Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
I dare someone to make this a black and white issue. Because you have respected Georgetown Law professors saying its a VERY grey area, to the extent that the Supreme Court could force the Democrats to ratify it, and Erwin Chemernisky, another highly respected constitutional lawyer saying it is constitutional.
|
This is a black and white issue. Your quote included the phrase "force to purchase" - that's not what this is.
The government requires a hospital to treat an uninsured patients.
The paying customers reimburse the hospital for these uninsured patients.
Some of the uninsured patients have the money but are gaming the system.
Really, the government is mandating that the large risk-averse population subsidize the poor, alien and the risky. This bill efforts to take "and the risky" out of the subsidized group.
I do agree with the constitutional argument, but the case to be made is that it is unconstitutional for the system force patients to pay for care other than their own - one I support in the abstract but oppose in reality.