So does having the government force you to buy something you don't want to buy. If they can do it for this, they are now permitted to do it with anything. The precedent has been set.
As it happens, my husband had prostate cancer in 2008, and changed jobs just six months after surgery for it. We both agree that we'd rather deal with the pre-existing condition rigarmarole (such as it was) than a government that can force us to buy something as a condition of simply existing.
This law is not the only way pre-existing condition issues can be addressed.
The Commerce Clause portion of the mandate was struck down, yes. Doesn't matter; the effect is the same. Now the government can force you to do just about anything, in the guise of protecting the public health. Look at what they're already doing in the City of New York.
And that's not even going into the back-breaking expense it is going to be on the states and the country, the impact it's going to have on the quality of care and the fact that it is eventually going to wind up being a single-payer program (and we've seen how well those work in Canada), or any of the other myriad problems I have with the act.
Reply
Reply
This law is not the only way pre-existing condition issues can be addressed.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
And that's not even going into the back-breaking expense it is going to be on the states and the country, the impact it's going to have on the quality of care and the fact that it is eventually going to wind up being a single-payer program (and we've seen how well those work in Canada), or any of the other myriad problems I have with the act.
Reply
Leave a comment