Critical Day in Supreme Court Health Care Hearings

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

A person carries an American flag while marching in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2012 in Washington, DC. (Getty) A person carries an American flag while marching in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. (Getty)

Today is the day that the Supreme Court hears arguments about the "individual mandate."  Sara Rosenbaum, Harold and Jane Hirsh Professor of Health Policy at George Washington University, discusses what we learned yesterday and what's expected in today's hearings.


Sara Rosenbaum

Comments [77]

dr king

gary from queens posited this hypothetical:

"What could happen if this law is not overturned by the court or rescinded by Congress? One day, a homeless man will wander accross state lines and die from exposure because he was denied shelter. The federal government will enact a law that requires all states to provide life saving shelter to those who need it."

Actually, gary, hospitals--where this man would go if he was dying of exposure--are already required to provide him treatment, even if he's homeless and cannot pay for it. It is called the EMTALA law (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act), and it is the reason no person is turned away from an Emergency Room just because he cannot pay for care.

When the law was signed, no crazy Republicans screamed and said it was a slippery slope that would end up in a new law that required all grocery stores to feed a hungry man broccoli even if he could not pay for it...

Mar. 30 2012 08:39 PM
Calls'em from Here, there & everywhere

The Supreme Court will overturn 0bamaCare in it's entirety since there is no severability clause in the law; and Justice Kagan will be impeached for her participation in the trial by the new Super Majority in the Senate in 2013. Kagan helped draft the government's case before she was a Justice and therefore has one of the most profound conflicts of interests ever held by any federal justice, let alone one on the Supreme Court. Leftists have no shame, despite their guilt.

Mar. 29 2012 03:14 PM
amalgam from NYC by day, NJ by night

On the car insurance analogy:

The way I understand the situation is that each individual state, not the Federal govt., determines that people need to purchase car insurance. The argument that the ACA opponents (States Attorneys General) are making - apart from the fact that you must have a care to purchase car insurance - is that under Federalism (think: "state's rights"), it's fine for a state to require insurance purchase but it's not acceptable for the Federal govt. to do so because it's over-stepping it's "enumerated" responsibilities.

That's essentially what Justice Kennedy was after in his line of questioning: Isn't the federal mandate essentially a new commerce not enumerated by the Constitution?

I don't agree with that line of questioning or thought (those in opposition to the ACA), but that's their argument.

Mar. 28 2012 10:02 AM

We're legally required to buy car insurance from Private providers...and we can drive without it...but if caught we're fined. I cant buy a car without it, I cant keep my NYS plates if I drop it (but I can hold them illegally)

So why cant we be made to buy health insurance?

Mar. 27 2012 05:52 PM
amalgam from NYC by day, NJ by night

Conservatives seek to repeal the ACA; what do they say they will replace it with?

Oh yes, per Sen. McConnell they won't:

"But he doesn’t favor comprehensive legislation to replace it. 'We would want to more modestly approach this with more incremental fixes,' he told me. 'Not a massive Republican alternative.'"

As the most crippling problem facing the United States ECONOMY, society and future growth is, by all accounts, the BROKEN health care system and conservatives want the status quo with slight modifications. This is the case even though drastic changes are required.

Bully for you and your broken health care system, Republicans! At least Obama was willing risk his entire career and legacy on helping others, helping our society, whereas McConnell et al. literally chose ONLY to tear the President down from day one with no alternative. Sad, broken and nihilistic the Republican (conservative) strategy...

Mar. 27 2012 05:15 PM
resident alien from Williamsburg

@ gary, the dummy ;-)

i forgot, it's all about choice!
those damn' cancer patients choosing to get leukemia.
those damn' hospice residents deciding to die!

i had to pay my vet $200 to dispose of my cats body...damn'you big government!
may the corpses of the homeless rott in the streets....not with my hard earned money! i for myself decide to never get sick & never die!

Mar. 27 2012 12:18 PM
KAB from NJ

How does the healthcare mandate differ from compulsory payment of federal Social Security and Medicare taxes?

Mar. 27 2012 11:58 AM
Rick from Long Beach

Listening to your guests, I am hoping that the Supreme Court strikes down the mandate and that a new, Democratic congress, passes universal health care (even at a limited level with private "excess" coverage) using Medicare as a basis.
Rick in Long Beach

Mar. 27 2012 11:57 AM
carl from Lindenhurst

An argument that some folks who are apposed to the so call "Mandate" say that it's unconstitutional to force individuals to purchase a product. The Supreme Court in the Citizens United case has ruled that corporations are Constitutionally individuals. Do these same people think that it's unconstitutional for the government to require corporations to purchase things?

If so, then they should object to things like the FAA requiring airlines to outfit planes with things like Navigation equipment or oxygen masks.

Mar. 27 2012 11:52 AM
resident alien from Williamsburg

the whole concept of insurance is to spread the risk and potentially catastrophic consequences & cost, over time & over as many people as possible to make it manageable & affordable. the broader the base, the cheaper the cost! ideally, that would be a single payer system. but that seems to sound too much like communism for the anti government movement

so, unless you are a super "healthy" social darwinist and think only cancer patients should buy "cancer insurance" or you are a health insurer who wants to maximize your profit by only selling insurance to people who don't "need" it, aka the "healthy" you need to offer a basic healthcare insurance to everyone.

yes, it has to be efficient. yes, it has to be basic to be affordable (no elective, unnecessary surgery, etc) yes it has to focus on prevention, because that's cheaper, more efficient & more humane. yes, that includes condoms, the pill & other birth control because it's cheaper than caring for an unwanted child...

btw, no, i'm not starting a church of pyromania and refuse my tax $$$ to be spend on the fire department because it doesn't line up with my morals.
no, i'm not a gun toting vigilante & don't need a police department to take care of my affairs....or an army for that matter.
yes, i live in a big city and only use email & i don't need big government to use my money to deliver letters to nowhereville in desert state...j/k ;-)

somethings in society are just so basic, that a rational government should take care of it. healthcare is one of them!

@ jgarbuz

so we are just talking about incompetent government with broken/ corrupted policies...well, that's a problem to be solved by the voters.

the healthcare problem is a universal one and it has been tackled by other countries with much better results and efficiency. you just have to look outside your box...

Mar. 27 2012 11:47 AM
RBC from NYC

@sheldon from brooklyn:

The health insurance mandate was a REPUBLICAN IDEA!!!! But when "Blackie McBlackman" (as Bill Maher puts it.. lol) supports it, then all of a sudden everyone's against it.

Mar. 27 2012 11:09 AM

Edward from NJ ~


Mar. 27 2012 11:08 AM

Sheldon from Brooklyn ~

WOW!! That's an excellent observation!!

The mandate is actually (ordinarily) right up the GOP's alley.

It's true why wouldn't they support a profit making mandate???


Mar. 27 2012 11:07 AM
Edward from NJ

@dboy, I kind of like it -- imagine some future-iteration-tea-party type walking around with a "Keep Your Government Hands Off My Obamacare" protest sign.

Mar. 27 2012 11:06 AM
Calls'em from In front of the US Supreme Court

@ Martin C. - there's little point in arguing with idiots - it's like wrestling with a pig - you get dirty and the pig may like it. It's NPR in and garbage out when it comes to political coverage, so the level of ignorance among the propagandized is legend. Watch out - "dboy's" got his hoodie on and is looking to punch some one out.

Mar. 27 2012 11:05 AM
RBC from NYC

@gary from queens

The only dummy is you.

You have the absolute right not to see a doctor in 45 years. But if you have a heart attack or a brick falls on your head, and it is necessary to hospitalize you for a period of time, we the taxpayers will pay for your care. You are able to pay for your own healthcare now because you have been fortunate enough not to need long term care. That will all change if something happens to you that's catastrophic to your health.

Mar. 27 2012 11:03 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

The right wing hates "Obamacare" simply because they hate Obama. If this mandate sticks, 10 years from now, they and their career democratic colleagues in congress will be salivating on what next they can mandate us to buy.

Mar. 27 2012 11:02 AM

Edward from NJ ~

So strange!

Thanks for pointing that out.

Mar. 27 2012 10:53 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

To resident alien from Williamsburg

When I was brought to this country as an infant in 1949, we have to make use of Charity hospitals for my health problems. Our family doctor made house visits and charged us what we could afford as then we were poor. Most of his practice was in Brownsville, Brooklyn which was poor and became mostly Black in the mid-1950s. It was just him and an old nurse in a delapidated office in an old house. He was my doctor for over 25 years. As we got better off, we paid more. But at the same time, as welfare was being taken by the mostly unemployed Black poor, there had to be no man in the house. It was for widows and orphans and in effect single mothers. That rapidly destroyed the Black family in the inner cities, something I saw happen before me with my own eyes. I think too much government intervention ends up destroying families and eventually taxes societies into deep debt. Look at Europe and now the USA's debt problems.

Mar. 27 2012 10:53 AM

CheezleWhiz ~

Your ability to point out pedantic typing errors is first rate.


Mar. 27 2012 10:52 AM

If an individual stole, robbed, extorted and murdered in the same way that the "Insurance" Industry™ does, that individual would have been put to death, long ago.

The Death Penalty For The "Insurance" Industry™!!!

Mar. 27 2012 10:50 AM
Arturo Villanueva from Jackson Heights

There is a right to health

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health, and wellbeing of himself and his family...".

The US participated very intensely in the debate and the vote on the Declaration.

Can it be enforced in the US of A ?

Mar. 27 2012 10:50 AM

bernie from bklyn ~




Plain and simple.

Mar. 27 2012 10:48 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan


I believe the correct spelling is "clever" not "cleaver".

LOL, you sure try to get attention on this site without posting much of substance....usually just attacks on other posters....and you can't even spell them correctly, LOL!

Mar. 27 2012 10:47 AM
N. from NJ

Brian was making the point that because one does not [actively] dispute the states' auto insurance mandates, that that diminishes the validity of his position [actively or inactively] of being against a health insurance mandate.

The fact that one does/does not agree with a policy doesn't mean that every other policy that is parallel in functionality must be viewed in the same way.

It is possible and reasonable for one to believe that X amount of government presence in the lives of individuals is acceptable but that X + 2 is a sign of too much creep into individuals lives and their may be a slippery slope.

Mar. 27 2012 10:45 AM
bernie from bklyn

besides the obvious, logical difference between mandated auto insurance and health insurance purchases, the biggest underlying difference is the profit motive behind the two. it is immoral to profit from the illness of our citizens. and even more immoral to behave like a profit-driven corporation, adhering to bottom lines with our healthcare and how it's implemented. a corporation will act like a corporation, whose only goal is to make as much money as possible for itself and it's shareholders. whether those it insures are healthy or not is irrelevant. can't anyone see that?

Mar. 27 2012 10:45 AM

In many respects, that idiot GWB had it right.

In a sense we already do have an unofficial public health insurance system.

When an uninsured shows-up at the ER they get the care they need and the rest of us pay the bill in higher premiums and higher healthcare costs - the expense gets paid by the rest of us. The problem is, this system is extraordinarily inefficient and RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE!!

It's beyond time to eliminate the insurance industry and cover everyone through a single payer system.

The United States® pays MORE and gets LESS for healthcare than any other developed country in the WORLD!!!

Mar. 27 2012 10:44 AM
gary from queens

Dear all you dummies:

When you PURCHASE an automobile, you are voluntarily entering into commerce. Indeed, INTERSTATE commerce, as you car collide with an out-of-state vehicle with out-of-state insurance, or you can drive across state lines.

I have not seen an MD in 45 years. I have not entered into the commerce of the medical system. I pay for my own healthcare. i want to purchase high deductible insurance, but obama made that illegal. So now I must buy "health insurance" that pays for condoms and facelifts and penis enlargements. you know, life saving treatments like that!!!

Mar. 27 2012 10:42 AM
Edward from NJ

@dboy, at this point it's either going to succeed or fail.

If it fails, it will be stuck with the Obamacare label. If it succeeds and everyone decides they like it -- see Social Security and Medicare -- they figure why not keep his name attached to it.

Mar. 27 2012 10:40 AM
resident alien from Williamsburg

re re: car insurance:

Even in America (& every humane society) everybody who is sick will get treated, even if they don't have health insurance or even if they can't or won't be paying for it! Just visit any emergency room in anytown USA.
This is getting paid for by everybody with a health insurance or by the tax payer!
So everybody who gets sick or dies will impose a cost on society. And the fairest way to deal with thisfact of life is having everybody chip in with a rate everyone can afford.

Mar. 27 2012 10:40 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

To Sandy Katz
Re:Why should Christians care one way or the other?

Jesus did say, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" but charity for the poor is definitely a JudeoChristian and Islamic core principle. Attributed to Jesus was the injunction to gather treasure in heaven by giving help and charity to the poor. It is a religious duty. But is it the duty of the state? When the state gets involved, it lessens the burden on the individual but raises the taxes of middle and upper income classes by government fiat. It is no longer CHARITY but a demand by Caesar to give up income to distribute as Caesar sees fit. Of course in Democracy we have an elected legislature that supposed to watch for the interests of the electorate. But that means the larger mass of poor will always want guaranteed public assistance. It means it pays to be indigent rather than try to work at a menial job. I hope this answers your question why religious people often oppose government mandates.

Mar. 27 2012 10:38 AM
Calls'em from In front of the US Supreme Court

Here are a few of the real dangers of 0bamaCare. You don't get the truth on NPR of PBS... or the msm, either... but it's out there.

Mar. 27 2012 10:38 AM

jaggerbuttz ~

... that is true.

EXCEPT, when someone shows up at the ER with a life threatening condition WE (all of US) are required to pick-up the tab.

...unless of course, you are one of the advocates of letting these folks die in the ER and send their remains to the Soylent Green™ factory.

Mar. 27 2012 10:37 AM
paul Horman from Valley Stream, NY

Mr. Lehrer,
Please refer to the Affordable Care Act - NOT Obamacare, as this latter term has become a derisive
description invented and used by opponents of the President. Words DO matter and you risk being perceived
as not impartial in your questions and discussion.
Finally, I find it offensive that you were pressing your guest to give a Yes or No answer.
That's o.K. for Law & Order and Perry Mason. But the subject is complicated and nuanced and deserves
to be treated as such.
Thank You.

Mar. 27 2012 10:37 AM

@dboy...I wear it on my sleeve.

Mar. 27 2012 10:33 AM
Calls'em from In front of the US Supreme Court

Too bad you didn't have an attorney on today, because this is the most ignorant segment you have ever had. And of course God forbid that you ever have a true representative on from the conservative side. The show has become a shill for leftist policies.

Ordering everyone to buy something, is different than requiring people who actually drive to have auto insurance. Why don't we order everyone to buy auto insurance, even if they don't drive? After all we tax people who never use public transit, so that others may ride free or at least at heavily subsidized and artificially low fares.

Mar. 27 2012 10:33 AM
Amy from Manhattan

There's no legal requirement to own a car, but in many places it's very hard to get along without one.

Mar. 27 2012 10:33 AM

Edward from NJ ~


Wow, it's worse than I thought.


Mar. 27 2012 10:32 AM
Howard Katzman from park slope, brooklyn

individual mandate:

possibly illegal if set up as penalty, but if reframed as..
Tax everyone the amount of the penalty and then health insurance is deductible, cancelling the tax, then it for all intensive pursposes it is the exact same thing, but is done all the time for tax purposes.

Mar. 27 2012 10:32 AM
mark from NJ

+1 for the auto insurance analogy. Federal, schmederal -- when ALL 50 STATES individually maintain requirements to carry insurance, it becomes a de facto federal policy, and you don't see a bunch of wingnuts out there protesting that they shouldn't be compelled to purchase their auto insurance from private corporations.

Mar. 27 2012 10:32 AM

Oh, Mr. CheezleWhiz...

..."Obamatron": That is so cleaver!!

Mar. 27 2012 10:31 AM
blase from bayonne,nj

at&t was a gov created long distance service telephone monoply for decades.
if youn wanted to make a long distant call you had to use at&t.
inaddition they charged different rates to different areas of the country.

Mar. 27 2012 10:30 AM
SG from Brooklyn NY

The price of compulsory health insurance should be proportional to the income.

Mar. 27 2012 10:30 AM
Sandy Katz from tORONTO, on

As a Canadian listener I find the whole debate a bit baffling. But aside from all of that, I am wondering if you could help me understand whey CHRISTIAN groups would have opposition to this? I can't follow their logic!
This is a serious question!

Mar. 27 2012 10:29 AM

All this arguing about mandates and taxes and regulations and states rights make one thing crystal clear: a simple, single payer system that covers everyone in the country would make all that other mess go away. It's utterly absurd that we're the only developed nation in the world that can't figure that out.

Mar. 27 2012 10:29 AM
Edward from NJ

@dboy, the President has decided to co-opt and own the Obamacare label. You can even get a t-shirt:

Mar. 27 2012 10:28 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Just another Obamatron from the academy.

Mar. 27 2012 10:28 AM

... not to mention that auto insurance is a state mandate and NOT a federal mandate.

Mar. 27 2012 10:28 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

Re: Auto insurance

With autos, you can get into an accident and cause damage or death to SOMEONE ELSE or to their property, or to public property, and you might not have the resources to pay for it. If you were only guaranteed to kill yourself or destroy your own car or property, then who cares? But if there is a chance you could kill or injure someone else, or destroy public or private property without having the resources to pay for it, that is why auto insurance coverage is mandated by law.

Mar. 27 2012 10:28 AM

she is as scary as Freddie Krugar

Mar. 27 2012 10:28 AM
bernie from bklyn

george from astoria/ hugh- are you guys brain dead? YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A CAR!! BUT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BE IN POSSESSION OF A LIVING BODY!!! GET IT? HAVING A CAR IS A CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!
yes, we should ALL have health insurance...but not this way. single payer or nothing. why are we not rioting in the street about this?

Mar. 27 2012 10:27 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Brian - you and your guest are so missing the point with Auto insurance.

Mar. 27 2012 10:27 AM
Shawniqua C from Brooklyn

Brian this auto insurance comparison is a joke, no one is forced to own or use a car! This is the equivalant of paying a tax to breathe.

Mar. 27 2012 10:26 AM
MichaelB from Morningside Heights

There's another difference between auto insurance and the mandate... you need to insure a car if you want to put it on the road -- the requirement comes from an individual's own decision to participate in that, whereas the mandate is out of the blue by comparison.

I point this out even though I fully support the new health care plan by the administration

Mar. 27 2012 10:26 AM

GO Joe"Ron Paul" Corrao!!


Mar. 27 2012 10:25 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

As Dboy said - You don't have to buy a car.

Mar. 27 2012 10:24 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Thanks, you are correct, but we should keep trying.
This is PUBLIC radio.
At least Brian is the best of the lot.

Mar. 27 2012 10:23 AM


The term "Obamacare" is derogatory!!


...Mr. Leher!

Mar. 27 2012 10:23 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

Go back to CAPITALIST medicine, as it was earlier on, and get back to CHARITY hospitals where doctors were required to work part of the time to get and keep their medical licenses. Doctors would be required to serve in charity hospitals for half their time to keep their licenses. They could then work in their private practices the rest of the time.

Mar. 27 2012 10:22 AM

..."the government is making up the difference for you."...HOW? by borrowing more or taxing more...its immoral

Mar. 27 2012 10:21 AM
George from Astoria

Why do i have to pay car insurance?
Isnt this the same thing.

How come Republicans dont consider this an attack on our liberties?
Because cars are more important than people?

I dont understand. Please eexplain.

Mar. 27 2012 10:20 AM
Shawniqua C from Brooklyn

Typo -I meant to say they do *not* pay taxes so they will not pay any penalties and still go uninstured thus not addressing a major cost driver for the rest of us.

Mar. 27 2012 10:20 AM

Two things:

1. Are conservatives calling for abolition of any requirement that people buy car insurance? They're committed to that view _if_ their line is that _government_ (just government - no specification of which) cannot mandate buying insurance.

2. Let's remember the real goal of right-wingers like the Cheneys or Alitos or Scalias. It is the abolition of _all_ government except the minimal, nightwatchman government. If Cheney or Bachmann or Palin had their way, there would be NO public education, no public roads, no public hospitals, no public healthcare, no social security -- whatsoever. That is what really motivates the attack on any kind of government mandate or expansion of existing systems like Medicare or Medicaid.

Mar. 27 2012 10:20 AM
bernie from bklyn

the comparisons to SS and/or auto insurance have to stop....that caller and others like him have to take a minute and think about what they're saying and stop wasting our time with these ridiculous questions.
just because SS payments eventually end up in the hands of a corporation doesn't make it the same as being forced to buy something directly from a corporation. a corporation that only has your worst interests in mind. big, big difference- please think before you comment.

Mar. 27 2012 10:20 AM

Car insurance and health insurance ARE NOT ANALOGOUS!!

You are NOT required to own an automobile!!! Unless I've missed something, there is NO such thing as NOT owning a human body.


Mar. 27 2012 10:20 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Yesterday, Greenhouse scoffed and dismissed the precedent for future mandates in other areas if this law is upheld. (i.e. she wouldn't answer it)
Can this guest give a better answer?

Mar. 27 2012 10:19 AM
Gary Krasner from queens


The Brian Lehrer show is an NPR-funded LIBERAL forum with only the pretense of fairness by having one conservative guest per month. They justify this appalling lack of counterpoint because conservative talk radio is popular elsewhere, and Lehrer et. al. believes their mission is to provide counterpoint to that larger part of radio media.

So what we're listening to is one-sided liberal propaganda. Don't expect more than that.

Mar. 27 2012 10:17 AM
Shawniqua C from Brooklyn

How does this actually change the problem of illegal aliens increasing medical costs due to lack of payment and showing up in emergency rooms uninsured? They typically file tax returns, so they will not pay any penalties, so this will do nothing to reduce the abuse.

Mar. 27 2012 10:17 AM

I agree.

I DON'T want to be FORCED to buy CRAPPY "insurance®" that does not meet my healthCARE needs.

I NEED healthCARE, NOT so-called health "INSURANCE™"!

THIS PLAN IS RIDICULOUS and does only one thing; it lines the pockets of the "Insurance" Industry®!!

Mar. 27 2012 10:16 AM
resdent alien from Williamsburg

Everyone with a car has to have car insurance.
Everyone with a health has to have health insurance...
Am I missing something America, or is this just another anti government paranoia?
Or maybe an training excercise for otherwise underemployed lawyers?

Mar. 27 2012 10:16 AM
Johnny from nyc

This is a such a political issue.

Can we have two health care systems?

One for Democrats and one for Republicans.

Mar. 27 2012 10:16 AM

the's over...admit it. we have screwed the pooch. America is done.

Mar. 27 2012 10:11 AM

The notion that it's novel suggestion that government mandate buying something in the marketplace is certainly _not_ novel. At the state level, car owners are required to buy car insurance. There are many other examples.

Mar. 27 2012 10:10 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Why not interview Mark Levine who has filed an amicus brief on this case through the Landmark Legal Foundation?

Mar. 27 2012 10:07 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

What's with all these lefties discussing this topic here?

How about Richard Epstein from NYU/Chicago/Stanford Hoover Institute to offer a different perspective?
(Plus he has more intellectual power in his little finger than 10 Linda Greeenhouses.)

Mar. 27 2012 10:05 AM
gary from queens

What could happen if this law is not overturned by the court or rescinded by Congress?

One day, a homeless man will wander accross state lines and die from exposure because he was denied shelter. The federal government will enact a law that requires all states to provide life saving shelter to those who need it.

This will make the purchase of a home interstate commerce. And since the service of providing free shelter to out-of-state persons is an expense on states, then the federal government would have the legal precedent of the personal mandate in obamacare to mandate that everyone make investments toward their own home or condo.

Because just like healthcare, shelter is necessary for life, and everyone will need it. People who neglect to make reasonable provisions for their own shelter would have to be forced to make them, just like they must for their healthcare.

Do you think this is unlikely to happen? The very fact that you remove all limiting principles to the enumerated powers of the Constitution makes the above scenario legally possible. Any similar scenario would be legally possible. That is why we are about to enter a new governing philosophy than our Framers intended.

Mar. 27 2012 09:52 AM
JT from LI

This really shows people's irrational fear and hatred of Obama. Of all the problems in this world - poverty, war, countless injustices - people feel the need to hold prayer vigils asking their god to do away with the "individual mandate."

Mar. 27 2012 09:35 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.