" A November Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that by margins ranging from nearly 3 to 1 to more than 4 to 1, Americans do not want to repeal such aspects as: tax credits for small businesses offering health care to employees; closing the doughnut hole to help seniors keep prescription medicine costs down; help for low- and moderate-income Americans to purchase coverage; and a ban on insurance companies denying coverage because of preexisting conditions. Also last month, a McClatchy poll found that 68 percent of Americans want to keep the ability to insure children until age 26, compared with only 29 percent of people who want that aspect repealed."
I don;t think any of that is whats in question. The question is why is the government FORCING this on me
Now, liberal critics are arguing that Judge Hudson should have recused himself because of the financial interest he had in seeing the health care reform law fail.
That potential conflict of interest has some judicial experts asking whether Hudson crossed some ethical guidelines. Judges are required to recuse themselves if they have a [U]direct financial stake in one of the parties to a lawsuit, but are allowed to make their judgments in cases where they have an indirect stake.[/U] Campaign Solutions was not a party to the lawsuit, but they certainly stood to benefit from the Judge Hudson's ruling.
so basically the left has no claim. He has no direct financial stake in the law suite. Although he may have an indirect stake.
what this is really about is the left looking for any scrap "evidence" to try and hang onto this flawed bill. The liberals are going to have a tough time defending this bill
The lefts other problem is, they have 21 more law suites to get through, all will be heard by other judges. If the other 21 judges say the same basic thing. Your argument goes out the window.
But like you say, this will end up before the SCOTUS.
who knows, with the new liberals on the court, you may win....
This and other lawsuits really do not matter much imo. It will make it to the SCOTUS. And as far as the balance of the court with the new judges they are probably more moderate than the ones they replaced. Actually losing Stevens hurt a lot (For moderates and liberals) because he was seen as an important force in helping to sway Kennedy in 5-4 decisions.
Of course it is unconstitutional, but unfortunately if upheld all the ruling will do is kill the individual manadate - not the law. What that means is that young healthy people will not have to buy insurance, so the cost for everyone else will go up. So, bottom line they will keep the stupid law and it will cost us all even more.
The insurance companies supported the bill thinking they were going to get millions of healthy new clients. they will now go bankrupt if the no pre existing conditions stays part of the law.
If common sense is so common how come so few of us have it!