Is anybody here going to be extremely upset if the SCOTUS axes the mandate and only the mandate?

[bluestateguy]

If that is all the Court nixes, I am not going to lose sleep over that. A new book by two political scientists has come to the conclusion that the mandate is a) not very enforceable anyway, b) only applicable to a small number of people and c) not a central part of this law anyway. Lawrence O'Donnell had one of the authors on his show recently to make this case.

If the Court kills anything else in the bill or the whole thing, that is obviously different, and bad.

[JoePhilly]

1. If that's all that goes, I'm fine.

There are other ways to deal with the aspects that the mandate focuses on.

[Vincardog]

2. The Mandate is the only thing I have a problem with.

[elleng]

3. Not I. Its unenforceable anyway.

[ZombieHorde]

4. I would not be extremely upset. I'll find something else to get outraged over. nt

[snot]

6. +1

[snot]

5. Thank you. I personally would be relieved.

I want single payer, or failing that, public option, or failing that, almost anything . . .

but I do NOT like the precedent that I feel this mandate might be setting – of gov't forcing us to buy stuff from essentially unregulated corps. It is NOT the same, to me, as a tax.

[madrchsod]

7. what about social security and medicare?

these are mandates if one works for an employer.


if scalia has his way he`ll kill both programs.

[bluestateguy]

8. Not at issue here

If the bill had contained an employer mandate as Hillarycare did back in 1993, there would not be a constitutional problem. The government imposes all kinds of unfunded costs upon businesses in the US.

And SS and Medicare are government programs, not private services or products.

[HopeHoops]

9. No. The provision that allows my daughters to stay on our coverage until 25 is most important.

It would cost a SHITLOAD for them to get another plan.

[pa28]

10. No. I think it's going to be struck down and possibly on a unanimous decision.

I'm perfectly fine with that because the mandate is a Republican idea at heart. I never liked it.

Unfortunately this court is so partisan I suspect they'll try to shoot down other parts of the law by association. That's what I'm worried about.

[Ruby the Liberal]

11. The odious mandate is there to offset

these vultures not being able to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions (even though they can charge whatever the fuck they want).

I think we will all see unimaginable premium increases if that is determined to be severable.

[Gormy Cuss]

12. That's the fear I hear repeatedly, that insurers will use it as an excuse to jack up premiums.

If they do that it will turn more people against Obama just in time for the election.
However, I hope that it would also pave the way for the Dems and Obama administration to reintroduce a strong public option.

[Ruby the Liberal]

13. And how many will go without care

or file medical bankruptcy in the time it takes that sausage to be made.

Jut more faceless statistics for the collective campaign trails.

[mmonk]

14. Yes. Not because I like it or the ADA.

But because it might lay down the parameters of which Vermont can attempt their plan. Once Vermont gets the go ahead, then I will be hopeful of a system change.

[Raine]

15. Actually that's what I hoping for, I would be pleased. nt