NYT article today:
They have changed their stance because it gives them a loophole to avoid some of the pending lawsuits against it - if it's a tax instead of a fine, it can't be challenged until AFTER someone has it levied against them (meaning 2014). In the meantime, this could end up altering the interpretation of the commerce clause and screw up a LOT of standing practices that are actually good for consumers. Still think this thing was a good idea?
Answer by LoriKeet at 6:20 PM on Jul. 18, 2010
Answer by nicolemstacy at 4:37 PM on Jul. 18, 2010
Answer by mancosmomma at 5:47 PM on Jul. 18, 2010
It didn't take them long to fess up once the bill was passed to begin to let the "cat out of the bag" ever so slowly. This is just the first of many things to be "reworded" but it was their intention all the time. First, pre-existing conditions are covered but boy will the premiums cost you, then, fed. funding of abortion (weren't going to do that - no sir) now the penalty for not having insurance isn't a penalty at all - its a tax! No kidding!!!!!!!!! Wonder what is next.
Answer by jesse123456 at 7:43 PM on Jul. 18, 2010
Answer by dullscissors at 5:03 PM on Jul. 18, 2010
Answer by jewjewbee at 5:34 PM on Jul. 18, 2010
Answer by Carpy at 5:35 PM on Jul. 18, 2010
Answer by Crissy1213 at 10:22 PM on Jul. 18, 2010
Answer by lovinangels at 10:41 PM on Jul. 18, 2010
Answer by Iamgr8teful at 11:40 PM on Jul. 18, 2010
Featured Posts in All Groups