JMS synopsis of the Obama Care Supreme Court Hearings..

[Hubbs]

here is probably the best defense of the liberal side I have seen

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/supreme_court_and_obamacare_what_donald_verrilli_should_have_said_to_the_court_s_conservative_justices_.html

The court would have ripped that to shreds

I'm sure you would think so

That broccoli counter-argument is really weak. First of all, there's nothing in the Constitution stating that different amounts of interstate commerce are to be treated differently. The fact that broccoli isn't as important as health care is irrelevant. Beyond that, you know what else is keeping people from moving to a different state for a new job? Underwater housing. So if that's all the justification that's needed, there would be nothing to stop Congress to force renters like myself to buy houses instead, in an effort to reinflate the bubble and allow more people to move.

[Prosperity]

Nothing stopping congress, except the voters, elections, presidential veto, common sense and the obstructive minority party. Nope nothing at all.

[JMS]

It didn't sound like a single liberal leaning justice had an issue with it. Everything I heard and read sounded like they did the better job arguing than Verilli did. Everything I've heard makes it sound as if the law will be overthrown on nothing more than a 5-4, with as wide a range as a 6-3 vote in favor of the law remaining intact.

Really? That's like betting on a boxing match based on the pre fight press conference. You realize the hearings are more a formality than where the decisions are actually made. I mean come on... Three days of hearings, which equals about 2 hours per day... Where the entire first day 1/3 rd of the hearings were spent on whether the supreme court had jurisdiction. What's really amazing was it didn't seem like anybody was really claiming they didn't !... Oh and the last day was spent entirely on whether the government has the right to require states to pick up a small fraction of the cost of the expansion of medicare the bill calls for.. ( the fed actually is picking up the majority of the costs.. )... I mean how can any sane person claim the federal government doesn't have the right to take away state funding selectively if the state doesn't opt into an opt-able proposal like Medicare... The federal government under both parties have been doing that for nearly 100 years!!.. Including several medicare expansions over the last 10 years.

Given that the Supreme court only spent about 2 hours on arguments on whether a healthcare mandate is constitutional.... Or as the opposing councel would say... Whether a mandate to require health insurance was consititional, as he was arguing health insurance is different than healthcare.... So that's the basis of the argument... So here is my question... Social Security is manditory work man's compensation insurance. Every American is forced to buy it. The argument is that that is mandating consumers buy a public option which is ok, but Obama care is mandating buying a private option which is unconstitional... My question, where is that distinction written in the constitution? Seriously!

---------- Post added April-3rd-2012 at 02:09 PM ----------

That broccoli counter-argument is really weak. First of all, there's nothing in the Constitution stating that different amounts of interstate commerce are to be treated differently. The fact that broccoli isn't as important as health care is irrelevant. Beyond that, you know what else is keeping people from moving to a different state for a new job? Underwater housing. So if that's all the justification that's needed, there would be nothing to stop Congress to force renters like myself to buy houses instead, in an effort to reinflate the bubble and allow more people to move.

Yes if Congress is allowed to stretch the commerce clause "Congress has the right to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution and arbitrarily apply it to a sector of the economy which is currently 18% of GDP, That means there is literally nothing they can't do...

They can bring back Bill Russel to the NBA. They can force us to live in underwater houses.. They can dictate all cookies be square.. My God it means we will be living in Stalinist Russia.

How could anybody imagine the commerce clause would reasonable apply to one of the largest and fastest growing parts of our GDP? The country is gooing to hell!

---------- Post added April-3rd-2012 at 02:16 PM ----------

To me, this is a flat argument. The Law now provides for the young. It forces parents to keep coverage on children till 26, which in my opinion is far beyond the age I would consider anybody a child.

My understanding is a little different here. The law allows children to remain on parents insurance until they are 26. It doesn't require it or force it. If the kid get's a job which has insurance or decides to not to keep his parents insurance for whatever reason they can do that. The point is today, kids are not allowed to be on their parrents insurance after they are no longer dependents.. So a lot of kids after college go without insurance and the market has no good products for them.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Really? That's like betting on a boxing match based on the pre fight press conference. You realize the hearings are more a formality than where the decisions are actually made. I mean come on... Three days of hearings, which equals about 2 hours per day... Where the entire first day 1/3 rd of the hearings were spent on whether the supreme court had jurisdiction. What's really amazing was it didn't seem like anybody was really claiming they didn't !... Oh and the last day was spent entirely on whether the government has the right to require states to pick up a small fraction of the cost of the expansion of medicare the bill calls for.. ( the fed actually is picking up the majority of the costs.. )... I mean how can any sane person claim the federal government doesn't have the right to take away state funding selectively if the state doesn't opt into an opt-able proposal like Medicare... The federal government under both parties have been doing that for nearly 100 years!!.. Including several medicare expansions over the last 10 years.

Given that the Supreme court only spent about 2 hours on arguments on whether a healthcare mandate is constitutional.... Or as the opposing councel would say... Whether a mandate to require health insurance was consititional, as he was arguing health insurance is different than healthcare.... So that's the basis of the argument... So here is my question... Social Security is manditory work man's compensation insurance. Every American is forced to buy it. The argument is that that is mandating consumers buy a public option which is ok, but Obama care is mandating buying a private option which is unconstitional... My question, where is that distinction written in the constitution? Seriously!

I was just talking about how the media has portrayed the arguments. I havent read the transcripts. Everything I've read and heard has made it sound like the general consensus (for whatever that it worth) is that the "liberals" were solidly behind the law, and that kennedy and roberts were potential swings, but seemed to be against its constitutionality.

I agree with the rest of your statement.

[JMS]

I don't believe that if this mandate stands it will do anything whatsoever to lower costs either. They found another 17 trillion in "unexpected" costs tied to it just last week.

? Who Rush Limbaugh? Glenn Beck? Fox News editorialises?

Medicare, Medicaid run at around 4% overhead. Private insurance companies best case run around 15%, worst case they can run at 40% overhead. Meaning that of every $ they take in only 60% of it is used to pay patient bills rather than $.96 cents. One thing that will hold costs down immediately is the law this years caps insurance overhead at 20%. Advertising, Salaries, Junkets profit.. in 2012 all that stuff will have to come out of 20 cents on the dollar brought in or the insurance companies will have to write a check to each consumer to make up the difference.

But all of that is really irrelevant. The CBO hundreds of billions savings over the first 10 years are not calculated by the bill actually saving any money. It's calculated on Obama care modestly curbing the growth of costs. The CBO has not changed their underlying belief that Obama care is a pretty large net positive for the treasury, and the CBO's numbers are very conservative.

---------- Post added April-3rd-2012 at 02:33 PM ----------

I was just talking about how the media has portrayed the arguments. I haven't read the transcripts. Everything I've read and heard has made it sound like the general consensus (for whatever that it worth) is that the "liberals" were solidly behind the law, and that Kennedy and Roberts were potential swings, but seemed to be against its constitutionality.

I agree with the rest of your statement.

I listened to all three days of the debate. At times Roberts seemed both pro and con the bill as did Kennedy. At one point Kennedy mirrored the states argument in one of his questions that this law was a "fundamental change to the governments relationship to the people". Which made every conservative in the house squirm with delight... The issue will be decided between those two. If either votes to uphold the liberals win...

I think you are correct that the 4 moderate/liberal judges are likely all going to vote to uphold. 2 of the 3 conservatives left on the court are also going to vote against upholding. The potential outlier is Scalia, he wrote an opinion last session on another case (medical MJ grower dealing with the commerce clause) which gave the commerce clause broad authority to regulate a market even when the person in question wasn't in the market. Seems to relate to this case, This was brought up several times by the governments lawyer, in the hearings and Scalia seemed responsive to the parallel in his questioning. But who knows. that will be interesting to watch, but I'm not holding my breath. I really thing most of these guys Dial it in.. They decide based upon their feelings of what is right and then find the justification under the law for that position.

If you go by the precedence. there doesn't seem to be any wiggle room not to uphold.

However, Liberals and Conservatives are both putting spin on the case in their favor; but nobody knows anything until the court's findings are published. Prognosticating based upon the hearing is like listening to Alan Greenspan back in the day and trying to predict which way the Fed is going to go.

[deejaydana]

^^^^^^^^^ The problem, JMS, is the numbers forwarded by the CBO are every bit as specious as those advanced by the people touting Obamacare. Sorry, I'm just cynical when Congress ever tells me a program is going to 'save money.' They need to scrap this entire mandate.

[The Evil Genius]

Any credence to the argument that Justice Thomas should recuse himself because his wife received 1.6mil from anti-care groups over the past 14 years?

[Teller]

Any credence to the president's argument that the SCOTUS is just an "unelected group of people" and their overturning this law would be "unprecedented" because it was passed by a majority of congress?

Some constitutional-law professor. Wow.

[ABQCOWBOY]

My understanding is a little different here. The law allows children to remain on parents insurance until they are 26. It doesn't require it or force it. If the kid get's a job which has insurance or decides to not to keep his parents insurance for whatever reason they can do that. The point is today, kids are not allowed to be on their parrents insurance after they are no longer dependents.. So a lot of kids after college go without insurance and the market has no good products for them.

Either way, the ability for coverage is already there. Are you saying that most parents will not cover their children?

---------- Post added April-3rd-2012 at 02:48 PM ----------

Any credence to the argument that Justice Thomas should recuse himself because his wife received 1.6mil from anti-care groups over the past 14 years?

That's a really good question for Kagan.

[deejaydana]

Any credence to the president's argument that the SCOTUS is just an "unelected group of people" and their overturning this law would be "unprecedented" because it was passed by a majority of congress?

Some constitutional-law professor. Wow.

He's crafty alright. Crazy like a fox or just trying to dumb the public down. He's since softened his stance on what he said today but yeah, what a loon.

[Teller]

He's crafty alright. Crazy like a fox or just trying to dumb the public down. He's since softened his stance on what he said today but yeah, what a loon.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

LOL.

I'll invite the president to sit in on my next constitutional law class.

[DieselPwr44]

Looks like Professor Kool got invited to the prinipal's office at the ghoul skool.........

Maybe they'll put him in the Sock it to Me seat?

(70's local tv reference for those in the DC/Baltimore area..) lol

[JMS]

^^^^^^^^^ The problem, JMS, is the numbers forwarded by the CBO are every bit as specious as those advanced by the people touting Obamacare. Sorry, I'm just cynical when Congress ever tells me a program is going to 'save money.' They need to scrap this entire mandate.

:doh: That's a rediculous premise. The bi partisan, gold standard of federal fiscal forcasting is "every bit as specious as those advanced" by democrats, so we must rely on the hugely partisan crackpot wing nut extremist even for republican numbers put forward by the house...

Hell dude we can even rely on those wing nuts numbers... Just not the ones they are advertising. In 2011 when they took back congress they passed a resolution that all new spending bills would require offsetting cuts to the budget to thus be revenue neutral. Only there was one exception they gave themselves. The GOP who took control of the house exempted themselves from having to pay the treasury back the hundreds of billions it will cost when they repeal OBAMACARE!!..

House Republicans plan to use a special exception in their budget rules to repeal the Democrats’ health care overhaul without paying for it – technically, at least.

The Congressional Budget Office said last year that the health care reform law and its accompanying reconciliation law would reduce the deficit by $143 billion through 2019.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47000.html#ixzz1r5ij4MtN

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47000.html

House Republican Rule Changes Pave the Way For Major Deficit-Increasing Tax Cuts, Despite Anti-Deficit Rhetoric

The new rules also specifically empower the Budget Committee Chairman to exempt from budget enforcement rules the fiscal effects of repealing the health reform law. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the health reform law will reduce deficits by more than $100 billion over the first ten years and by roughly $1 trillion or more over the second ten years. Its repeal would increase deficits by those amounts.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3359

---------- Post added April-4th-2012 at 12:54 PM ----------

Either way, the ability for coverage is already there. Are you saying that most parents will not cover their children?

Coverage is not "already there". I am saying most college graduates go without insurance when they drop off their parrents plan, and their parrents without this law are not able to pay to keep them on their family plans..

[greenspandan]

To me, this is a flat argument. The Law now provides for the young. It forces parents to keep coverage on children till 26, which in my opinion is far beyond the age I would consider anybody a child.

this is factually inaccurate. it allows parents, if they so choose, to keep their children on their insurance until the age of 26.

[JMS]

Any credence to the president's argument that the SCOTUS is just an "unelected group of people" and their overturning this law would be "unprecedented" because it was passed by a majority of congress?

Some constitutional-law professor. Wow.

It will be an amaizing thing if the Supreme Court tries to overthrow this law due to political reasons and a new precident setting interpretation of the commerce clause which they had previously supported only few years ago. It's amaizing that folks who typically argue against "judicial activism" can so hartily support it when they see it working for towards their advantage.

Either way the supreme court has asserted the right sine Marbury vs Madison, and I know of at least two instances when the Executive ingnored them or forced them to back down.

(1) When Andrew Jackson moved the Cherokee out of South Carolina, Judge Madison found his orders unconstitutional. Jackson told the judge he was free to enforce his own ruling and proceeded to do as he pleased.

(2) In 1933 when FDR's new democratic majority in the congress passed the new deal. The Supreme court found much of it unconstitutional. FDR threatenned to appoint ten new more friendly justices to the court thus watering down the existing justices opinions. FDR took a big hit in his popularity for this, but ultimately the supreme court backed down.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Coverage is not "already there". I am saying most college graduates go without insurance when they drop off their parrents plan, and their parrents without this law are not able to pay to keep them on their family plans..

I did not say the coverage is already there. I said the ability for coverage is already there.

[JMS]

this is factually inaccurate. it allows parents, if they so choose, to keep their children on their insurance until the age of 26.

You are correct. and requires the Parents to pay extra for the option too. Insurance companies aren't complaining about this law.

---------- Post added April-4th-2012 at 01:09 PM ----------

I did not say the coverage is already there. I said the ability for coverage is already there.

THE ABILITY FOR COVERAGE IS NOT ALREADY THERE!!!... Americans today get there insurance via their jobs, or associations, or group policy plans.. There is no such option for newly graduated college kids who are trying to enter the work force before they establish themselves. This law closes that gap... It allows parrents to pay a little extra and extend their coverage for a few years.

Prior to this law those parrents were unable to extend their familiy plans and the young people were not eligible for the kinds of plans the market was offering.

[PeterMP]

It will be an amaizing thing if the Supreme Court tries to overthrow this law due to political reasons and a new precident setting interpretation of the commerce clause which they had previously supported only few years ago. It's amaizing that folks who typically argue against "judicial activism" can so hartily support it when they see it working for towards their advantage.

Either way the supreme court has asserted the right sine Marbury vs Madison, and I know of at least two instances when the Executive ingnored them or forced them to back down.

(1) When Andrew Jackson moved the Cherokee out of South Carolina, Judge Madison found his orders unconstitutional. Jackson told the judge he was free to enforce his own ruling and proceeded to do as he pleased.

(2) In 1933 when FDR's new democratic majority in the congress passed the new deal. The Supreme court found much of it unconstitutional. FDR threatenned to appoint ten new more friendly justices to the court thus watering down the existing justices opinions. FDR took a big hit in his popularity for this, but ultimately the supreme court backed down.

1. The first didn't happen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_Nation_v._Georgia

2. The "switch" that "saved" the New Deal happened, BEFORE FDR threatened to pad the court, and much of the later part of the New Deal stuff was helped because FDR was able to appoint a judge because of a vacancy and

[chipwhich]

Prior to this law those parrents were unable to extend their familiy plans and the young people were not eligible for the kinds of plans the market was offering.

In my state of MD it's actually cheaper for a 22 year old college graduate to get independent health insurance than it is to put them on a group policy.

Insurance by states vary I guess. But to imply there is no option is simply untrue. Friends of mine who are self employed and have children who were born with diabetes have outstanding insurance as compared to my group plan at half the price. The group rate is much more expensive than individual insurance. At least in MD

[JMS]

1. The first didn't happen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_Nation_v._Georgia

What didn't happen?

" John Marshall has made his decision: now let him enforce it! " Andrew Jackson President of the United States...

http://quotationsbook.com/quote/45577/

I will see you your wikipedia article, and raise you the supreme courts history page...

Worcestor v. GA (1832) Decided by a vote of 5 to 1.

Conflict: In 1830, the state legislature of Georgia passed an act requiring white residents living in Cherokee territory after March 31, 1831 to swear allegiance to Georgia and be licensed. The measure was directed against white missionaries who were helping the Cherokee. A group of ministers from the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions lived in New Echota, Cherokee Nation, which was claimed by Georgia as part of Gwinnett County. They refused to obey the law, were convicted and sentenced to four years at hard labor in the penitentiary. Georgia offered a pardon, but Samuel E. Worcester and Elizur Butler wanted to test the law and refused. Worcester's lawyers filed a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States on October 27, 1831. They claimed that Georgia's law was in violation of the Constitution, United States treaties with the Cherokee, and an act of the U.S. Congress.

Opinion: Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the opinion of a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court. Marshall ruled that the national government had exclusive jurisdiction in Cherokee territory and that Georgia's law was unconstitutional. He would not describe the Cherokee Nation as a foreign government, but even as a dependent domestic nation, it had rights Georgia could not destroy including the right to self-government. The chief justice also acknowledged that the treaties into which the United States had entered with the Cherokee obliged the U.S. to protect the lands and rights of that dependent nation. Justice John McLean wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Henry Baldwin dissented on the basis of procedural error and also his reasoning in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.

Impact/Consequences: The Supreme Court's decision was ignored. Georgia did not release the ministers but did not formally defy the Court. (Ultimately it offered pardons anew to the ministers, and they accepted.) Andrew Jackson is reported to have said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" Most certainly he wrote, "The decision of the supreme court has fell still born and they find they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate." Perhaps Jackson felt he had some legal ground for his inaction. Without a formal act of defiance he may have been disinclined to intervene. Furthermore, numerous state court decisions had created a rival legal position to Marshall's, arguing that Indians were individuals, not tribal nations, and thus the states had complete sovereignty to regulate them since they lived within the borders of a state. The Supreme Court itself had adjourned for the session, so was in no position, itself, to press for enforcement. Chief Justice John Marshall, still grieving over the death of his wife of 49 years only three months earlier, may not have had the stomach for a confrontation with Jackson. Regardless of these circumstances, it was one of the most shocking repudiations of the Supreme Court's authority in the history of the Court. It is also a stark reminder that the power of the Supreme Court is entirely dependent on respect for it as an institution, as well as the cooperation of the executive branch when force is necessary.

Some reformers in the Northeast supported the Cherokee's continued efforts to resist. In April 1838, Ralph Waldo Emerson protested to Martin van Buren, warning, "the name of this nation, hitherto the sweet omen of religion and liberty, will stink to the world." A month later, President van Buren ordered the U.S. Army to force the Cherokee at bayonet-point onto what would be known as the "Trail of Tears." Seventeen thousand Cherokee made the 1,200-mile winter trek to Indian Territory (Oklahoma) which claimed the lives of an estimated 4,000 Cherokee.

http://www.historyofsupremecourt.org/history/defines/timeline.htm

[Teller]

It will be an amaizing thing if the Supreme Court tries to overthrow this law due to political reasons...

THAT would be amazing; if that's what you believe is happening. IMO it's a pretty blatant mischaracterization of the proceedings.

[JMS]

In my state of MD it's actually cheaper for a 22 year old college graduate to get independent health insurance than it is to put them on a group policy.

Insurance by states vary I guess. But to imply there is no option is simply untrue. Friends of mine who are self employed and have children who were born with diabetes have outstanding insurance as compared to my group plan at half the price. The group rate is much more expensive than individual insurance. At least in MD

I do not know the insurance market in Md. I know nationally group policies are always cheaper than individual policies, else their would be no reason for a group to have a policy. If all the members of that group could get cheaper insurance individualy..

So I would have to call BS on that one.

I also know that nationally most college graduates go without insurance for a period while trying to establish themselves because individual policies (which are not available for all individuals *) are unaffordable and offer reduced benifits... Indidual policies are really unaffordable for most americans, which again is why most americans have group policies.

---------- Post added April-5th-2012 at 05:55 PM ----------

THAT would be amazing; if that's what you believe is happening. IMO it's a pretty blatant mischaracterization of the proceedings.

Again their is nearly 100 years of court precident granting broad definition of the commerce clause... That clause after all was the precident which in 1936 supported the social security's workman's compensation insurance..

It has been ruled on many times since, once more recently in 2005 when the conservative majority used it to deny a calafornia woman the right to grow a crop for personal use on the claim that it "may" get sold and thus the federal government can regulate it.

If the court reverses 100 years of precident, and themselves from 7 years ago, strictly upon party lines.. Then yes that's an activist unelected court overrulling elected officials in the worst way..

[JMS]

2. The "switch" that "saved" the New Deal happened, BEFORE FDR threatened to pad the court, and much of the later part of the New Deal stuff was helped because FDR was able to appoint a judge because of a vacancy and

So what are you saying, Rosevelt tried to pack the court for no aparant reason? Absolutely not. The "new deal" was a family of legislation. After pieces o that legislation came under attack by the supreme court, Roosevelt came up with his plan to pack the court after a rather public feud. The Roosevelt plan went over with the public like a lead boloon, creating the first crisis of the second term for Rososevelt, and likely his lowest approval rating of his presidency. Ultimately Roosevelt backed down, but the supreme court never seriously challenged the new deal again.

Under the guise of easing the backlog of cases that faced the "aged, overworked justices," Roosevelt intended to ask Congress for the power to appoint one additional judge to the federal judiciary (including the Supreme Court) for every justice who had reached the age of seventy but declined to retire. While his ostensible purpose was to increase the efficiency of the judiciary, it was clear that Roosevelt was targeting six of the nine Supreme Court justices who had challenged his domestic programs.

---------- Post added April-6th-2012 at 11:19 AM ----------

THAT would be amazing; if that's what you believe is happening. IMO it's a pretty blatant mischaracterization of the proceedings.

When was the last time the supreme court overturned an administration's centerpiece? When was the last time they did that while over turning about 100 years of precident and one of their own decisions from just 7 years ago. Never..

I'm not saying the supreme court doesn't have the right to review legislation. I'm not saying they can't over turn Obamacare. What I'm saying is this is just another example of GOP hypocracy. Oh they rail against activst judges, but when it looks like the activism will support one of their causes, oh then it's not activism anymore it's the supreme court doing their duty.

[deejaydana]

When was the last time the supreme court overturned an administration's centerpiece? When was the last time they did that while over turning about 100 years of precident and one of their own decisions from just 7 years ago. Never..

I'm not saying the supreme court doesn't have the right to review legislation. I'm not saying they can't over turn Obamacare. What I'm saying is this is just another example of GOP hypocracy. Oh they rail against activst judges, but when it looks like the activism will support one of their causes, oh then it's not activism anymore it's the supreme court doing their duty.

The fact of the matter is both sides rail when it appears legislation they've proposed is in danger of being shot down. That's the situation we have now.

As to the first part of hour statement the Court has a long history of this and while it's the centerpiece of this administration's work it's also halfbaked and probably not Constitutional.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You are correct. and requires the Parents to pay extra for the option too. Insurance companies aren't complaining about this law.

---------- Post added April-4th-2012 at 01:09 PM ----------

THE ABILITY FOR COVERAGE IS NOT ALREADY THERE!!!... Americans today get there insurance via their jobs, or associations, or group policy plans.. There is no such option for newly graduated college kids who are trying to enter the work force before they establish themselves. This law closes that gap... It allows parrents to pay a little extra and extend their coverage for a few years.

Prior to this law those parrents were unable to extend their familiy plans and the young people were not eligible for the kinds of plans the market was offering.

Yes, the ability for coverage is there. Americans today get Health Insurance coverage in a variety of ways. They are covered through their jobs, through private policies, through independent Group Coverages, through Federal Government programs or simply by walking into an Urgent Care facility and paying nothing. The Ability is there.

To take this a step further, covering young people through employee policies is much more expensive then if they go out and get their own. Most young people have no pre-existing conditions and are considered low risk so the cost for a policy is going to be very low. In addition and for example, my Oldest Son can go to the University Hospital and get treatment without insurance coverage now. We cover him but if we did not, he could still go to UNMH and get treatment free of charge as a student at UNM.

Prior to the law being changed, if you were a student, you could be covered up to age 23. If you were not a student, you either had a job which gave you insurance options or you did not which meant that you were eligible for Federal or State Health Care. The ability for coverage is there and it was there before.