Understanding the ACA Arguments
stevenjamar at gmail.com
Wed Mar 21 14:28:52 PDT 2012
state level no-fault car insurance
state level mandatory car insurance
all distinguishable, but all parallel.
On Mar 21, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Richard Dougherty wrote:
> I think that Frank has hit the nail on the head here. What we have is a situation where the government has decided that it would be wrong to not treat someone who showed up for medical treatment. The consequence of that decision is that it can then turn around and compel everyone to participate in funding the system. Are there any parallels to this? (not a rhetorical question.)
> Richard Dougherty
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Frank Cross <crossf at mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Actually, Rick, to take care of the free rider problem you would have to declare that someone without health insurance will not receive medical care. Which is a plausible position but clearly one our society is unwilling to adopt.
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Associate Director, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
"God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things which should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other."
Reinhold Neibuhr 1943
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof