To me, the entire point is cost control, so I don't really see this as a workable option. I actually worry that if this is upheld in its entirety, we will have the illusion of cost control reform and no one will bother pursuing real reform.
This is probably true, but if it were overturned in its entirety I still don't think real reform will be pursued. It will be like social security where people think too much political capital is at stake in reforming healthcare and no one will want to do anything meaningful.
I don't disagree. I also see a potential upside to the law being affirmed in its entirety - Rs might get off their asses and fight like hell to come up with a viable alternative to replace it.
Perhaps the fact that I can see a potential positive outcome either way explains why I'm struggling to get too wound up about this, LOL. In reality, I should probably be setting my head on fire over the concept of the individual mandate. #lawyerfail
Post by earlgreyhot on Jun 28, 2012 7:41:36 GMT -5
I am feeling Roberts will surprise us and it will be upheld. OR they will just kick the can down the road and say they can't rule until the "tax" is levied.
I don't even know how I want them to rule...whatever gets us to true universal health care.
I think everything will stand but with openings for later rulings (maybe because of the tax issue, or they give a wishy-washy decision like the AZ case.).