsible for themselves.

Instead all government knows how to do is tell insurance companies what they have to offer, employers what they offer, and people what they have to purchase. That make things WORSE, not better.

Your logic is so flawed it is laughable. Why not get rid of all regulations on food. That way McDonalds could catch rats and grill them and be able to offer it as beef for 50 cents?

 

[Bern80]

Possibly the compact is a good idea. We do need some regulation on health insurance companies but it certainly doesn't have to be that different from state to state. I spoke to a friend of mine that worked at Humana. He said that 95% of the state requirements are the same from state to state but the remaining 5% causes a lot of problems. It's also difficult for a company to offer it's product in a new state if they do not offer it in surrounding states since there are so many regional companies that prefer to have the same insurance company for all of it's branches. Then the insurance person(s) in their HR dept does not have to deal with several different companies each offering a number of plans.

In the state I live in now, the Insurance Commission is very strong political so changes are not that easy to make.

And the best way to make the regulations the same in each state is for there to be NO regulation. The best thing you can do to get premium prices to come down and improve society in general is to give people a reason to be more responsible for themselves.

Instead all government knows how to do is tell insurance companies what they have to offer, employers what they offer, and people what they have to purchase. That make things WORSE, not better.

Your logic is so flawed it is laughable. Why not get rid of all regulations on food. That way McDonalds could catch rats and grill them and be able to offer it as beef for 50 cents?

The more regulated things are, the less responsible it allows people to be. There is nothing flawed in my logic. Being a lib though yours definatly is. Despite the mountains of historical evidence about what happens to societies when their governments try to control too much, you continue to insist that government wipe your nose and ass from cradle to grave.

Te logic is we can improve health care best by taking measures that allow individuals to more easily afford services directly. Obamacare does none of that. By definition more regulation gives consumers less choice and generally raises the cost of goods and services. The problem with you libs is want everything, but no responsibility for yourselves. Get real for two fucking seconds. McD's would serve rat if there were no regulations? Because of course it's in every businesses best interest to treat their customers poorly.

 

[Bfgrn]

And the best way to make the regulations the same in each state is for there to be NO regulation. The best thing you can do to get premium prices to come down and improve society in general is to give people a reason to be more responsible for themselves.

Instead all government knows how to do is tell insurance companies what they have to offer, employers what they offer, and people what they have to purchase. That make things WORSE, not better.

Your logic is so flawed it is laughable. Why not get rid of all regulations on food. That way McDonalds could catch rats and grill them and be able to offer it as beef for 50 cents?

The more regulated things are, the less responsible it allows people to be. There is nothing flawed in my logic. Being a lib though yours definatly is. Despite the mountains of historical evidence about what happens to societies when their governments try to control too much, you continue to insist that government wipe your nose and ass from cradle to grave.

Te logic is we can improve health care best by taking measures that allow individuals to more easily afford services directly. Obamacare does none of that. By definition more regulation gives consumers less choice and generally raises the cost of goods and services. The problem with you libs is want everything, but no responsibility for yourselves. Get real for two fucking seconds. McD's would serve rat if there were no regulations? Because of course it's in every businesses best interest to treat their customers poorly.

So consumer protection is unnecessary, just cartel protection. Insurance cartels should be allowed to continue denying coverage for preexisting conditions, denying payment for expensive life saving treatments, cancel policy holders that are deemed a risk and continue their death panels. Your problem is your Monica Lewinsky urge for the rich and corporate. They are just the good guys that would never take advantage of the people. Because wealth makes you virtuous.

WHY don't you consider some guys we call the founding fathers? Did they regulate corporations? Do you even KNOW???

 

[Bern80]

Your logic is so flawed it is laughable. Why not get rid of all regulations on food. That way McDonalds could catch rats and grill them and be able to offer it as beef for 50 cents?

The more regulated things are, the less responsible it allows people to be. There is nothing flawed in my logic. Being a lib though yours definatly is. Despite the mountains of historical evidence about what happens to societies when their governments try to control too much, you continue to insist that government wipe your nose and ass from cradle to grave.

Te logic is we can improve health care best by taking measures that allow individuals to more easily afford services directly. Obamacare does none of that. By definition more regulation gives consumers less choice and generally raises the cost of goods and services. The problem with you libs is want everything, but no responsibility for yourselves. Get real for two fucking seconds. McD's would serve rat if there were no regulations? Because of course it's in every businesses best interest to treat their customers poorly.

So consumer protection is unnecessary, just cartel protection. Insurance cartels should be allowed to continue denying coverage for preexisting conditions, denying payment for expensive life saving treatments, cancel policy holders that are deemed a risk and continue their death panels. Your problem is your Monica Lewinsky urge for the rich and corporate. They are just the good guys that would never take advantage of the people. Because wealth makes you virtuous.

WHY don't you consider some guys we call the founding fathers? Did they regulate corporations? Do you even KNOW???

I have never claimed ALL regulation is bad. I believe in regulations for example that require businesses to inform people about their products (i.e. our beef is not rat (ridiculous as it would be for McD's to do that in the first place)). As far as health insurance goes however, it has certainly crossed the point where it is doing more harm than good. SOME regulation is necessary. But this notion that a business is going to screw its own customers if government doesn't keep them from doing so, is about as illogical an argument as one can make. Free market principles are what allow prices for goods and services to fall. Concepts like competition and broad spectrum of choices for the consumer. When government regulation starts interferring with the ability for those principles to work in the consumers favor and/or unneccessarily make it more difficult for business to do business, that's when there is too much regulation.

The things you mention an insurance company doing to people without regulation, in an ideal world where BOTH parties (the business and consumer) are responsible, the insurance company would at minimum have to print out the terms of it's policies. If their policy is to dump people for gettng sick or they don't want to accept people with pre-existing conditions, so be it. As long as the potential consumer is made aware of those terms beforehand, they are at least armed with the knowledge to make an informed decision. And if they don't like those terms they can shop another company for insurance.

 

[Sheldon]

Possibly the compact is a good idea. We do need some regulation on health insurance companies but it certainly doesn't have to be that different from state to state. I spoke to a friend of mine that worked at Humana. He said that 95% of the state requirements are the same from state to state but the remaining 5% causes a lot of problems. It's also difficult for a company to offer it's product in a new state if they do not offer it in surrounding states since there are so many regional companies that prefer to have the same insurance company for all of it's branches. Then the insurance person(s) in their HR dept does not have to deal with several different companies each offering a number of plans.

In the state I live in now, the Insurance Commission is very strong political so changes are not that easy to make.

And the best way to make the regulations the same in each state is for there to be NO regulation. The best thing you can do to get premium prices to come down and improve society in general is to give people a reason to be more responsible for themselves.

Instead all government knows how to do is tell insurance companies what they have to offer, employers what they offer, and people what they have to purchase. That make things WORSE, not better.

Surely you jest.

Most people get there healthcare through their employer. A summary of benefits is provide to employees but usually not the policy nor any contracts between the employer and the insurance company. I have seen the complete policy of my last employer. It was several hundred pages loaded with fine print, medical mumbo jumbo, with liberal sprinkling of legal language. I can say with certainty, very few people including my employer would be able to read that policy and determine it there were serious coverage exclusions or limitation not included in the Summary of Benefits. Employers can contract for insurance plans and employees can sign up for them knowing that the insurance company cannot offer worthless plans or plans that contain language in the policy that unfairly limit claims.
For example, most all states will have rules that require plans be renewable, portability to COBRA, ability to add dependents, etc.. Also state regulations provide protection for the insurance company.

Egg-fucking-zackly.

My policy looks like a book.

But I really should take the personal responsibility of knowing how to comprehend a maze of terminology that requires law and medical degrees.

Back in the real world, most people don't have the time or education to decipher the novel of fine-print legalese in their policies. A job, kids, bills, errands, social life. We rely on the government to provide some basic consumer protections, so that insurance companies can't do something like, say, cancel your policy when they find out you get diagnosed with the bird flu.

Damn you, gubmints.

 

[Flopper]

And the best way to make the regulations the same in each state is for there to be NO regulation. The best thing you can do to get premium prices to come down and improve society in general is to give people a reason to be more responsible for themselves.

Instead all government knows how to do is tell insurance companies what they have to offer, employers what they offer, and people what they have to purchase. That make things WORSE, not better.

Surely you jest.

Most people get there healthcare through their employer. A summary of benefits is provide to employees but usually not the policy nor any contracts between the employer and the insurance company. I have seen the complete policy of my last employer. It was several hundred pages loaded with fine print, medical mumbo jumbo, with liberal sprinkling of legal language. I can say with certainty, very few people including my employer would be able to read that policy and determine it there were serious coverage exclusions or limitation not included in the Summary of Benefits. Employers can contract for insurance plans and employees can sign up for them knowing that the insurance company cannot offer worthless plans or plans that contain language in the policy that unfairly limit claims.
For example, most all states will have rules that require plans be renewable, portability to COBRA, ability to add dependents, etc.. Also state regulations provide protection for the insurance company.

I don't jest at all. healthcare is a HUGE expense for an employer. Can you imagine the productivity a company, and growth to the economy and jobs if business wasn't saddled with that expense? But instead government has decided to make the lives of business that much more burdensome by tell them what types of plans they must purchase for their employees. The fact that 700+ business have been granted waivers because the increased burden it will put on them is only more evidence of what a wholly illogical solution to the problem obamacare is.

Your are right about one thing. Healthcare is a huge expense to business. This law significantly reduces that expense. There are a number of problems in the law but increased business expense is not one of them.

The 700 waivers, which affect less than 1% of the policyholders in the country does not indicate any shortcoming in the law nor additional burden on employers. These waivers allow insurance companies to provide policies with low annual caps on spending limits till 2014. In 2014 caps on annual spending limits are not allowed.

These waivers allow insurance companies to continue to provide mini-med policies until 2014. These policies have low annual spending caps, often as low as only a few thousand dollars which make them useless in providing any catastrophic coverage. In addition they have deductibles that make them useless in covering routine care. The administration decide to allow these policies till 2014, feeling that poor quality insurance was better than nothing at all. There is so little benefit in these policies, that the Senate is questioning whether these policies are actually health insurance policies. These policies allow employers to claim they provide health insurance when in reality they provided almost nothing.

The healthcare law is not a burden on businesses but to the contrary it significantly reduces the cost of providing healthcare coverage to employees. For example:

· In 2010 businesses with less than 25 employees and an average annual wage of less than $50,0000 received a tax credit of 35% of the cost to provide health insurance to employees. This tax credit increases to 50% in 2014.

· In 2014 the law creates state-based American Health Benefit Exchanges and Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchanges. Through these exchanges businesses with less than 100 employees will be able to shop for insurance by filing a single form. Cost to employers and employees are reduced by increased competition and credit for Medicaid eligible employees.

· In 2014, to increase competition in the health exchanges, there will be a minimum of two multi-state plans.

· In 2014 businesses that acquire health insurance through the exchanges will be able to use employee vouchers for low-income employees to further reduce their cost of providing health insurance to their employees.

· In 2016, the law permits states to form health care choice compacts and allows insurers to sell policies in any state participating in the compact. This will lower cost to businesses by increasing the competition in the health insurance industry.


Implementation Timeline - Kaiser Health Reform
Tackling Mini-Med Policies - NYTimes.com

 

[jillian]

yeah..I am waiting for the federal government to invent a "fart" tax....You know....Carbon emissions.
Yeah, boopie keeps leaving cryptic messages on here that she is some kind of legal expert.
she provides nothing to support that claim other than she just "says so"...
She has argued that Judge Vinson's ruling is "stupid" and there is no precedent for that ruling.
She ignores the fact that the law has no severability clause. She denies the judge can make such a decision. yet she can provide no evidence no support for her claim.

actually, idiota, i started off trying to explain the status of the law to you and the way cases are construed. you had no interest. you were rude and stupid.

i don't see a lot of upside in wasting time on people like you.

i don't try to teach pigs to talk. it doesn't work and it annoys the pigs.

you aren't smart enough to discuss these issues.

as for the commerce clause, the caselaw makes pretty clear that it's fairly expansive.

the issue of the severability clause is irrelevant because courts will always err in favor of sustaining a law as opposed to being 'activist' and striking one down. therefore, if it is severable, they will sever it, regardless of whether the paragraph is included.... unless it specifically states in the law that it cannot be severed.

that is how it should work. will it work that way? depends on whether kennedy is a hack like scalia and thomas.

thanks for playing. as for whether you believe me or not, i generally don't concern myself with what stupid people like you believe.

 

[Bern80]

Egg-fucking-zackly.

My policy looks like a book.

But I really should take the personal responsibility of knowing how to comprehend a maze of terminology that requires law and medical degrees.

Back in the real world, most people don't have the time or education to decipher the novel of fine-print legalese in their policies. A job, kids, bills, errands, social life. We rely on the government to provide some basic consumer protections, so that insurance companies can't do something like, say, cancel your policy when they find out you get diagnosed with the bird flu.

Damn you, gubmints.

That's your excuse? You don't have time to learn about what you are purchasing? You don't have time to figure out what is going to get paid for should you have a life threatening illness? If you're not going to take time for you, why the fuck should anyone else?

 

[jillian]

That's your excuse? You don't have time to learn about what you are purchasing? You don't have time to figure out what is going to get paid for should you have a life threatening illness? If you're not going to take time for you, why the fuck should anyone else?

when you get your insurance through an employer, how much choice of policies do you think you get?

if you get a choice of two plans,. you're lucky. and then most people choose cost (hmo) versus picking their own out-of-network doctors. (which costs a lot more).

do you work? have you ever had to make real-life decisions about these things?