Subscribe to Money Morning get daily headlines subscribe now! Money Morning Private Briefing today's private briefing Access Your Profit Alerts

Healthcare Mandate Question: Should the U.S. Government Require Everyone To Buy Health Insurance?

In a year of sweeping overhauls in healthcare, financial reform and tax policies, critics of U.S. President Barack Obama's proposals have called them ineffective, shortsighted and misinformed.

This week, in a case that will likely go all the way to the Supreme Court, a federal District Court judge in Virginia added the term "unconstitutional" to that pointed list.

The provision in question is part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, the U.S. healthcare reform initiative signed into law in March. It requires all Americans, unless exempted for religious or other reasons, to carry health insurance – or to pay a penalty for failing to do so. 

So far, opponents have filed two-dozen lawsuits challenging the health insurance mandate's constitutionality.

One of those cases – filed by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II – was decided this week. Plaintiffs argued that making people get health insurance coverage simply because they exist falls outside the limits of congressional power granted by the Commerce Clause, which defines how Congress can regulate commercial activity. 

Federal Judge Henry E. Hudson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia agreed with the plaintiffs. In a 42-page opinion released Monday, Judge Hudson said the requirement went "beyond the historical reach" of Supreme Court cases that define Congress' role in interstate economic markets, and "would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers." 

Judge Hudson, the third District Court judge to render a decision on the healthcare law, was the first to rule in the plaintiffs' favor. He said the law went beyond effective healthcare regulation and best business practices, and touched upon citizens' rights.

"At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance – or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage – it's about an individual's right to choose to participate," wrote Judge Hudson.

Or, as Judge Hudson said more informally at an October hearing, it's like giving Congress the ability to force Americans "to buy an automobile, to join a gym, [or] to eat asparagus."

For the defense, U.S. Justice Department lawyers argued that individuals who opt out of coverage are instead making a promise to pay for medical costs later, out of their own pocket. That promise makes them part of "commerce."

And since those without insurance can't guarantee they won't need medical care while uninsured, any unpaid healthcare costs they incur would be dumped on governments, medical facilities and insured Americans.

These two realities can't help but impact the healthcare industry – meaning the coverage decision should be regulated, the Justice Department lawyers said.

Advocates of the healthcare law also argue that changing the mandatory insurance requirement is playing with fire.  They fear if courts do not uphold the mandate, insurance companies will retain too much power – a problem that warranted a healthcare overhaul to begin with.

"We think [this decision] is wrong on the merits and bad for people's health," said Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America NOW. "If his decision is upheld, it would give the green light for insurance companies to deny people care based on pre-existing conditions. Putting insurance companies back in charge of our healthcare is the wrong way to go."

This brings us to next week's Money Morning "Question of the Week:" Should the U.S. government require everyone to buy health insurance? Is it constitutional, or does it extend Congress' authority too far over Americans' decision-making? Would it truly help "fix" the U.S. healthcare system, or is it an abuse of government power? 

Send your answers to We want to hear from you!

[Editor's Note: Is there a topic you want to see covered as a "Question of the Week" feature? Then let us know by e-mailing Money Morning at Make sure to reference "question of the week suggestion" in the subject line.

We reserve the right to edit responses for length, grammar and clarity.

Thanks to everyone who took the time to participate – via e-mail or by posting their comments directly on the Money Morning Web site.]

News and Related Story Links:

Join the conversation. Click here to jump to comments…

  1. johnbaudoin | December 15, 2010

    I have posted this already here before You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price check search online for "Wise Health Insurance" If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and believe me you are not going to loose anything!

  2. rodney | December 15, 2010

    First of all just the word government means involvement. When a government is not involved thats anarcy…. so stop asking this frame of question. Be more intelligent. Dont provoke me…. If a investment requires something of us. If your job require something of us. CERTAINLY (your) government can…. But!!! its role is about protecting the people from danger (and Im not just talking about terrorist only) But Im also adding political obsrtuctionist and those of our leadership who mislead the nation of the Americas with false war cries and ripping our taxes off in the name of (hiding a lie)….. Bush lead this country lost for 8yrs. It will take at least 6 to see it fixed. Does anybody realize we have rapped by the past administration? They messed up everything. And now they want to get paid for it. I say "hell no!!!" We need to stand with the current administration to fix whats broke. !!!!! And it wont be cute as it gets corrected either…. Our society should be healthy. Its better than being broke behind bullets and bombs all the time. I see no harm in having a our country covered by a healthcare plan thats inclusive not exclusive. Lets become informed about our country not simplr our political affiliations… Pre existing conditions was in the way for so many who needed insurance. Well now its not. THAT MY GOOD FRIEND IS REAL POSITIVE PROGRESS. Lets stay on the good foot and keep our healing going. Lets heal the economy and our jobless rates. Lets have a reality check about what IS good for everybody. Lets not be tricked by politics and lets give support for the administration that is governing us abck to physical and economic health. We ahve some serious changes to make in this country. So lets march forward !!!!! We can never get the most out of the moment trying to view life witha rear view mirror mentality….

  3. Mark Tichenor | December 15, 2010

    No. Government's should not force medical coverage. The government should NOT support the current process and requirements that produce "doctors". The government should reconstruct its framework of support to assist and enable the "free market" to produce ten times (10X) the quantity of "doctors" that compete for the consumer's dollar. This may require the redefinition of "doctors" and levels of expertise. The cost of producing "doctors" should be driven down by the market and so assisted by the government. This should be the goal. Where ever there is a Chiropractor and a oriental restaurant in a plaza, there should be a market driven "doctor" where the local residents can have access and pay in cash. The pricing must be market driven by volume. I suspect a realistic educational program and process can be designed by the market place to build this infrastructure and I suspect that our youth, who will enter the "university level" educational system will react in droves for such a career. I'm not suggesting the system will support payment with "chickens" but envision a career where a "doctor" that NOW EXISTS in volume has a chance to net 100 to 150k. Drive those educational cost down. Do what it takes and you will solve the greatest problem – not enough "doctors". Yes, many other adjustments will also have to be made. I'll help you figure that out if you need me.

  4. Darrell Coyle | December 15, 2010

    The bill is unconstitutional and should never have been passed! You cannot require it.I cannot believe that a group of lawyers could even consider it! Total ignorance of law!

  5. carl | December 16, 2010

    NO,the govt. should print money &fight wars and get out of our life

  6. richard | December 17, 2010

    govt. is to big now, don't need govt. in the health business. I'm not a lawer or expert on the constitution of this USA, but the way I understand it, no wheres does it states that the the govt. has the right to make you purchase health insurance. richard. have a nice day

  7. Bill | December 17, 2010

    They have been making me buy auto insurance for years now and you people sure the hell haven't said anything about that. I will use the health insurance more then the car insurance.
    The health insurance is to my advantage whereas the auto insurance is in the Insurance companies best interest. Should the insurance companies prevail and make boat loads of money? Sounds like more "Republican Propaganda" to me. You make the call.

  8. robert hunter | December 18, 2010

    as saiid…….no no no …………how can illigal people pay for insurance…..

  9. CP | December 18, 2010

    Nothing less than a blank check for insurance companies and those "invested" in them. This will not reduce costs, as there will be no incentive to do so. Common sense.

  10. L0tt0 | December 18, 2010

    Come on people, get your head out of your butts. Can the government require us to do anything? Of course it can, try NOT paying into Social Security. Social Security is insurance. I didn't say it was run right, or that it is perfect, just that we have been forced to pay into it all my life. Now, mandated health insurance may be a bad idea, but unconstitutional? No more than Social Security. The advantage of the health insurance mandate is we get to choose a policy that is not managed by the government. The politicians shouldn't be able to dip into my health insurance fund for money to pay other bills, like that have with the Social Security Trust Fund.

    The health insurance industry has been running the medical community for too long. They don't care who has to pay for the health care of those not insured. The uninsured that can pay are no problem, it is those that can not afford health care that are jamming the emergency rooms in hospitals with illness that could be taken care of easily in a Doctor's office. Think about it.

  11. Steve | December 18, 2010

    The medical delivery system in this country as it now exists is one of the most ineffective and counterproductive in the free world. It is great if you are super rich or super poor and your medical needs can be met with no financial risk to your net worth. If you are middle class or lower class economically, then you must live in constant fear of getting sick. This rubbish about capitalism and the free market forces at work is the best way to go is total nonsense! I hear people talk about how we have the best medical care in the world and that people come from all over the world to get the best treatment available here,BUT that is not the treatment the average American gets. People without insurance are freeloaders. If they get sick they want other people to pick up the tab. Having a system of affordable health insurance that is affordable to all and is mandantory for all is the only immediate way for the country to get skyrocketing costs under control. The preamble to the constitution provides for the legality of this issue! The gop and tea party leadership is doing everything in their power to ensure that the middle class will be eradicated from this country and we will become a country of haves and havenots. That is the reason that they are so vehemantly opposed to the concepts of this legislation. Granted it is not perfect, but we must start somewhere. The free market has shown that it is totally and competely unable and unwilling to meet these problems head on and to control medical delivery costs and concerns.

  12. Michigan | December 18, 2010

    No. Too much government involvement.

  13. Donald | December 18, 2010

    I am constantly amazed at the failure of our great "Christian" nation to love our neighbor. We are a nation of self serving hypocrites, doing the best for our own families and not bothering with the widows, orphans, and those who didn't have such a great start in life or who have experienced some bad luck. We run screaming and shouting at the first mention of socialized health care, yet we turn a blind eye to the socialized killing machine that is our defense sector. Innocent civilians across the middle east are dying so that we can make a buck. Companies and individuals alike are benefiting from this government sponsored endorsement and we in the meantime sit on our hands, not wanting to upset the status quo.

    What about the rich auto industry, banks, mortgage companies, insurance sector and many others all bailed out(socialized) by us. Have they made the changes and reforms necessary to ensure it won't happen again… have they heck. Our rich farmers receive huge state and federal subsidies(more socialism) so that we can have our cheap food and cotton prices here and then we go and dump our excess cotton harvests on the African markets and deflate their prices so that their poor unsubsidized farmers struggle to make a decent living and so escape the poverty trap. We are culpable in the continuing failure of democracy and enterprise in other parts of the world if we can't see the part we play by our lack of conscience. Not enough people are prepared to make the lifestyle sacrifices so that the world is a more balanced place. We are greedy and bloated- just have a look around the next time you're in a mall- it's disgusting, consumerism and avarice manifest,we're always wanting more and inevitably the spiral down will continue. So do we need a form of socialized health care. You bet we do. And those conservatives who scream socialism is of the devil- just pay a bit closer attention to their voting records and follow the government(socialized) money trail back to their states and see how hypocritical they really are.

  14. dr.j | December 18, 2010

    People trying to survive on 700-800 dollars on month from cheap jobs have no extra money whatsoever to purchase health insurance. Where will the money come from to buy the insurance? Will it fall out of the sky, or will the FED send them stimulus money to pay for it? Come on politicians. Where are you brains? No wonder our country is going down the tubes.

  15. Charles in Illinois | December 18, 2010

    The bill was poorly written – and, unfortunately, the mandate to purchase private insurance is probably unconstitutional. Instead, the bill should have included a tax – analogous to the FICA tax for Social Security – to provide everyone a baseline health insurance administered by a new public agency. Of course this would be socialized medicine. But, it would drastically cut the horde of uninsured clogging our emergency rooms – and might even encourage preventive medicine for some of these folks to keep them in better health and cut their need for sick care and its high costs. The GOP have themselves to thank for this socialized medicine mess. The EMTALA (Emergency Medical Trauma and Active Labor Act of 1986 – Ronald Reagan was President) basically says an emergency room (ER) has to treat anyone that comes in and demands treatment – whether or not they have insurance or other means of paying the bill. So, the hospital or ER is required to pick up the tab for treating the uninsured – whether the patient is indigent or merely irresponsible – while you, I and other insured folk pay for it in higher costs for OUR health insurance. Some may elect to purchase private health insurance for extended coverage (so-called 'Cadillac policy' coverage). This should be allowed. However, very clearly, the loving Christian course is to provide basic healthcare coverage for everyone – and education to help us use it wisely.

  16. Alex Moll | December 18, 2010

    " Should the U.S. government require everyone to buy health insurance? Yes
    Is it constitutional, or does it extend Congress' authority too far over Americans' decision-making? Would it truly help "fix" the U.S. healthcare system, or is it an abuse of government power? 
    Let's face it, the US needs to do something. It's current 'system' or lack thereof costs more than in any other developed country and yet provides the population with the worst health outcomes overall – higher infant mortality and shorter cancer survivals, for instance. In both economic and humanitarian terms it is a disaster.
    Let your constitutionally elected government do it's job, or let the greedy & unscrupulous people who run the current 'health care' business manipulate you back into the position where they add financial insult to your medical injuries: it's your choice, America.
    Those of us fortunate enough to live in countries where a very modest obligatory payment by the entire population provides ensures excellent medical coverage, cradle to (later than you) grave, all hope that you make the wise decision and join us!

  17. Patriot | December 18, 2010

    It's a really sad fact that some citizens are actually arguing in favor of expanding this government's power. Even arguing that because other worthless endeavors were somehow steamrolled over America that this last one is somehow OK…. None of the previous schemes has worked out but these naive folks think one more program will correct the mess. Name one gov't program that is worthy of praise. You can't legislate a duty for citizens to buy a third person's product or service. Doesn't matter what your goals are – it's just freaking unacceptable. And if that means we wake up to the reality that we were scammed into the SS & medicare programs, that's beautiful too. While I feel for your issues, the gov't is unwilling and unable to look after you. Let's at least not destroy the ideals that our Founding Fathers struggled to create. It could still be a great nation if we stop these cretins. (Nationalize the Fed.)

  18. gary | December 18, 2010

    The entire debate needs to be centered on one aspect…control tort laws. Frivilous expensive lawsuits are the source of a major percentage of the costs, and the fears of suits force unneccesary expense and caution. How sleaze bag lawyers can ruin a free market economy and no one point the finger of blame is beyond me. If they rule the mandantory insurance as unconstitutional, I will be looking forward to an accident with an uninsured motorist, which requiring his mandantory insurance would be unconstituional as well. The states can require mandantory coverage for car insurance, why can't they for health insurance and take it out of the hands of the federal govt. It will be funny watching them haul sick people from more progressive states to more backward states because they are not citizens of the state and therefore are not required to carry health insurance. When they visit and get sick they get a ticket and sent home to their "freedom'.

  19. Ged W Randall | December 18, 2010

    I feel that there are other ways of getting people to pay into health insurance. The government should have ways to give incentives to people to get insurance, but still leave it to the people to choose whether or not they want insurance. For instance, let the government pay 50% of your deductible, or let that 50% be deducted from your gross earnings on you income tax with no restrictions. There are lots of other ways to give incentives to get health insurance, and not mandate it.

  20. Ernest Cobb | December 18, 2010

    Those who believe insurance companies are evil are stupid. Or maybe their agenda is really what they are selling.

  21. Dave R. | December 18, 2010

    Most of the preceding comments evidence a lack of knowledge of our Constitution and the debates over the meaning its provisions and the powers granted the federal government under the Constitution if enacted. Our Constitution when ratified set up a republican form of government having limited powers, after much discussion and debate, and after consideration of the despotic governments of other [European] nations. I recommend those commentators who wrote in support of the HC law read our Constitution, particularly the powers granted to Congress, the Bill of Rights [first ten amendments] and the Federalist Papers, then re-consider their earlier expressed positions. If arguments recently presented to the court by the federal government on behalf of the government are upheld on appeal and the HC legislation is not repealed by a subsequent Congress, there is nothing that cannot be regulated [controlled] by the federal government, for in the ultimate analysis everything that every living thing does or does not do affects our environment and our commerce, and arguably likewise for that of the entire world, our galaxy and the universe. Note that basic human body functions consume resources and affect the environment, and thus commerce. Why do many now think that the founders of our nation were so ignorant of these facts, as were our citizens and judges for over 150 years [until FDR or perhaps T. Roosevelt or W. Wilson before FDR], and if they were not so ignorant they would have supported government mandated health care insurance for all citizens? So called "Progress" may be good intentioned but is a recipe for disaster when not implemented consistent with the fundamentals on which a nation is founded, just as is true when the fundamentals of economics or finance are ignored or openly rejected. Failure to adhere to those fundamentals has given rise to many of the great problems our nation is now facing. If our nation wants a federally mandated national health care system, then our nation should first amend the Constitution to clearly give Congress power to enact same. And the people at large and the legislators of our states should then give serious consideration to the extreme degree of power and control they would be handing to the federal government if such an amendment would be ratified and become part of our Constitution. Also, why cannot any person simply formally opt out and by so doing thereafter be exempted from taxpayer funded medical treatment? And who are those religious groups who are exempted from the new HC law? Why cannot anyone claim he or she is against the government mandate simply on the basis of personal conviction? Why do they first have to be determined to be a member of some "approved-for-exemption" religious sect that is opposed to such government mandated HC insurance programs? And why has the government already granted so many exemptions to various groups, most of which appear to be supporters of the current Washington power brokers? These exemptions are evidence of serious flaws in the new HC scheme as well as evidence of the corruption that has permeated our nation's policy makers, judges and enforcers.

  22. George | December 18, 2010

    No, the the government should not require citizens to buy health insurance. That is a personal decision.

    The federal government should focus tax revenue on national defense, managing foreign relations, and sound money; otherwise stay out of the life of citizens.

    Yes, the government should increase competition among health insurance providers, health service providers, and encourage transparency on health service provider prices.

    Unsound money, unsecured borders, presence of millions of illegal aliens, +$1 trillion annual operating deficit, and +$13 trillion national debt proves federal executive branch and congress is not compete to do much!!

  23. Gary Semlak | December 18, 2010

    I have Market-based idea for solving this problem and save tax payers a bundle: Why not make it legal for hospitals to refuse treatment to anyone uninsured or require them to sign a contract to pay for services before they are allowed entry, no matter how ill they are. (In my younger days that's how it was.) Some people would die–but what the heck–it's cheaper to bury people than to restore them to health.

    People who refuse to buy insurance under today's system are being subsidized by those who do. Even Adam Smith was hostile to subsidies of any kind. These are the same people who sneer at poverty-stricken people who use food stamps to survive.

  24. navet | December 18, 2010

    The best way to lower the cost of healthcare is to require that everyone have insurance and put everyone in the same large risk pool. Requiring insurance for healthcare is like requiring insurance if you own a car. If you have a body, you must insure it, all for the simple reason that if you don't insure yourself, we will be forced to pay for your inevitable medical costs. Hardly unconstitutional. Let it play itself out in the courts. Ultimately we will have single payor national health insurance for all citizens. Done deal, just a matter of time.

  25. Kristin | December 18, 2010

    1. Insurance does not pay for care, it offers substandard care, refuses the best treatment options and does little to prevent disease.

    2. Forcing Americans to buy pathetic health insurance is unconstitutional.

    3. I don't think we should pay for everyone's health care. Why should the public health care system cover someone who is diabetic and weighs 300 pounds from self induced sugar addiction and gluttony?

    I had health insurance and it never covered a thing. I had to pay for what I wanted and needed on my own. I had to self diagnosis my celiac disease, hemochromatosis, and heavy metal poisoning. I joined the Life Extension Foundation and ran my own blood work, ran my own celiac test at and my heavy metal, and other tests on my husbands acccount at

  26. Joyous | December 18, 2010

    It's like universal health care, only a little more expensive. If the person doesn't want it, its okay, but they need to pay up front for services or not get any. Most indigent people are already taken care of with Medicaid and most retired people are covered by employment insurance or medicare, so compare what work offers and the cost and what the govt offfers and the cost and decide. Personally, I don't like the govt running the nations health care, so this seems like a better deal.

  27. Barry Budd | December 18, 2010

    As a citizen of both the UK and Australia together with holding very pro-US feelings, I was amazed when discussing US health care with US citizens on holiday in New Zealand, at their depth of worry over being sick. I cannot understand how any great country cannot have universal health care. By what right does any country have to deny medical care to many (most) of its citizens. A government funded (via subscription by all) health system is a necessity, commercially funded health care is driven by the profit motive, so cannot be relied on to care solely for the poor and disadvantaged sick. Like many others, I am totally at a loss to understand why the interests of very well funded lobby groups should be considered more important than those of ordinary Americans.

  28. Skeptic | December 18, 2010

    If people choose to opt out of insurance, then they should receive no treatment whatsoever without their cash payment. They should be forced to sign a contract stating that they understand that they will be refused treatment unless they offer payment. If they want no insurance payment, then I don't want to have to pay a dime for their illnesses , directly or indirectly.

  29. Jim | December 20, 2010

    No! People compare this issue with the car insurance mandate, But consider that states require a car owner to only insure for PL (public Liability) & PD (property damage) that covers other persons you may hit. But States do not require you the car owner/Driver to cover collision damage to your own vehicle.

    Therefore mandatory personal health care insurance is not a paralel to required vehicle insurance…

  30. Antony | December 20, 2010

    No. Insurance based health care is the problem. It places a huge administrative cost on top of a medical bill. It is like a large tax.

  31. Edward | December 20, 2010

    The consumer does have a choice. Select the one you prefer:
    1) Select the government health insurance program, and let paternalistic, bureaucrats, manage it for you.
    2) Select private insureres with monopolistic knowledge and control of the contracts that have their self interest at heart rip you off!

    Note: Keep an eye on the politicians that want to lay the ground for when they leave Washingto.

  32. Henry Vaananen | December 21, 2010

    Being Canadian, we all have Health Coverage, we pay small amount annually through our employment, or taxes, it is very small amount. In Canada everybody is covered.
    I believe, the U.S. have delayed for 20-30 years to have the Health Coverage.
    In Canadaa we believe everybody have to have coverage, rich, and poor, without asking
    what is the reason for people to be poor. I have been watching CNBC for many years, and it is pretty incredible, that there is very little regard to the people who have no coverage, and could be banckrupt if major inllnes happens. Cheers Henry Vaananen

  33. Dustin D | December 26, 2010

    You're paying for your own grave guys.. They're gonna use your money to force you even more..So keep your money to protect yourself later!! Don't even let them touch it..

  34. Gary Orr | December 27, 2010


  35. Harley Teel | December 27, 2010

    I see you have some liberal socialist readers. The government has no right to force people to purchase anything. I feel the same way about FEMA and forced flood insurance for mortgages. If we lose what we have from not wanting insurance, then let us suffer the consequences and no bailout.
    Back to healthcare. A huge number of the un-insured are entitlement dependent because they were raised that way. Have babies and get a bigger check. Illegal mexicans are still treated and rack up bills that are never paid. Fraudulant billing and over-charging add to healthcare costs. There are dozens of reasons healthcare is not affordable but it should not be mandated that everyone be foreced tod by the insurance. That is not a solution.

  36. Jean | December 27, 2010

    The health care plan should have included a public option. Unfortunately, the naysayers prevailed. Who is to take care of, (pay for) the ill and injured who have chosen not to have medical insurance? Hospitals are mandated, as they should be, to provide care. Someone pays for those who, by choice or necessity, toss their medical bills into the trash. We seem to not object, overmuch, about the legal requirement to carry car insurance. You can argue that the reason is that your actions can cause hardship for others and that justifies the requirement. Medical problems can also cause problems for others, particularly those who are able to pay their bills. The unpaid charges of the uninsured are passed on to those who struggle to pay perhaps due to a sense of moral obligation. Do you want to deny services to those who cannot afford them? Do you really want to see anyone, child or not, go without care? The US has the costliest medical care in the world and yet ranks between Costa Rica and Cuba in results. Do I want the fat cat insurance companies to rake in even more money? No. A public option was the answer, putting some brakes on the spiraling costs, just as Medicare does. As usual the rich would rather buy $500 sweaters, ultra expensive wine, yachts and vacation homes than to see the least wealthy among us have the basic necessities of life, which includes access to medical care.

  37. Pablo, Palm Coast, FL | December 27, 2010

    Requiring people to buy healthcare insurance is one more refinement
    in the near-perfect POLICE STATE already in place. Every new
    law/administrative fiat that removes or further limits individual
    freedom of choice is another refinement in government's
    intentional enslavement process. Docile acceptance of what
    our inept, representatives in Washington allow or encourage
    is testimony to gross ignorance of our populace —
    or, put another way, testimony to its sheer, unadulterated stupidity.

  38. gordan finch | December 28, 2010

    Forcing the public to buy health Insurance from the most corrupt fraudulent sectors of society, the Insurers, Banksters, Financial Fraudsters, the like of which bust America and bank,rupted millions of its Citizens. Example Zurich Financial Services owner of AIG, part of Allied Zurich and Zurich Allied, the ultimate owner. Would be like having a gun stuck in your face by these gangsters.

    Possible and clearly a reaction by the US Government to get AIG to pay of its dept sorry its Bailout all several Hundred $Billions owed,mmm.

  39. James Cuevas | December 28, 2010

    In a way, yes it would be nice for all americans to have some sort of health insurance to protect themselves and their spouse and children when the need arises. BUT right now with the persentage of poverty in the USA being so high it's immposible for these unfortunate persons or familys to pay for insurance. When they can barely scratch up enough monies to put food on the tables for themselves and their children. No I totally disagree with a law that will make every american buy insurance. THEN the goverment is not a goverment anymore It becomes a dictataship (you do this or else) Which in turn can bring a revolution in the USA. I myself wouldn't mind if some of my taxes help other unfortunate people. Because that's what's it's all about. I lived that life once and I know how bad it is. I even remember standing in a bread line with my mom waiting our turn to get a handout. I was 2 years old.

  40. peter | January 1, 2012

    welcome to the united communist states of america if the supreme court does not repal the amendment I am leaving the country

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Some HTML is OK